User talk:Ss112/Archive 12

My post was redirected for having "Basically all primary sources, no notability established". I am confused by this but I can personally provide proof for everything. I do not know if this is the right place to put this but I looked everywhere to get in contact with you. I made the article with little source code knowledge; minus some wikia posts a couple years back. I used this person's other EP as a standard and you could create a parallel with everything. That is why it is the same format. I am really passionate about XXXTentacion and want people to listen to his older, deleted songs. I mean no harm to Wikipedia or you so sorry if I seem rude. Also, thank you in advanced! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrLamentation (talk • contribs) 13:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DrLamentation: I understand that XXXTentacion is a notable artist. I agree that he is. However, we need news sources talking about why Ice Hotel is notable, or reviews from reliable, independent, secondary sources of it. All the sources were to YouTube, SoundCloud and Twitter. These don't establish notability for a recording. An artist may be notable, but their recordings may not have enough coverage to warrant articles made for them. Ss112 13:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am really bad with editing this sorry but what kind of news sources would include? Like Complex? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrLamentation (talk • contribs) 13:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DrLamentation: Yes, Complex would help establish notability. We would need more coverage than just one source, however. Ss112 13:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I think you misunderstood what I meant from my intention of moving the page for "The Party" - it wasn't original research to rename it to "The Party" but I thought it was to follow the Manual of Style within the music guidelines (MOS:MUSIC). I'm wrong with not discussing it but are repeated letters used for article titles? I noted Tron Legacy Reconfigured as an example because it's Tron: Legacy R3C0NF1GUR3D. I was getting the approach to note the article as such in the lead:

"The Party" (stylized as "TThhEe PPaARRtTYY") ...

Note that I didn't do this after my move (my apologies for that as well) and you actually moved the page to a correct form within the MOS - "Tthhee Ppaarrttyy". As such, there's a lot of room for how to display the article but the main issue is establishing notability for the song to be its own article. I didn't see that it has charted on anything when I looked at the time of my move.

