User talk:Ss112/Archive 11

File upload wizard

I'm wondering if there is any other way to upload images to Wikipedia without the File Upload Wizard because that doesn't work on my device. Anything you can do to help would be kindly appreciated. Cheers DatBoy101 (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@DatBoy101: Sorry, I forgot to answer. You can upload files directly to Commons, but I'm not entirely sure on the process, so you might have to look up how to do so as I don't use that method. Maybe WP:COMMONS and WP:UPIMG will help. Ss112 17:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are some album/single covers that arts missing on Wikipedia and I know that you can’t upload that to Wikimedia because I got copyright strikes, so I was just wondering DatBoy101 (Talk) 11:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@DatBoy101: Hm, I'm not sure then. Maybe you'd be better off asking an admin. Ss112 18:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know any admins that might know the answer? I’m kinda new so I don’t really know anybody. Thanks DatBoy101 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@DatBoy101: Perhaps Sergecross73 or Ferret. Ss112 18:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks will check them out DatBoy101 (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Billboard links

Hi Sean :) Do you know maybe why billboard.biz stopped updating their charts? The last updated charts are from the charts dated 18 November. And why now all the templates direct to billboard.com, when some charts, like for example Canadian Airplay charts or US Bubbling Under or others are not there. They are on billboard.biz.... Max24 (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Max24: Sorry, I have no idea why billboard.com/biz stopped updating. It's kind of annoying to me too. You can find the Canadian Airplay and Bubbling Under charts on billboard.com now, though. For instance, http://www.billboard.com/music/sam-smith/chart-history/bubbling-under-hot-100 Same with the Canadian Airplay links on Too Good at Goodbyes (I don't know those chart names off-by-heart). Click those and they should work (if you need to see "more chart history", just append "/2" to the URL and so on as if you click "more chart history", it shows the Hot 100 positions by default in error). Ss112 20:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

MNEK Producer Credits

Hello,

You recently messaged me about working on behalf of MNEK to edit his Wikipedia page. The information that I am trying to provide re his producing credits is accurate and now has references to back this up. How would you best suggest I add these to his page moving forward? Many thanks.

BC1993 (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Ss112. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet another question

An editor made this edit in the "Awaken, My Love!" article. Is this correct? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: New Zealand charts

Dang! And I was more than halfway through the decade without noticing it! Guess I was too worried about the references per se and forgot to doublecheck the table content. Thanks for the heads up! I'll fix it. Bisbis (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I guess it's all fixed now! Thanks for the huge help!

Bisbis (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Soompi

Greetings! Soompi translates articles from Korean news sites and they include their sources, yes. While they're more reliable than say, Allkpop or Koreaboo, they're not entirely, so it's better to use the original source. Especially when in this case, that link didn't even mention the specific performance while the source I provided did. Here is a list of reliable sources for K-pop/Korea-related articles, with some in English. About the title of the Peek-A-Boo article, feel free to move it! Would be grateful! Lonedirewolf 09:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lonedirewolf: I wouldn't move the title of "Peek-a-Boo" because, as I mentioned in my edit summary on Perfect Velvet, it is in the correct place per MOS:CT. We don't capitalise instances of "a", including if it's hyphenated. Thanks for linking me to the reliable sources page for Korean articles, I was not aware of this. However, MOS:CT applies to all of Wikipedia, including Korean artists' English song titles, so please check that page out. Ss112 10:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Lonedirewolf 10:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No Roots (Alice Merton song)

Hi Sean! I see you have improved the chart on this page. I have trouble editing it. It currently says the song peaked at 32 on Adult top 40. This link [1] seems to say it previously peaked at 2 on the same chart. Am I reading this correctly? How could the update be made? I figured out how to change the 32 to a 2 but not how to update the reference. Thanks! Thsmi002 (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

On Air (The Rolling Stones album)

Hi there! I notice that you moved the album from its previous title of "The Rolling Stones - On Air". I understand why you moved it, but it does appear to be the official name of the album, according to both reviews and the Stones' official website. I just thought I would check in with you before moving it (since you originally moved it to its current title). --All the best, TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Sorry, nowhere on that page does it say the title is definitively "The Rolling Stones - On Air"—it says "December 1st sees the release of The Rolling Stones 'On Air'" in the lead paragraph, which says to me that they wouldn't put On Air between quotation marks if that wasn't the title. As for reviews, reviews use stylisations and all sorts of business. E-commerce sites usually give a good idea; the biggest digital retailer, iTunes, uses On Air: https://itunes.apple.com/au/album/on-air/1299805982 Ss112 06:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, on further thought you are correct. Just referenced other album covers. They typically do contain "The Rolling Stones" on the sleeves, but listing without that bit is typical on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Glad it is still a redirect though. Thank you for your improvements to it! No hard feelings? --All the best, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Disco

Hi, if you find time for it could you take a look at Alcazar discography. Any help with updates etc are appreciated.BabbaQ (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Omar Rodriguez Lopez albums

Hi, I was wondering if it would be possible to reinstate the Omar Rodriguez Lopez album articles that have recently been removed. While it's certainly arguable that they don't, on their own, meet notability guidelines, cases can be made for their inclusion, that are more compelling as a whole:

- there have been reviews, interviews and press releases relating to this ipecac series as a whole, and of individual albums within the series. The series as a whole is noteworthy, even if no individual album could be said to be.