Anyways, I hope this gives you my perspective and prevents any miscommunication. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I shoulda looked, although to be fair I don't think Jason Manford albums should be in that category. What if he releases an album from a different genre next time? Same with Sheridan Smith. With your co-operation I'd like to recategorise some of those topics. Let me know what you think. This is Paul (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I've given it a day and since you haven't replied I'm assuming it's fine to go ahead with this. I've removed Jason Manford albums and Sheridan Smith albums from Classical albums by English artists, and re-added the individual albums instead. As both have released only one album I feel it's too soon to generalise and add the music of these artists to individual categories. It's worth noting that, for example, Smith herself isn't strictly a classical singer, and may release other material in time that doesn't fall into the classical music genre (I'm not convinced her present album falls entirely into that category to be fair). If you disagree then I'm happy to open a discussion in the appropriate place and we can get some broader feedback. This is Paul (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@This is Paul: Well, I only didn't reply because I wasn't the one who categorised them as them as that in the first place, I was just letting you know that's why the user before you removed the category. I suppose when the artists become known for making music in other genres, then the other genres are added to it as well. I'd say that most artists' categories don't really belong to just one genre anyway, but it just seems to be the done thing. Ss112 13:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll mention this to the guy who created the categories. I had in mind the David Bowie album David Bowie Narrates Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf, which is a classical album recorded by someone who's not generally a classical artist, and my thinking with Messrs Smith and Manford was that both are known for their work in other fields. I guess there's a problem with creating a category for someone who's recorded only one album, as they may or may not do other work in the future (largely depending, I suspect, on whether or not album no. 1 sells poorly and sinks without a trace). I personally wouldn't have created them yet, but we're all different. This is Paul (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Thank you very much! This is for your help in the contribution (and patience...) in the album articles that I have been editing. It's been a great guide.--Mjs1991 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see you make edits relating to chartin a lot recently and many more within music in general so I thought you'd be a good person to ask.. with charting, is there a limit to how many can be added? I remember another article (I can't remember which one) where an editor said no more than 10, but I don't know where to look to see if there actually is a limit, or a "help" page for adding charts to articles, would you mind explaining or pointing me in the right direction? Thanks, Alexanderlee (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexanderlee: Not really, it's just become discography standard, like an unwritten rule of thumb. There was a proposal for discography style guide years back (WP:DISCOGSTYLE), but it was not accepted as there was no overall consensus from the community. However, most of that page has become "accepted" regardless, and most editors stick to 10 as the columns become too thin, cramped and the space for other information gets too cramped beyond this. It can also widen the page too much on certain devices and this affects readability. Ss112 16:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you. Is this different with charts that aren't landscape such as the one on the Love Yourself: Tear? I notice there are 12 there, is this because it's portrait charting table it's more accepted? Alexanderlee (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah never mind, I see this is suggestions solely for discographies and not necessarily the album charting :.) Thank you again though Alexanderlee (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my formatting errors. I just recently started editing Wikipedia seriously so I'm still fresh on the guidelines. You don't have to keep tagging me in your summaries, though; it lessens my motivation. Meanwhile, the first examples in Template:Single chart place the song parameter first, and that's how I learned the order. Sure, I've seen "artist" placed first on plenty of articles, and I don't change it when I see it, but I like using "song" first for personal editorial purposes. It's not like it's hurting anything, and I don't understand what you're so mystified about, but if it's such a problem... As for the numerals, I am well very aware that one should write out numbers less than 10, but with all the counterexamples I've encountered, it became impossible to determine. There are so many specific guidelines that I can't be bothered to learn them all. Regardless, I do still appreciate your fixing my mistakes. Just don't tag me unless I've made a catastrophic error; I'll probably notice the minor misprints on my own anyway. Nowmusicfan2816 (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nowmusicfan2816: I tagged you so you'd see it, it's not like you're being accused of a crime. I'm also not "mystified". In my experience, most articles place "song=" after "artist=" in single chart templates (and "album=" after in album chart templates) because that's how it appears in the reference. "australian-charts.com – Jennifer Lopez – I'm Real". There's no real need to replicate the examples Template:Single chart or any other template gives, unless said template page sets out rules for when not to use it and so on. Ss112 12:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Still, you don't have to tag me. I usually go through about 10 or 20 pages of my contributions a day so I can check for good faith/vandalism and those mistakes I mentioned, so it's a little pointless unless it's an edit from last month or beyond. It's not like you knew that, though, so I won't hold it against you. Meanwhile, I also like using "song" first because people say "'I'm Real' by Jennifer Lopez", not "By Jennifer Lopez, 'I'm Real'", and the order just looks smoother with "song" first. Nowmusicfan2816 (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nowmusicfan2816: You don't have to ping me on my own talk page. And yes, that might be how most people say it (I'm sure plenty also say "Jennifer Lopez's 'I'm Real'"), but it's how it appears in the reference that matters and is the order most pages I have edited have it. It's going to look rather like a large disconnect if you're intending to change said templates on all pages you edit to song first because that's your personal preference and the template page for example has it first (funny how the template puts song before artist, but it doesn't appear arranged that way in the citation, don't you think?). I don't know what you mean about it looking "smoother"—I don't think that makes much sense. At the very least, you should not be changing (or intending to change) single chart templates that have song or album after artist to vice versa. Ss112 12:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intending to do anything of that sort. The point is I've seen it the other way around on plenty of articles too. It just seems a little odd that the template page lists the "bad" way first for everyone to see. It's misleading, especially if someone makes a quick check to confirm the order (I admit, like me), but whatever you say; you've been an editor much longer than I have. Nowmusicfan2816 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at Anis don Deminas article. He has charted on Sverigetopplistan this week.94.234.50.105 (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@94.234.50.105: What about it? Do you want the peak added to the article? Ss112 18:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I've added the peak of "Wasted" there. Ss112 18:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea what happened there -- that's not the kind of edit I would ever even make, because I try not to fuck with templates, charts, or anything else beyond really basic wiki text. But thanks for fixing whatever it was I apparently did.... PaulCHebert (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hye... How did u find the track listing... Can u share with me..??? I really want to know... Thank you for helping... Road boyz24 (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Road boyz24: I didn't add the track listing. I only edited the page a few days ago. Ss112 16:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said ‘It doesn't matter if you source it or not. Discographies are not songwriting credit pages. These are removed from discographies all the time because they're generally not considered within the scope of them’ there’s literally one for Justin Timberlake, how come its still in his page? Kitkateey (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kitkateey: I did indeed say that, however, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never really a valid reason. Perhaps others there have not noticed it or have let it slip past. It doesn't necessarily mean it should be there. Ss112 10:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I’ll remove it from his page as well Kitkateey (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll make sure to remove it if I see another one. Kitkateey (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were within a very close hair's breadth of being blocked for edit warring alongside Carmaker1 for repeatedly reverting Carmaker1's changes and well beyond 3RR. I understand that the content that Carmaker1 was adding were not referenced and could be seen as potentially problematic, but these edits definitely lie in the good faith threshold -- the changes were not vandalism or made with malicious intent, nor were they serious violations of BLP or other policy that would warrant their immediate removal. In the end, the dispute between these articles were purely content-related, and 3RR and edit warring policies and restrictions absolutely apply. After being reverted the second, fifth, seventh, ... after the tenth time, ... you should have stepped away very much earlier than this and asked for help instead of adding more reversions to the pile. However, I took into account that the burden of proof was on Carmaker1 to verify the content they add when asked to (per this section of Wikipedia's verifiability policy), and the fact that you did make attempts to try and explain and discuss the issue - and decided to leave a very clear warning instead. Next time this situation occurs, step away sooner and before you violate 3RR as well, and ask for help or use the noticeboards and resolution practices to help you. Just take this as an opportunity to check yourself and put this on your radar, and just be careful in the future, okay? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Thanks Oshwah, noted. However, just a Q: doesn't 3RR only apply to individual pages? Not to sound like I'm excusing my excessive reverts, but I didn't go past 3RR on any one individual page. Also, Carmaker1 then spitefully attempted to try to follow me to another article (that they've never edited before) and cause trouble there by reverting me for a totally unjustified reason—as I was restoring content sourced in the body per WP:LEAD. Ss112 10:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You're correct in that your edits didn't exceed more than three changes in a 24 hour period, but dude... that's seriously cutting it close and not how you're supposed to interpret and apply this rule. One can be blocked for edit warring as soon as they start making repeated reverts to (any page) in a back-and-fourth fashion over a dispute, and doing so in place of resolving the dispute properly (AKA talk page it up with them). 3RR is a bright-line rule - its purpose is to define a clear line in the sand that editors can use to determine that they're clearly in "edit war territory" and hence in "blockable waters". You definitely do not have to violate 3RR in order to be blocked for edit warring; the fact that your reverts were clearly between you and Carmaker1 and being made across multiple articles and over the same thing... yeah, that's totally edit warring. It's not the number of edits that determine whether or not you're edit warring, it's the behavior and the intent that does. And yes... I absolutely and completely understand what you mean when you talk about feelings of retaliation and being followed for illegitimate reasons (I have LTAs and trolls after me all the freaking time every single friggin' day (lol)). But instead of continuing the "hot potato" edits - report the behavior! Get someone to step in and put a stop to it! You may feel that their reasons for reverting your changes aren't made with a pure and neutral intent and mindset, but it doesn't make those reversions exempt from 3RR if it's over content-related matters... Like I said, I'm taking this opportunity to try and explain and make sure that you walk away from this with a full understanding of how you should interpret and apply these policies, as well as how admins (should, at least) determine if edit warring is occurring and that action is necessary in order to stop it. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be more than happy to explain and help you. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Thanks for that. I should be well aware by now that one does not have to break 3RR in order to be blocked, so thanks for reminding me. Do you ever review unblock requests? They're basically asking for me to be blocked in their unblock request on their talk page because I did a follow-up edit where I removed the unsourced content entirely on Opposites Attract (despite not being a direct "revert" of somebody). "Why weren't they blocked too!?" It's just spiteful. Ss112 11:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I review unblock requests all the time but since I'm the blocking administrator in this case and the unblock request is being made with legitimate thoughts and feelings (AKA it's not a troll, LTA, or abusive request that I can just revert and remove), it would be unethical and very improper of me to also be the administrator who reviews his appeal. That needs to be done by another admin so that checks and balances stay in place and that I'm held accountable too. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: In that case then, couldn't the reviewing admin go "you know what Carmaker1, you're right—Ss112 should have been reverted!" and proceed to block me? Ss112 11:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears now Carmaker1 has made an unblock request where they claim I made four reverts. I'm assuming they're referring to Opposites Attract, where I reverted their addition of poorly sourced content then in the next edit, removed the unreferenced content altogether (added some time in the past—by whom I don't know but if it was, I certainly didn't know that this was Carmaker1 themselves). Ss112 11:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about Carmaker1 or any of that... He's not making a proper unblock request that I want to see when considering whether or not to accept it. It acknowledge or express understanding of what he did wrong and how he'll make sure that it doesn't continue, and he's instead pointing the finger and saying "it's not fair - he did this too and it's him that's the problem, not me". He needs to focus on his behavior and what he needs to do in order to improve things from here, just like you do with yourself. Just take this as a "behavior check" and something to keep in mind for when this happens in the future and you'll be fine. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Indeed. I really do hope though that this user doesn't start hounding me and following me around to different articles once they're unblocked because they got blocked over this. When they reverted me at an entirely different article (whereas both Paula Abdul song articles were on my watchlist), it's just wanting trouble and never ends well (usually at ANI). Ss112 11:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what starts to happen and the evidence or messages make it clear, file a report at ANI with the evidence so that it can be handled and we can take care of it. If he reverts citing good faith or legitimate reason (even if you suspect or "know" that he's doing it in order to simply go after you), keep your cool, don't accuse him of doing so (it never ever ends well if you do that... no joke), and discuss it with him. Keep by the book policy-wise and work things out if it can be done.... If you do that, you'll be in the clear and not be violating any policies, and nothing will happen to you ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that entry with Jimmy Barnes, so collaborations should use "with (co-artist)"? That's fine. I just wanted to make sure they are on equal footing, as different sources like ARIA show Jimmy Barnes first or vice versa, as opposed to the "featuring (co-artist)" designation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...can you help me on how to get the archieve url..from gaon website...especially for the monthly chart Road boyz24 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Road boyz24: You can go back to the previous month's URL by clicking the drop down menu on the right of the page here, which you can then alter the URL of to archive the current month (just change the "04" in the URL to "05" for May). It's much the same with albums. Ss112 05:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sean, can you help me to improve and adding some informations to the Yuna (singer) page and Yuna discography page? Adib Kamaruddin (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adib Kamaruddin: I don't know anything about her, and as she's a Malaysian artist, I wouldn't know the first place to go to find chart information for her. Sorry. Ss112 18:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's an error on Yuna discography page about <ref group=upper-alpha> tags or Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). templates on external links. Can you fix it? Thank you very much. Adib Kamaruddin (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ss112, how long would you guess it will take for an article to be created for the Drake single "I'm Upset"? Reason I'm asking is I've found a source calling it hip hop and another calling it emo-inspired, also I'm a bit surprised there's no article since it's Drake and it charted in Europe, North America and Australia. Thanks, --Theo Mandela (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Theo Mandela: I think a pretty basic article could be knocked up already. If you can source the genres and indicate where the personnel credits in the infobox came from (as I assume you might want to add those), then add a bit of a lead, I can add the charts and a bit more if you like? Ss112 02:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be much appreciated, thanks. I've created a small article, but you might have to correct a few things. I'm not sure how to style the producer's name (in caps or not) and I'll have to find a source about the production collective their from. Also, can add a small bit for the composition section please about the production (here) and the reference to emo influence ([1] and [2]) please?. --Theo Mandela (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Theo Mandela: Added that section, but didn't use ThatGrapeJuice, as it's not very reliable. Ss112 04:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good looking out, thanks. --Theo Mandela (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Theo Mandela: Also, I see you asked another user to upload the cover art. You can just upload the cover art yourself using the Upload Wizard. It's not a difficult process, even if you haven't done it before or don't know how to do it. It walks you through it. Ss112 05:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've uploaded two cover arts before and they got deleted from Commons, it was to do with permission. In the composition section, where it says "is a hip hop song which features a trap production", which would you say is more proper, "that features" or "which features"? Also, could you look for a ref that links the song and producer to The Working on Dying collective please? Because I forgot to source the article where I read it and now can't find it. --Theo Mandela (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Ss112. I need your help, another user Y2kcrazyjoker4 has been reverting these edits to Beautiful Day, Stuck in a Moment You Can't Get Out Of, Elevation, Electrical Storm to his/her own revision, in which he/she believes to be not an improvement to the page, there clearly isn't anything wrong with the sentences, they were fine, so can you have a reason with him/her about it please. 112.208.47.57 8:02, 11 June 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.208.42.121 (talk)