- Omar is a highly noteworthy artist with a vast catalog of work and it would be a shame for Wikipedia to provide only a partial reference to it. His career, as it stands, is very well chronicled on the site before apparently petering out in the last dozen or so albums. His page should remain a complete resource as he releases more music.

- his recent work was valued enough that someone took the time to write articles about it. These were useful articles that I referred to often. Why take the time to undo someone else's work? In the end, two people have spent time and accomplished nothing. if you leave the album articles alone, then only one person spent time and actually accomplished something. That sounds like a much better outcome to me. What harm would it do to leave the articles alone? Seventieslord (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seventieslord: Recently? This was months ago. An artist being notable does not grant notability to each and every one of their albums; see WP:NALBUMS. As for Wikipedia only providing a "partial reference" to his work, please see WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. We're not an Omar Rodriguez-Lopez encyclopedia. It is not my concern to have to "respect" someone's decision to write a few unsourced sentences for album articles that don't pass our notability requirements in the first place. Besides, I redirected each of the articles once, maybe twice. I'd long forgotten about it. If you can find news articles relating to the Ipecac series as a whole, great. You can add them to the Omar Rodriguez-Lopez article. Ss112 22:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Tame Impala (EP)

Not a problem however some of the changes were actually accurate - so I modified and kept those that made sense. Dan arndt (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist request

Hey Ss112! I recently promoted List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States to FL and was wondering if you could add the page to your watchlist since you are a very active editor. I just know that at some point, someone is going to change the sales of their favorite artist's album to inflate it. Thanks! Erick (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Question about references for discographies

Hi there, Ss112. You seem to be extremely experienced in editing discographies and music articles, so I wanted to ask for advice. As I'm sure you already know, Discogs.com is a rather extensive database for discographies, but I know that it is reliant on crowdsourced information. Would this take it out of contention to be a reliable source for discographies? I also wanted to ask what your opinion is on using MusicBrainz as a source for discographies as well. (Basically, I'm still on the hunt for a citation for the "promotional singles" section on the Theory of a Deadman discography article.) Your insight is much appreciated. Thank you in advance! Miss Sarita^{Talk to me} 16:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Miss Sarita: It would take it out of contention as a reliable source. It's listed on WP:ALBUMAVOID. As far as I'm aware, anybody can contribute to MusicBrainz, and it has little to no editorial oversight. Looks like it was discussed here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 202#MusicBrainz. Ss112 22:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information and the resources! Miss Sarita^{Talk to me} 00:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! It's me again. I'm noticing that you reverted the edits made to Wake Up Call (Theory of a Deadman album) regarding the title of "Rx" (thank you very much, by the way). I understand how this can be confusing to other editors, and maybe I'm making too big of a deal out of this, but I own the physical CD and I'm lookin' right at it. Do you think it's appropriate to add a "Cite AV media notes" reference in addition to the note you added? Or do you think your note will suffice? Thanks for your advice! Miss Sarita^{Talk to me} 23:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Miss Sarita: You can add a cite AV media notes reference to the top of the track listing section, but I don't know how much it'd change things. I think a lot of editors take what's written on iTunes as gospel as far as how track titles appear on all editions. Not saying so just because I wrote it, but I think the commented-out note may be the best way to combat it. Ss112 23:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted a second opinion on an added layer of referencing, but I agree that your note is the best way to go about things and will leave it as is. Thanks for adding it. Miss Sarita^{Talk to me} 23:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Jack Johnson

Hi there,

There is this user (I am referring to Thearticlehelper101) who has been making redundant edits to pages relating to Jack Johnson. (particularly those related to his new album) He tends to add false information on songs, including listing Johnson's "Gather" as charting on Triple A when it did not. The user also does not make proper edits, such as improper spelling, punctuation and grammar. Could you please help me keep a lookout on these user and help revert any unnecessary edits? Daerl (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Daerl: I'll try and remember to check out their edits. I have come across their edits before and they do seem to not have the best grasp of writing for an encyclopedia or bending what's allowable. Ss112 11:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

21 Savage discography

My post was not vandalism, however I apologize for adding a note in the released, who was released by, and when it was released category, even if it was never released by any of those fronts. The album did chart in foreign regions, due to high enough YouTube streams. It was not officially released. Its a mix of old songs from both artists. I was surprised this album charted due to it being not real and probably being made by a fan. I stated that so it could be deleted. Its also not a unreleased album, released to the public, XXXTenaction has not so far collaborated with 21 Savage. So hopefully you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinHawk8940 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@NinHawk8940: I don't think a fan could get an album of old recordings uploaded to iTunes or Spotify under both artists' names. Perhaps their record labels released it without their explicit permission? Ss112 03:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised to see official links. However, the album was not officially promoted, and during the regular search a fan would do on those services, you couldn't find them. The person who released this probably released it in a couple countries probably to avoid copyright or some legal things.. So I think that might be the case for this. I also didn't see any websites like Complex do articles on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinHawk8940 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think it should keep that there, it's not even on X's discography, even if it charted. It's not a official release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinHawk8940 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Section.80 and Love Story (Yelawolf album)