@112.208.47.57: Sorry, but I think Y2kcrazyjoker4 was right to do that, as generally we don't add album track listings for singles. For songs it's generally considered okay though. Ss112 07:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but i wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the wording that he/she reverted in which he/she believes is not an improvement, there clearly isn't anything wrong with the wording. 112.208.47.57 8:10, 11 June 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.208.42.121 (talk)

@112.208.42.121: It looks to me like the same information just in a different order. It's all still there. If you want the change, you should probably discuss with the editor directly. Ss112 08:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Ss112: See, this is what I was been telling you about, this user thinks this re-wording is not an improvement to the page. There clearly isn't anything wrong with it i tell you. 112.208.42.121 13:27, 11 June 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.208.42.121 (talk)

Hello! :) Got7 didn't win awards at Show Champion, M Countdown, and Inkigayo (it was Mamamoo who won). I don't know who added those awards in the article but it's not true, that's why I corrected it. Seokgjin (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seokgjin: Thanks for the explanation, but it would be more helpful to add this to your edit summary next time. Ss112 14:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey could you maybe check out my message here? I think we need a solution for this before it starts to look messy. I've seen you editing on the page before so I thought I would try to message you directly. Thank you.--2A02:8108:1440:2870:9DC:ED29:923:E067 (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interrupt you, someone created a page Noriel (Rapper), could you find someone who could change the name of the page as Noriel (rapper) or simply as Noriel. Have a great day, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.19.180 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Should we make a discography for Dotcom? I was just wondering because if Forbes confirmed that he is Marshmello, so that means we should add his remixes and singles in Marshmello discography? Any opinions? I left a message in the discography if you would like to discuss the topic. hueman1 (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112, I wanted to thank you for your wikignoming on the Madonna articles and catching some of the errors. Keep it up! —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ss112. I see you've been reverting a lot of these IP address edits that change track times normally by one second. I've been trying to keep up with them too, and I've noticed some changes that are whole minute shifts. It's kind of bizarre, and I don't really get it. Do you think this is vandalism, or just someone who wants the articles to line up with their own personal rips? CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 17:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CelestialWeevil: I've been wondering the same thing myself. It's very strange vandalism if that's what it is. Perhaps they're looking at a different platform, or as you say, their own rips of the albums. Whatever it is, it's getting pretty widespread and annoying. I wonder if the IP could be rangeblocked... Ss112 17:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been created for this upcoming single by Cheat Codes and Little Mix – fair enough, seeing as even as a promotional single it'll probably chart in several countries. But as I've noted on the talk page, the article has been created as "Only You (Little Mix song)" – that's definitely wrong, as Cheat Codes have equal credit and in fact first billing on the song. I'm just not sure whether the disambiguator should be "Cheat Codes x Little Mix song", as I believe it is properly credited, or "Cheat Codes and Little Mix song" as a clearer disambiguator. Do you have any idea what it should be? The article needs a lot of copyediting, but I think the title should be fixed first before anything else. Richard3120 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: You're right, Cheat Codes and Little Mix receive equal credit, so it should be at "Only You (Cheat Codes and Little Mix song)" (the x is just a thing like "vs." that the convention on Wikipedia is to just state "and" for. If the x was actually part of a collective named "Me x You", for example, then we would probably use it). Just put in a request at WP:RM/TR. Ss112 18:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks – I wasn't sure if the "x" came under the MoS for stylisation, like album titles and band names are often stylised on the records, but we don't recognise that stylisation on Wikipedia... the "and" would be my preference too. Richard3120 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Richard3120 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user DB Dilan Brechero is creating pages in a bad spelling mode and songs pages in a bad spelling mode, for example, Latin Dancehall, Duro y Suave (Leslie Grace & Noriel Song) and the drafts he is creating, check the pages DB Dilan Brechero is creating or trying to create. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.19.180 (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Ss112. The other user Synthwave.94 has reverted these edits to The Way You Make Me Feel, Billie Jean and Beat It to which he mistakenly believes is not okay, there's clearly nothing wrong with them, they were fine. 119.94.84.13 (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2018

Hi Ss112, would you say the student-run newspaper Indiana Daily Student is considered reliable as a source for genres? --Theo Mandela (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Theo Mandela: Nope, just another university student with no credentials offering their opinion on music. Ss112 17:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. --Theo Mandela (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think there should really be something at WP:ALBUMAVOID about not using student publications. Ss112 12:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, only seeing this now. Probably best to rule out all student-run sites, and maybe give some examples, then add notes saying which Wikipedia guidelines it fails.