While DJBooth is classified as an unreliable source now, should the website be remove off of these articles, despite their reviews are on Metacritic [2] [3]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: They probably should be. Nobody here really knows what Metacritic's criteria for reliability is. Perhaps they're less discerning than Wikipedia editors are—I've seen several instances of their archiving sites that profess to be/are open about being "famous blogs". Another site they've archived on Section.80 is Beats Per Minute, which I've seen removed from articles before. It still comes back to what those editors said on the reliable sources noticeboard—their concerns are valid, so I would say go ahead and remove them. Ss112 08:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You say something about Beats Per Minute being an unreliable source, should it be removed too? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: I'm not claiming Beats Per Minute is unreliable, just that for whatever reason, other editors have removed it from pages in the past. I suppose until we have a consensus determining so, it can be assumed to be okay to keep in articles. Ss112 08:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, just making sure. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

In Full Swing

Hi, thanks for helping me out on the In Full Swing page. I just have one favor, can you add the album cover? I already tried the talk page but seems to have been ignored. The cover is the only thing that is missing. Thank you. 2600:1700:D560:BF00:1439:BD3:296C:78FB (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

More Life

Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding the infobox should keep "playlist" instead of mixtape. Only if you interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm 1997kB. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Trigger Bang, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

·•·1997kB 16:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@1997kB: I didn't "curate" or "review" any page. I don't have the function to mark pages as "reviewed". Besides, even if I did, why did you "un-review" it? Ss112 16:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Actually I accidentally unreviewed a page created by, that's why you got this message. ·•·1997kB 16:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And as you have 'auto patrolled' right, pages created by you are automatically marked "curated" or "reviewed". ·•·1997kB 16:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's right. I just meant I don't have the specific "new page reviewer" right. Ss112 16:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

I know we've disagreed a couple times, but please know I very, very much appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. Keep up the amazing work, and happy holidays! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Thanks, same to you! Ss112 18:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Excellent dab page, thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_of_My_Heart&action=history In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And in point of fact, King of My Heart (song) was by totally another editor, and as I said, I've done it myself. Enjoy your Christmas! In ictu oculi (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A pie for you!

No problem now. Thank you for listening. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays

This user wishes you a very Happy Holiday season.

TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Hey, thanks! Happy holidays to you too! Ss112 02:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Kesha discography

Hi there! The page above is again vandalized by an IP changing the sales of Rainbow to 500,000. I assume he is a sock puppet of the IP that proceded in a smilar way some time ago, as he uses similar words to express himself (e.g. "cat and mouse game" which I once wrote in my edit summary there). I hope you can help. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Hey, I'll try and keep a lookout but perhaps you can put in a request for the page to be protected at WP:RFPP as well. Just say they've returned, used multiple IP addresses and expressed a willingness to continue doing so (and that the page was protected only recently). The page should get at least auto-confirmed/confirmed protection again. Ss112 13:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Cristmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Ad Orientem (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

@Ad Orientem: Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too! Ss112 02:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

If You're Reading This It's Too Late

Should I added this source in the article? I know Genius is not an reliable source in Wikipedia but this is the only thing that I can find the mixtape's credits. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: I'd try to avoid Genius if you can. Did Genius get the credits off of an official source of Drake's, or the physical edition? You can credit those if you adapt them slightly from what Genius lists.

According to Genius, it got the mixtape's credits from Amazon.com. It's right here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Then you should credit Amazon rather than Genius. Ss112 06:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so too. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Ss112. AfC submissions Random submission ~5 weeks 1,060 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Billboard issue dates

So, how confused do you think folks here are going to get when the next issue/chart date for Billboard says January 6? LOL. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Very! Hahahaha. Ss112 10:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Perfect

The Hot 100 is a songs chart not a singles chart, so all versions of the song "Perfect" by Ed Sheeran is what makes it number one not just the duet with Beyoncé. It includes the album track, the "Perfect Duet", and the "Perfect Symphony" with Andrea Bocelli. All of the sales, the streams, etc. of each version combined go into the total points to make "Perfect" the number-one song. In terms of credit, it goes to the version getting the most points. So if next week, the solo album version got the most points out of all the versions, "Perfect" would still be the number-one song but only Sheeran would get the credit. It wouldn't be "Perfect Duet" is number one one week and "Perfect" is the next. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 11:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Pnau - singles v promo singles

Hey Ss112, FYI; Yesterday, I removed the three singles/songs/promo's "Into the Sky", "Young Melody" and "Control Your Body" from Pnau's discography because in Pnau's Changa (album) article, there is a note saying they're promotional singles. I don't know who wrote this or from where it came. It's likely those three songs are promo singles and/or album pre-order singles as there isn't a lot of information about them or individual cover art etc. The noise11 "new release schedule" that is the reference has previously include pre-order/promo singles in this list. Also, releasing three singles on one day is unusual.. then again, Ed Sheehan released two lead singles for Divide, so who knows. Anyway, if they are singles, we should add them to the list of singles released from Changa also. Just so you know :) (NB: I do get a little confused at times between promotional and official singles) Tobyjamesaus (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Protecting page