Was going to ask, could you write out a "composition" or "production" section for "In My Feelings" please? I was just going to add bounce to the infobox using this Fader source, but I feel like they go into enough detail for a section (details here too). --Theo Mandela (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Just my 2p but I would tend to regard student publications as unreliable sources on almost any subject beyond the current date. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I'll definitely not be sourcing (or even reading) them from now on. --Theo Mandela (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are not completely useless. Sometimes they cite sources that can be seen as reliable. Beyond that I often find student publications hysterically funny. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article ([3]) I wanted to use was written like it was for Billboard or something, that's what made me think it could be reliable, lucky I double-checked here. --Theo Mandela (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Ss112. The other user Y2kcrazyjoker4 has recently reverted these edits to City of Blinding Lights and Sometimes You Can't Make It on Your Own for some strange reason, i clearly see nothing wrong with them, they were fine, can you have a word with him about it please. 122.2.97.150 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2018

As numerous people have told you, your edits are creating ungrammatical sentences, repeat info, and other edits that do not improve the article. If you cannot heed others advice, you should find out what you can do better instead of simply recreating your edits. Furthermore, why does Ss112 need to have a word with me? He isn't my Wikipedia Supervisor... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 23:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: I'm not sure, but I think this is the same user who has come to me about their edits being reverted by other users like Synthwave.94 and so on. I don't know why they think I necessarily agree with their changes. @122.2.97.150: As Y2kcrazyjoker4 said, maybe try to revise what you're contributing to an article and take others' advice on board. I'm not involved with this, so it's up to you. Ss112 02:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you removed "Contemporary R&B ballads" from the category section because slow jam doesn't equal ballad but you'll see at the top of the Contemporary R&B ballads category page that it does in fact include slow jams as ballads. Just wanted to point that out. Rmcrae2015 (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to weigh in this discussion regarding AllMusic should be in infoboxes over other publications. Only if you interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another rollbacker misleading reverted with saying "unsourced/undiscussed genre change", but actually, In difference between revisions, the IP added with reference which saying "Caribbean-tinged dancehall banger" in Background and composition section (Line 36), and left diff is Much.com article is written by contributor. 115.164.171.15 (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@115.164.171.15: While it may be true that you sourced it, especially on a popular page with recent debates around/changes to genres, the key part of that rollback summary is "undiscussed". I think SummerPhDv2.0 is suggesting there to take it to the talk page instead of reinstating a potentially controversial change to the entire genre listed. Ss112 11:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Ss112. A user named RaduPP added a Metal Storm (webzine) review to The Sciences (album). WP:RSMUSIC says Metal Storm is reliable if it's a staff review, and it kind of looks like one (although it's hard to tell), BUT it's not super well-written and it was made by the guy who put it on Wikipedia. Looking at his contributions, he's been adding a lot of his own reviews. It all just seems kind of bizarre. The usename and profile strike me as not completely professional. What do you think? CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 20:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CelestialWeevil: Definitely bizarre. Seems like it could be a conflict of interest, especially if they were written by him. Ping @Ad Orientem: is this a COI? Ss112 00:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I notice he is listed under "official contributors" rather than "active staff", and his bio makes it sound like he works at another company and studies part-time. Richard3120 (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might try just asking them nicely what their relationship is and gently point them to COI if needed. Let me know if something comes up that requires more than a friendly nudge from fellow editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, everyone. I made a post on User talk:RaduPP. This is my first time doing anything like this, so does this seem like a reasonable approach? CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 16:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ss112, do you know if there's a consensus on what "synth-R&B" should link to please? It's for the "Summertime Magic" article ([4]). Also, in regards to "Drug Addicts", would you say "trap-styled single" equates to it being a trap song? --Theo Mandela (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

It has come to my attention that a user (Hadriensaori) has taken the liberty to post genre tags on Lorde's main page and Melodrama without seeking or gathering a consensus beforehand. I reverted them but the user quickly ignored my reasons. Reverted those edits once again and nothing has persisted up until now. An inspection into the user's contribution history shows that you warned this user before about making these kinds of edits on the aforementioned pages, dating back to August 2017 (those edits were also removed from their talk page). Is it possible for you to issue a block? I took great care of these articles and I do not want some user (who has not contributed to any article on Wikipedia since mid-2017) to mess around with them. Thank you. De88 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: Looks like they've stopped for now. If they start up again, maybe notify @Ad Orientem: to give them a warning? Looks like they've tried to open a discussion on your talk page. Ss112 02:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is Hypebeast considered as an reliable source? Because I add this website in the Invasion of Privacy (album) article [5], and this editor (you have deal with this editor before) don't think it's reliable [6]. Are they right or wrong? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Personally I don't consider Hypebeast very reliable. If a better source is available we should use it, as Hypebeast started out as a blog and still is one. I also greatly dislike the phrase "rave reviews" as it is editorializing (even if we're quoting a source that uses it) and I think Wikipedia should aim to be more neutral than passing off this phrase as its own wording (i.e. without quotation marks around it). Unless I'm misremembering, I think one of our guidelines (though it escapes me which particular one at this moment) discourages the use of "rave reviews" in particular. Ss112 13:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the website off the article do to not being very reliable. The critical reception used to be "widespread acclaim" before SummerPhDv2.0 remove it [7]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find this source, should I use this website instead of Hypebeast? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ss112, I hope you're well. Regarding Peking Duk's "Reprisal" and Conrad Sewell's "Ghosts and Heartbreaks", should these be listed as EPs (and not singles)? I have found a couple of websites that name them as EPs and the release is similar to Drake's Scary Hours EP, released earlier in 2018. If there were a true double-A sided single, the two songs would've been named in the title (like a number of Steps' singles for example). Before I change it, I just thought I'd check with you.Tobyjamesaus (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Tobyjamesaus: Heya, songs should be listed according to what their sources say, even if it's a "single" containing two or more tracks. Relevant discussion over here. aNode (discuss) 15:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ANode: Thanks ANode. I've noted a couple of websites (sourced) that have them listed as EP. As such, I believe they ought to be changed. I'll fix it up (chronology etc) in the next couple of days. I'll ensure the EP references are included. Cheers.Tobyjamesaus (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You changed charts board on Doesn't Matter (Voleur de Soleil) page. I know than Pure Charts is not the official pusblisher of charts in France, but LesCharts.com is not. The fact is than for discographies, some people use the artist's discography page on LesChart.com. I think this is more easy with just one reference. But, LesCharts.com and Pure Charts publish the same Sales Singles Chart (today in France: downloads + physical sales). But, Pure Chart publishes this chart a few days before LesCharts.com. But, if you start to say than the chart published by Pure Charts can not be used with SNEP reference, what about LesCharts.com? In France, the official publisher of charts and for certifications is the SNEP. But the SNEP publishes the Downloads chart, the Streaming chart (as Pure Charts) and the Singles chart (than includes Streaming and only downloads). The SNEP does not include physical sales on its charts! So, why write French Singles Chart (SNEP) with a reference from LesCharts.com if this is not the official chart (including streaming)?