Hi User:Ss112, can you keep an eye on List of facial hairstyles please? Because User:Allamerican85 keeps adding a picture of, presumably, themself and calling the "goatee and moustache" style "the most majestic of all facial hair." I can keep reverting their edits, but I feel like it will turn into an edit war. Theo (edits) 04:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Your report on Gaknowitall

Hi, sorry but while I agree they seem problematic, I couldn't see an obvious pattern of vandalism. I'm sure I'm missing something, but when in doubt, I prefer not to act on WP:AIV. You might want to raise this issue on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or WP:ANI though! -- Luk ^talk 13:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The Introduction

If The Introduction is an official project by Nav, why are "Myself" and "Up" only playable? The rest are greyed out. When you play the either song, the artwork from his self-titled mixtape Nav shows and not the one from The Introduction. On top of that, the supposed mixtape doesn't show up on his artist page. Not to mention that Spotify is the only streaming platform that has the project listed. iTunes, Tidal, Google Play Music nor any other music platform list that "project" alongside Perfect Timing and Nav. Maintaining (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Maintaining: I don't have all the answers. Quite often mixtapes aren't on a lot of platforms, especially if they're from an artist's early days, are they? I just know fans can't upload things to Spotify, especially not with "© 2017 The Weeknd XO, Inc., Manufactured and Marketed by Republic Records, a Division of UMG Recordings, Inc" at the end. Perhaps the full mixtape is playable in other territories; perhaps it used to be fully playable. Ss112 19:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I see now. Thank you. Maintaining (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Apology

Hi, just wanted to apologise for my edits and not knowing what I was doing. It's taught me a lot about just checking what I am editing and making sure it is all correct. Please excuse that I didn't stop earlier, I really should have. Anyway, no hard feeling please.

Thanks again, BeanoMaster (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Did You See Draft

Hello, since I notice you help to add songs that chart on the Official Charts in the UK, I am drafting an article for Did You See that I would like to see you help out on if possible. Thank you. JE98 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Despacito Year-end charts

Hi! I noticed that you added the Swedish year-end entry for "Despacito" in the Justin Bieber remix list. Wasn't it a combined entry between the original and the remix? The original version entered the Swedish chart on February 3, 2017 and the entry was replaced on April 21, 2017 with the remix. The page for "Despacito" in the Swedish chart merges both versions. Brankestein (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brankestein: Well, the table says "Justin Bieber remix". That's misleading if all we're supposed to take away from that is only the Justin Bieber remix is counted, because obviously all countries are going to be including sales of the Justin Bieber remix whether they credit it or not. I haven't seen any chart, on a year-end list or not, list the Justin Bieber version separately. I thought the separate table underneath the year-end charts section meant "the country has credited the Justin Bieber remix with the year-end position". Ss112 03:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that almost every year-end chart credits the remix, but most of those countries merged both versions. For example, the US Hot Latin Songs year-end chart credits the remix but the original version was number one during 11 weeks before the release of the remix. All of Monitor Latino's Latin American countries credit the remix on their respective year-end chart despite the original version being already a huge success. Neither of Billboard and Monitor Latino year-end charts duplicated/separated the original and the remix, so we are suppose to believe that the entries are combined. The Justin Bieber remix year-end sub-section is for charts that counted the remix separately like New Zealand, South Korea, and Brazil (here only the remix charted). Brankestein (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

For You Liam Payne & Rita Ora Charts

Hi! I noticed that some weekly charts from this song called "For You" are missing. From countries like Hungary, Poland, Us (Digital Song Sales), Portugal and more. If you haven't noticed any of them, I have the links for some charts if you want.. ManEdit01 (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Mostly not charts I'm interested in, sorry. Ss112 02:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@ManEdit01: Also, we wouldn't be using the US Digital Song Sales chart now that it's made the overall Hot 100 anyway. Ss112 08:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

For You is now certified silver in the U.K if you don't know to edit the page ManEdit01 (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Watch Liam Payne's twitter he has a photo of "For You" going gold, i think it's enough to edit the certifications.. ManEdit01 (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I made the chart performance of the song if you could give me a help and edit it to be better and more accurate it would be nice! ManEdit01 (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Spain chart

Am I right on this edit? I always see others removing spanishcharts and replacing it with PROMUSICAE. But since I've seen your edits on the song's article I have the doubt. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: Well, we can still use spanishcharts.com but where possible, should use PROMUSICAE because it's the official site. I presume most editors change the peak from the PROMUSICAE to spanishcharts.com one because the latter is usually higher. Ss112 17:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Tune Yards

Hi Sean,

Could you please change this page that you made which is a redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Can_Feel_You_Creep_Into_My_Private_Life&redirect=no Into this article that I wrote that is about the album? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:I_Can_Feel_You_Creep_Into_My_Private_Life

Thank You EggsInMyPockets (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@EggsInMyPockets: You don't have to go through the AfC process. As you created the article, you can copy and paste the content from the draft over the top of the redirect. Ss112 06:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Ss112:, so what's the point of the AfC if I can just create any article I want? For example my previous article Evoland 2 used to be a redirect but I had to go through the AfC EggsInMyPockets (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

AfC is typically for unregistered or new users who are unaware of the process or requirements for creating an article. AfC articles are generally approved by an experienced editor, and declined if they are not sourced properly or likely to be speedily deleted or in danger of being deleted. It's not required that one do so; it's just a safeguard/vetting process. WP:AFC explains it. @EggsInMyPockets: If a user creates the content, they can create the article themselves if it doesn't already exist, or paste it into an existing redirect/article. Ss112 06:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't copy and paste it myself, as it would be copying without attribution. Ss112 06:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sean, That's a solution, but I'd like to be credited for the creation of the article so I can be proud that my work made a verifiable original impact. If I copy it over on the redirect, you will still be at the bottom of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Can_Feel_You_Creep_Into_My_Private_Life&action=history right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggsInMyPockets (talk • contribs) 06:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

like for example when i type in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Can_Feel_You_Creep_Into_My_Private_Life into my address bar, instead of being met with a blank box that tells me to create the page, I am redirected to the tuneyards page, and I dont know how to fix it =( teach me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggsInMyPockets (talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@EggsInMyPockets: Yes, but creating the content (a large addition of bytes) is noted in the article history. The first-post redirect/bulk of the content creation is what matters. Nobody cares who creates redirects versus who creates articles or "whose name is credited at the bottom". It is not easily accessible on Wikipedia to see "who first created an article name", so it shouldn't matter. Wikipedia article creation is not a competition. You already have made a "verifiable original impact" by making the content on it, because my creation of the redirect is not creating content. Also, you linked to the redirect page you can edit just before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Can_Feel_You_Creep_Into_My_Private_Life&redirect=no You can edit that page and move the content yourself. Ss112 06:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Culture II

This topic is based on the "Culture National Anthem" track on the Culture II page. How is the mentioned track a "confirmed track?" The confirmation of a "confirmed track" can come from the release of the song or direct confirmation from the artist(s), associate(s) or label(s). Genius is speculating that it will land on the album. In addition, Genius also stated that the song is "set" to appear on the album, if the article were to say "will", that would be a different story. A snippet or preview of a song does not clarify the confirmation of a track appearing on an album. Maintaining (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Maintaining: Specifically, you were saying only singles should go in the confirmed tracks section when this does not necessarily have to be the case. And yes, but it's a news source saying the song will appear on the album. They'd probably say "set to appear" for "MotorSport" and "Stir Fry" too; it's just the wording used because nothing is definite until the album is actually released. Ss112 02:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If the mentioned song was released as a whole and not a clip/part of it, it would be classified as a confirmed track until the album's final tracklist is released. The snippet only features Quavo and not the other two members of the Migos. For all we know, the track could be used for Quavo's debut album or mixtape. Maintaining (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Maintaining: It very well could be. It's not that big a deal. The release of Culture II is imminent; if it turns out not to be on the confirmed track list, we can just remove it. Until then, we have a source saying it's set to appear on it. Ss112 03:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

vandalism

Hi, please take a look at this user's "contributions".

They've spent the last 10 days making random changes to dates and other figures in random articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KeiraB08

DrVogel (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@DrVogel: Yep, already reported them to WP:ANV before you sent this. Ss112 03:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Indeffed -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

ah ok brilliant thank you DrVogel (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Bedroom Floor Certification

Hello, Bedroom Floor has been certified silver in the UK and the page is not edited yet with certifications.. Could you fix it when you have time? ManEdit01 (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@ManEdit01:  Done Ss112 13:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Heartbreak On A Full Moon

Could you please add "Tempo" as a single from the album? When I made an edit request it was rejected by someone who doesn't believe All Access is a reliable single (which it is because it's been used on BIG album pages such as DAMN., Reputation, and More Life with no problem) and who says that it doesn't show Tempo will be a "single" because the album already came out. (which isn't a good reason too, look at the albums I've listed which all have had singles released after the album came out) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:D05A:CC00:55A6:394D:DA95:697F (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Joe Bermudez