So, I think that is right: French Singles Chart (SNEP) - Streaming+downloads

French Downloads (SNEP)

French Singles Sales (LesCharts.com or Pure Charts) Downloads+physical sales

French airplay (SNEP)

Goodbye, ~~ Land and travel (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Land and travel: Yes, I know the publisher of French charts is SNEP. But lescharts.com is accepted as an archive for SNEP's charts on Wikipedia. That was decided years ago. Wikipedia talk:Record charts might be the place to ask why that is, and why the template says that. The last I heard, lescharts.com gets their information from SNEP, so it is "official" information. Ss112 08:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you Land and travel (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Music Barnstar
		Hi! I just wanted to thank you for your charts-related contributions to the Despacito article, which passed a GA review. Brankestein (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The official Boo’d Up (Remix) is not supposed to be a part of the original article. And I turn to you to ask for your support and undo the edition of User:WIKIZILE. Many thanks. —— BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you take a look at the other recent edits by Before the Storm? For most of them I don't think I've edited enough in these topic areas to know whether their edits should be reverted (e.g. do covers uploaded to YouTube belong in the list of songs recorded?). Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wanted to ask about which charting source to prioritise for the Billboard Dance charts. Let's just say an artist has charted for both the Dance Club Songs and Dance/Electronic Songs charts, which one should I use? Or perhaps should I include both in the table? I know for some pages they only use one source for the US Dance charts, while some use both separately. aNode (discuss) 11:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ANode: I'd say if you can fit both in at/under 10 columns and the artist hasn't been more successful outside the US, then you can include both, sure. If there's any cases where someone has mixed chart positions from both, then you should change it to be just one of them as they shouldn't be combined being two different charts. Dance Club Songs is what's being played in clubs by DJs, and Dance/Electronic Songs is a filtered chart containing the songs Billboard classifies as dance/electronic that are most streamed/sold. I think for electronic artists I'd prioritise the Dance/Electronic Songs chart because they're more likely to chart on that, whereas what charts on the Dance Club Songs chart is more arbitrary—and more geared towards remixes of pop songs rather than electronic artists necessarily. Ss112 12:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, alright, thanks for the reply mate! I'll fit both in as necessary for the Audien discography page as suggested by you, since like the songs aren't too popular outside the US. I'll keep in mind to prioritise dance/electronic in the future. aNode (discuss) 12:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ss112, It's been a while since staring a conversation but I just wanted to say something regarding a user that i recently saw doing massive changes to articles. I just noticed that certain pages on my watchlist that there is this user that is been going around and changing certain rap mixtapes to "studio albums" which those projects are not called "studio albums" or labeled as one. I just wanted to know what to do with this without having to cause future edit war's with the user. The user has been changing quite a lot of mixtapes to studio albums without any discussion in the pages that he changed at all. FettyHyper (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @FettyHyper: To me it's distuptive. The user making those edits based on their opinion, they should have made a consensus on the talk page first. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i seem to be in a need of advice. Recently i've been doing quite a lot of updating about album sales in South Korea, and now noticed, that SuJu (pre-2011 releases) sales are not in any way supported by the references, but seem to be taken from 1H thread instead (https://onehallyu.com/topic/602747-super-juniors-play-physical-sales-thread/). I've started compiling numbers from MIAK/RIAK/Gaon for some, and i can't get the number they've reached. Jpn/TWN/PHL sales are also not cited by reliable sources. What should i do? I'll be grateful for any advice! Cheers! Kleool (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleool: I would say only include what you can source, and remove any unsourced/inflated/figures that have been updated without the source being updated. Ss112 16:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Thank you for the advice. I hope SuJu fans won't take it personally :/ . The numbers are probably correct, as fans from 2008-2010 had access to data, which is not archived. But as there are no references supporting the numbers, they're not provable. I'll stop my ranting now, sorry xD. Have a nice day! Kleool (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you help me with Jasmine Karas discography. I might have done a mistake. Cheers--94.234.53.111 (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Good as it is to revert my recent edit to the Ray BLK page (concerning the album new single "Run Run" belongs to), I noticed that you haven't undone any of the other unsourced edits on the page - e.g., all of the singles/guest appearances without Wiki articles of their own are currently unsourced. Is there any particular reason why you reversed my unsourced edit (which I have now added back in, with a reference) and not any of the other unsourced edits? AlligatorSky (talk) 17:43, 09 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlligatorSky: A whole page being unsourced wouldn't justify continuing to add unsourced material to it. I saw the most recent edit was adding an album that wasn't mentioned elsewhere on the page and undid that, and it happened to be your edit. It would not matter to me who made the edit. One can only make so many reversions on a page as well, so if by reverting you you expect an editor to go back and systematically undo every other historical edit made to the page, that's a bit unrealistic. Ss112 16:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Understood, thanks for clarifying. Why not revert the unsourced edit made by 119.92.11.191 adding "Run Run" in the first place though? I'm just trying to understand the logic behind some some of the reverts, but not others, is all. AlligatorSky (talk) 17:43, 09 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlligatorSky: I did not look further than the most recent edit. Even if I had, as I just said, I wouldn't be making more than perhaps a couple of reverts to be on the "safe" side because, technically, most unsourced edits are not really vandalism and so aren't exempt from WP:3RR. Also, regarding your edit made to Stefflon Don, please avoid linking to unreliable blogs that offer free downloads of albums. As I said in my edit summary, this violates our WP:COPYVIO policies. Always keep it above board by linking to a legal e-commerce site, like iTunes, or even better, a news source. Ss112 17:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hes back. ANI? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in using Wikidata to automatically update chart data? (I'm asking you directly instead of at a WikiProject talk page because I don't actually recall anyone else regularly adding or updating chart positions.)