Hi, I want to create an article at Joe Bermudez but your redirect is in the way. Can I ask you nicely to G7 it please? — Zawl 23:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Zawl, we've been over this a dozen times. Just create the page over the redirect. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@Primefac: Honestly, I'm unsatisfied with how it was previously handled and personally, I think that the content author, not redirect maker, deserves credit/attribution as page creator. If redirects were created in place of vacant title, it would discourage content creators (especially experienced ones) from creating since they'd have no choice but to write over the redirect. Per WP:R#DELETE, a redirect should be deleted (with G6) if the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title. I failed to find anywhere that says an article has to be written over a redirect. If there is no policy or guideline to accurately reflect this then one should be made. I made this request here because apparently Ss112 too thinks that there's nothing wrong with wanting credit on a page or redirect you've made. — Zawl 00:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because heaven forbid someone not look at the page history and see a gigantic +22,000 next to your name. I'm not saying that you can't make the request, but given the past history between you two I wouldn't hold your breath that they'll acquiesce to your request. If you feel like it absolutely must be done with a G6, then you're welcome to visit WP:RM or WP:AFC. Primefac (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zawl: Primefac is right. Where did you ever get the impression I agree with deleting a page so somebody can move content they created there to be seen as the creator of a page they didn't actually make first? Please don't copy what I said out of context. I said: "There's nothing wrong with wanting credit on a page or redirect you've made, within reason. (Going to extremes is when it's a problem, as I'm sure you saw with another editor several months ago.)" [emphasis is originally mine] That "another editor" is you, if that was unclear, and now you're coming to me thinking I'm going to just roll over and go "that's fine, erase it". I don't agree with that at all, so no, I will not be G7ing it. This very clearly shows you're still very concerned about being the first name listed in a page's history—even if you have to "rewrite" history as it were to do so—as if most editors who make the most meaningful contributions here even care about whose name is written first. In most cases, those who bring articles to GA or FA status are not the initial creators of the page. If you must have your user name listed first, you're not going to do so with my blessing. I suppose this will be your tactic now, G6ing or requesting pages you create in your own space be moved over redirects I created (or just doing it yourself, because you have move rights). I don't believe erasing another user's contributions, no matter how small they may be (e.g. a redirect creation), is within the spirit of a collaborative encyclopedia. By the way, I never really thought my talk page comings and goings were monitored this much... Ss112 03:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd really ask you to consider your own reaction if a user you'd had a history of disagreement with came to you and asked the same thing. Considering the amount of redirects you've created in the past, particularly for whole rosters (sometimes 50+ artists) of obscure European EDM labels, I don't think it's a reach to say the credit of those matters to you as well. I'm sure you don't intend to create content on each and every one yourself, so if somebody creates a decent amount of content on them, you wouldn't object. However, I think you would if somebody asked "can you please delete this page so I can create my content there, because I want my name to be first and not yours". Ss112 04:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please leave my redirects alone and stop moving them to other titles just so you can create the disambiguation page there. Hypocrisy much? You told another editor to stop moving your redirects and now you're doing it to me despite the history of our disputes? — Zawl 14:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zawl: Holy crap. A link to both Hayman30's talk page and now In ictu oculi's. Can you maybe stop following who I talk to? Thanks. Now onto what you said: It's got nothing to do with "just wanting to create the disambiguation page there", it's got to do with maintaining your page history so you don't get upset (but looks like you have anyway). Stop creating generic titles and they won't need to be moved. I've come to begrudgingly accept that IIO is just going to move old redirects I created anyway, and I think you need too to. If I were erasing things you made or intending to, then you'd have a point. You don't at this point because you're pointing generic titles to one specific page when they can apply to a bunch of others. Just as IIO said to me, you don't own the pages you "create", so it's best to not act like nobody else can touch them when by doing so, they're only intending to make Wikipedia more comprehensive. WP:AGF, and at this point you don't have a reason not to assume good faith of me, because our past was because you were in the wrong (and admins told you so). You disruptively moved discography pages I redirected to claim credit, and later copied a non-Unicode space character to create the Script's album article then harassed me via email about it (and admitted it). Who's in the wrong in those cases? That would be you. Drop the stick. Ss112 14:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I never harassed you! Why lie? I sent you one email asking about something and it was the last. I'm not following you either as I found those talk page messages coincidentally on my watchlist as those two are editors who I've had disputes with in the past. But maybe you're the one who's following me. How did you even find the redirects about Kendrick Lamar's old albums I created today? You must have looked at my contributions. It's sad the way you always exaggerate to make yourself look like you did nothing wrong. You expect other editors to write on your redirects but then get noisy when they try to take credit for their own work, how is that "within the spirit of a collaborative encyclopedia"? — Zawl 15:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zawl: I'm not "lying", it was objectively harassment. The tone was not pleasant, it was sent to berate me and ask if I was "happy" after you felt I was trying to take credit from you, when that was actually what you did to me, and at least two admins concurred. I don't intend to fully revisit it; I'm pointing out that the one who did wrong in our two major disagreements was you. You were in the wrong for trying to erase the creator of a redirect, when you create extensive amounts of redirects yourself. You appear to be fine with editors creating things over your redirects (and I'd say you "expect" them to do this too, so I don't know how I'm a bad editor for wanting that), but you don't want to create content on anybody else's, especially mine, and you engaged in disruptive tactics to avoid doing so. For some reason you started to believe a while back that I'm arrogant for creating redirects or wanting to maintain the credit for having done so. You said in your email that I was trying to "steal" credit from other editors when that's not how I see being the first name listed in the history, nor should anybody see it as that. One could argue all of those who create redirects (yourself included) want to take credit for being a part of the article process—there is nothing wrong with that. To single me out for blame in that regard when you engage in redirect creation every day and continue to do so is hypocrisy, so I think your real issue is that you just dislike me. Fine, whatever, but I'm not bad for doing the same thing plenty of hard-working editors do. I asked you above if you'd like it or accept it if somebody did what you did to me—even asking "can you delete your page so I can be the first name listed", and it was rhetorical because your answer would absolutely be no. Nobody would enjoy that.

Other editors utilise their watchlist too, you know. Richhoncho told me a while back on how to adjust watchlist settings to follow when an R from song template is added to a page and where; you can ask him how to do it. Besides that, you edited several pages on my watchlist earlier, and I have absolutely never said nor intended to say that there is something wrong with clicking on someone's contributions link to look at what they've done every now and again, so that's what I did in this case—that's what it's there for. Following someone's contributions extensively or jumping in on things they do to deliberately inhibit what they do (like joining in discussions to go against them), especially if you have a history of doing so, is when it's a problem and WP:Wikihounding (I'm not accusing you of having done so, I'm describing the situation in which it is hounding). I've repointed several other users' redirects too, not just yours (including those made by Another Believer and Hayman).