The current infrastructure for this is quite sparse, there's very little data for charted in (P2291) (fewer than 100 items), and it's probably copyright infringement to e.g. auto-import all of the Billboard charts, but I've managed to do some work – I guess as a proof-of-concept – on Eastside (Q55975144), which could be pulled from Wikidata through a Lua module in a template like {{chpos|Billboard Hot 100|QID, if necessary, for a specific version or release of a song}} to return e.g. "44". Using a module to select the numerically lowest position, instead of only keeping the highest one, would have the advantage of not deleting all of the old data, and would allow recent songs to be updated at the same time as discographies.

The QID would have to be used (as a technical matter) for singles that charted (as opposed to songs) and basically anything else where the data isn't on the current item and/or the song was released on more than one single. Jc86035 (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: I suppose it could be helpful, but I have no idea how it works even from that simple explanation! Ss112 20:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, {{#invoke:sandbox/Jc86035/2|main|bb100|Q55975144}} now returns 44 from Module:Sandbox/Jc86035/2. Jc86035 (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a "charted in" statement to the item for Thriller (Michael Jackson album).
• If I input "bb200" or "BILLBOARD 200" or "Us-aLbUms" or some variation (case-insensitive) to the first parameter, and the album's Q-ID to the second, the module searches for all "charted in" statements with that chart, Billboard 200 (Q188819), and progressively overwrites the value to be returned if a higher value is found. (The chart Q-IDs are stored in the module, since you still can't get a Q-ID from a page name as far as I'm aware.)
• In this case there's only one value for the Billboard 200, so it returns 1. Jc86035 (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I've posted at Template talk:Single chart.) Jc86035 (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit clearer, but still something that kind of escapes me a bit. I mean, I'm fine doing what I do, it's not really necessary for me. Ss112 11:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I'm made that list based off the singles that have been already released and her general sound. It'll be more than likely to have those styles incorporated but I'll respect the game and wait till it's release. Good day and shalom. Temp144 17:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your old buddy wants back. I think I have put the kibosh on that. [8] -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{r from song}} marks them unprintworthy anyway. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you find time for it please take a look at Ben Mitkus, Feven, Kumba, Joy M'Batha and Tjuvjakts discograpies. Much appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it was me that edited the Jain page with the SNEP peak positions. I just wanted to say I'm sorry, I didn't realise that LesChartes was a recognised source for charts. I am a bit confused though. Why do the two sources contradict one another? In the case of Alright, LesChartes says it was at #5 but SNEP says it was at #29 that week (28/07-03/08). I wasn't trying to be argumentative, I was under the impression that SNEP was the official source but there seems to be a lot of disagreement between the two sites. Also, I want to say sorry again for referencing incorrectly in some places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blurrbaker (talk • contribs) 17:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SS112, I've done quite a few articles in the past year I've been on Wikipedia, my interests are primarily music, discographies and chart positions. I can't count the amount of times I've seen your name pop up in my own creations and countless other articles edit lists and I tip my hat to you for your tireless efforts. I've just made a new article for The Kooks new album Let's Go Sunshine and would be honored if you could look it over. Regards EL Foz87 (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EL Foz, will do. Ss112 19:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like CrunchyCookie has neglected to inform you that he's filed a case request against you - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Muse_Edits_Reversal Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The recently-filed arbitration case request has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Riff Raff discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doe Boy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Changing_styles. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you check the music charts of the Bad Wolves' album Disobey please. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.19.180 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ss, Just wanted to apologise for the confusement over at ANI, Your comments were absolutely fine so apologies for the confusement, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please vote or comment at this RfC involving the lead section of Swimming? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does removing M make it unciteable? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I meant removing the M means one cannot use the ref name to cite it, and if we remove the M, that makes it essentially unsourced because the whole point of the URL being there with the M is to provide an alternative URL to the one the album chart template generates by default. Ss112 23:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot cite it without removing M (e.g. the references here). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I know. I don't think it's as essential that they're cited in prose (or even that every country it achieved a peak in has to be mentioned at all) when the main charts section below sources them already. Ss112 23:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on nominating this for GA and I think it's fair to say that you and I are together responsible for 90% of the content and layout. Do you want to do a once-over to ensure that it matches the criteria before I nominate? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I don't know if I'm responsible for anywhere near as much of as it you are, but it meets most to me. Only concern I might have is that some editors may think it's not stable enough to be nominated, as it appears there are still some things newer editors are changing day-to-day. Ss112 21:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry I didn't realise that's what you'd done regarding that tracklisting edit. I wasn't really paying attention this morning when I edited - was tired and thought someone had added a random tracklist! → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 14:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soz, literally did it once 🤷🏻‍♂️🙄 – K.

About "My Revival"'s peak, I had created the page back in early 2017 and was new to that type of templating and completely spaced that edit. As for the "What are you doing" remark, amongst the others, (before you changed the headline) it said List of songs, with selected chart positions, showing year released and album name, so I was correcting my own mistake. I see that you have now corrected the headline to adjust it to the year the song peaked instead of the year the song was released. FanofMusic ^{(Talk to Me!)} 02:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hurry (Teyana Taylor song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurry (Teyana Taylor song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Freeee (Ghost Town, Pt. 2) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeee (Ghost Town, Pt. 2) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is Zobbel.de considered as an reliable source because I see nobody use this source anymore, and I have already removed this website in three articles [9] [10] [11]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAmazingPeanuts: It's considered a reliable archive of peaks below the UK top 100, yes. It's even encoded in the single chart and album chart templates as "UKZobbel" because its week-by-week chart update logs are considered helpful for lower peaks and are free to access, whereas information published on the matter by UKChartsPlus and other sites are behind a paywall. Ss112 09:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I should restore the website back to those articles, right? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Well, I would. Ss112 10:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will restore them. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Country Winners
• Diversity winner
• High quality contributors
• Gender-gap fillers
• Page improvers
• Wikidata Translators

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've noticed that you have removed this chart from Cher's latest album chart table. As it's an official sub-chart (like the many Billboard sub-charts), I see no issues for it to be included as it shows the album's performance in terms of physical sales, as oppose to the charts which include streaming. Thanks.

@Uncleangelo: Except we don't (and articles shouldn't) include Billboard's sales component charts if the album charted on the overall Billboard 200 per WP:CHARTMATH. I think you and TioTayumi need to realise all modern albums charts in the world are already compiled using digital and physical sales, and in most cases, streaming units as well. Using specifically "digital sales" or "physical sales" is redundant, unnecessary and overkill and it is why we have a guideline like WP:CHARTMATH. It's why we don't include Digital Songs and Radio Songs if a song made the overall Billboard Hot 100: because digital sales and radio airplay already contributed to its overall placement. Also, TioTayumi, don't use Hits Daily Double—this is not a reliable source, because its guesses as to the final sales and placement of an album are frequently wrong (and if you had used this website in the past and compared it to the actual final Billboard 200 of the week, you'd already know). Wait until Billboard officially publishes the official chart on Sunday. Also, using the Taiwanese 5Music or G-Music websites are against the WP:SINGLEVENDOR guideline, because they represent one store. There is no overall Taiwanese album chart as far as I'm aware. It'd be like including what's selling the best at Walmart or Best Buy. Ss112 16:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of Billboard 200 including streams and physical sales. However, I wonder if the physical chart (only US one) will have a right to be included as well if she comes out as number one. That'd mean it is her first #1 album in the US (saying in the US, not specifally meaning Billboard 200) being an achievement for her and charting higher than her 200 position. Shouldn't it be included if she charts higher there and reaches such an achievement and in addition to that, e.g. country singers also have a billboard sub-chart listed, even when topping the 200. So why shouldn't it be done for Cher, because if she comes out on top of those charts, it'd be an achievement for her and not just another chart placement making it thus "unusual".

I am not talking about current removal but for when Billboard published sales. TioTayumi (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TioTayumi: Except you're talking about the Country Albums chart, which is a genre component chart and allowed because of that. Of course physical sales and even digital sales charts are going to have an album either equal to or higher than it ends up being on the overall chart, but that's still not an exception to WP:CHARTMATH logic, because we know physical and digital sales contributed to its overall total. You can note in the prose that "Cher reached number one on the Digital (or Physical) Album Sales chart", but it should not be listed in the charts table, where overall and sometimes genre charts go. In some ways, it's just bad luck that it is that way, I'm afraid. Ss112 17:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand what you mean (thanks for making the genre thing clear) I meant it being her only US number one ever would be the exception as it means she reaches an unusual achievement (unusual is not her just getting it there, but her getting her first and only number one on US/Billboard chart), which she wouldn't on the overall one but I guess that wouldn't be enough, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TioTayumi (talk • contribs) 18:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TioTayumi: Then you can note it in the prose that it's an achievement for Cher on that chart/on Billboard charts in general. I, and I assume other editors, would have reservations about including a physical sales component chart in the table. Ss112 18:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. What about putting it up for discussion once the positions are out. If it's decided against, then I would of course leave it with a mention of that. I'm thinking about the discussion because I wouldn't want to assume other editors would be rather reserved with that but I also do not want to simply assume the achievement will justify it for them.

@TioTayumi: Of course, you can put anything up for discussion without anybody else's say so. If there's consensus to include it in the table, as there are occasional exceptions, then by all means, other editors should respect that consensus. Ss112 20:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then the official sub-chart positions should stay until we reach a consensus, because to be fair it is against the wiki rules to just disrupt and remove edits by other editors without any discussion. thank you.

@Uncleangelo: No, that's not the way it works. The edits were reverted per WP:BRD, so that means whoever objects opens a discussion to get consensus to make changes. One does not need consensus to object to another user's additions. They stay reverted until they can be agreed upon. You don't appear to know the correct use of "disrupt" on Wikipedia. Ss112 23:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]