Also, I explained it above for you and you didn't write back so I assumed you understood, but it appears you still don't understand what I mean. Quote me on it: There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating a redirect or a page and wanting to maintain the credit for doing either of those things. However, I have never said nor am I fine with erasing redirects because somebody refuses to make a page there for whatever reason. As Primefac said: you are still considered the creator of whatever amount of content you add to a page, because it is shown in the history. That is "taking credit for your own work". Not being the first name listed in the history appears to your hang up—as if that even matters to most editors. Engaging in underhanded tactics to erase someone else's name because you don't like them and/or don't like them being listed "first" is absolutely not fine, and that is what I said is not in the spirit of a collaborative encyclopedia. Please don't try and twist my words by taking them out of context. Now, as for "It's sad", and "you always exaggerate"... if you can't drop the uncivil and inaccurate descriptions, don't write on my talk page. I won't miss it. If you're going to continue arguing with me over past things, please also don't reply. I'm over it. Ss112 15:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind if another editor requests me to delete my redirect so they can write their content. In fact, I vacated my Dharma Worldwide redirect in the past few weeks so that another editor (AnmolBhat) can move their content (by "my redirect", obviously I mean the redirect I create). My redirects are mostly created with the purpose of aiding readers first, and credit comes later. I don't want to keep this going any longer and I don't appreciate that the redirects I create are moved unnecessarily without some form of consensus like at RfD or something. I'm sure you too wouldn't like it if someone moved your redirect to create an article there. You also don't have to ping me as this talk page is on my watchlist. — Zawl 16:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard the reasons why editors create redirects. You can have whatever reasons you like, it doesn't matter. The end result is the same. Zawl, I figured you'd dislike it even more if I created a disambiguation page over the top of a redirect that you created for the sole purpose of redirecting to one album, and then I went and created the "properly disambiguated" redirect for that song myself. It's to maintain the page history, as I said. That's what other users do it for, like In ictu oculi, so that's what I will continue to do because that is the best solution other than "this should be a disambiguation page and I'll make the redirect for that song you intended it to be for myself" (I did that a few times in the past and it felt wrong to me, like in those instances that somebody would interpret that as me having wanted to make a redirect for that specific song myself). It is unrealistic to expect somebody to go through a RfD every time they want to do something with a redirect. That's mostly to delete redirects, and I don't want to delete them. As I told you, IIO and others have moved redirects I've made to preserve the page history of the song I intended it for and then made a disambiguation page over the moved page; I'm starting to accept it. I think you should too. Again, if you think it's for anything else other than to preserve your page history, that is entirely not the case. Wikipedia is not a place where I lie or feel I need to lie to users about my motives for things while secretly harboring some other desire to get ahead or "be the best" or "steal credit" like some conniving "I want to be the very best like no-one ever was, #1 redirect creator it's ALL MINE! HAHAHAHA!". What I do with your redirects is the means to an end to make a dab page. That's it. Ss112 16:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Mylene Farmer

Hi, I have a little chart question :) Wonder what's your opinion. An IP is changing peak postion for Mylene Farmer "Rolling Stone" on the Mylène Farmer discography‎. The song reached #73 on the main SNEP Sales + Straming chart and #1 on the component sales ony chart. The IP 145.226.158.81 is changing the #73 to #1. Should it be #73 or #1 on Farmer discography page? Max24 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

For You

What is this even supposed to mean? Why would I copy the whole thing and paste it back when there's a button to do so in a single click? I'm not the only editor on English Wikipedia that does it and I don't see anything wrong with doing it. Right, anything looks suspicious to you now. I didn't remove it because it was sourced on List of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon episodes (2018), but you'd definitely argue that it wasn't directly sourced on the page, so I added it back with sources, and here you are being fussy because apparently I reverted your edits and annoyed you with a notification. You're assuming that I'm doing this deliberately and you just can't hold your tongue against it. Just chill the crap out bro, this whole bull could've been avoided. Hayman30 (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for checking my reverts! Zyc1174 (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviews go alphabetically? I thought they went from highest review to lowest review

Ss112, are you sure album reviews go alphabetically? I have never seen a standard set, so empirically I thought I noticed a trend that reviews went from highest point score to lowest point score. I can't point to any article right now, but that is what I was aiming to match. Willing to follow your style, but just want to check to see if there is an actual guideline rather than a preference or something that you noticed via empirical observation. Mburrell (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mburrell: Yep, MOS:ALBUM says to see Template:Album ratings, which says: "The reviews should be listed alphabetically in the Reviews field." Ss112 08:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Learned something new. I admit I fall into a dazed stupor when I try to read a technical article such as MOS:ALBUM, so I don't retain as much detail as others. Mburrell (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Creep

Hello, I've seen your edits on Creep (TLC song) and wonder if you can give the whole article a slight copy-edit? It would be amazing if you can help me.

P/S: English is not my native language, that explains why the article was so poorly-written. At the time it was being finished, I did ask several users to check the article. It's my mistake, and I'm sorry. Beyoncetan (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The Very best of TLC

Thanks for the edits to my first attempt on here! I haven't quite got the hang of things yet, so I would certainly appreciate any more help you could give me. yates704 (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Charts

Hey! I wanted to ask you re: the Mexican English airplay chart and if it should really be removed if the song appears on the general airplay chart in Mexico. I've checked other articles and some songs still have both, like "Attention". It makes sense since, for example, all the US Billboard airplay charts (like Mainstream Top 40 and then Rhythmic, Latin Pop Songs, etc) are included in the articles. --Helptottt (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Who

...is this? Drmies (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies: No idea, just an IP adding unsourced recording dates to every one of an artist's articles. It happens quite often, they use different IPs and target articles of different genres. Ss112 01:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It is TON of them. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Hey Hey

hi, regarding the request on explanation for removing the small description, i never intended to make it look like somebody will owe me an explanation if they did. i simply just wanted to know the reason, and i’m really sorry if i sounded like i was selfishly demanding. and not just with Hey Hey Hey, but my intention with those pages i made changes to (like the images) was to get them in line and similar with their respective franchises. i once again only wanted to know why those changes couldn’t be made. i never planned my edits to be disruptive, and i’m genuinely sorry if i did. Daffaakbarr (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Savage (Tank album)

Hello, Ss112,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Savage (Tank album) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savage (Tank album) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Enwebb (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding an edit

I try to avoid asking you stupid questions but an editor removed this off the article, the reason I asking you this because of your edit with an edit summary, saying: "we use Metacritic's wording." You would might agreed with the removal, but I like to hear your opinion of it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps SummerPhDv2.0 didn't know that was what Metacritic says. It does seem a bit general, as Metacritic says "universal acclaim". Perhaps revert and explain, or use the specific quote "universal acclaim", as that's what 84 on Metacritic means. It's not in violation of WP:SYNTH if it's a quote. Ss112 07:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There a discussion right here, you probably will explain it a lot better then me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have another question, why it's a big deal of (exec.), instead of (exec.) in that fashion? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: I didn't know editors made a big deal over that. But the first one seems to make more sense, as the abbreviation of "exec." should be entirely within the piped link. Ss112 00:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well it's a big deal to me, I don't think other editors have a problem with it, it's just my curiosity. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

How to change date format in articles while using script? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Dance Club

So are we updating on a Friday now? Because the chart itself won't update until Tuesday. Although artist chart histories seem to update the previous Friday now.  — Calvin999 12:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Calvin999: It depends on the week when Billboard decides to update the chart history pages, so those can be updated as they show the peaks, but you're right, the chart archive page won't update until Tuesday. Ss112 13:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I do get the situation that puts you in though as you update the #1s list, and I'm sure there'll be some users clamoring to update the 2018 list because "we know 'Consideration' is number one already!" Even though we don't have a source other than Rihanna's chart history page. Ss112 13:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise we are going to have song articles which different chart positions to the chart articles for 4 or 5 days. We need to pick either Friday or Tuesday and stick with it, otherwise people are just gunna edit one to match the other.  — Calvin999 13:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Calvin999: If the information is available to us, there's no reason not to update the song pages. So long as it's done right (with dates updated), I don't have a problem with it. It'll just get annoying to keep reverting every user who comes along to do it and technically there's no reason to, as the chart history pages do show the information. It won't be every Friday; as I said, it depends on the week when Billboard chooses to display the information. Some weeks it's later. I think though that the #1s list is different and will probably be less subject to constant changes (for instance, this Clovaspark user didn't go and update the #1s list to match), and so if a user tries to update those without a source/another source, it's not entirely out of the question to revert them there and say wait for the chart archive to update (because the page only uses the chart date archives and not other sources). So I think the song pages are fine to be updated when the chart history pages change, and the #1s list should probably be saved until Tuesday. However, I don't care about the #1s list page for that anymore, so whatever is done there is up to you I guess. Ss112 13:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah but also, if you click the link to the chart on the chart history entry, it hasn't been created yet. I'm not sure why Billboard is doing it like this. I don't see the point.  — Calvin999 15:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Calvin999: I get that, but clicking those links isn't necessary as the chart history pages still show the data. Editors are going to update the song articles regardless, so to prevent unnecessary and excessive reverts, might as well do it when the data is available to us. Don't know why Billboard does their chart updates at the times they do. The lists and songs can be updated at two different times, but what you do on the list page and main Dance Club Songs article is up to you. Ss112 15:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Bulgarian Charts

Hey, I looked up for any reliable Bulgarian chart in WP:Charts and the only acceptable one is this one, but it is defunct since who knows when. I was wondering if you would accept this one, provided by Radiomonitor, as reliable or not. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gab10 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gab10: I'm not sure, I don't really pay attention to Bulgarian charts. Maybe ask at WP:RSN. Ss112 02:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

re: Date formats

OK, thanks, I'll try to keep that in mind. Kirtap92 (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI

FYI, you've been mentioned a couple times at an ANI discussion ongoing here. It's not really centered around you, so you don't need to freak out or comment if you don't want, but protocol says that pretty much anyone who is mentioned by name non-trivially, is supposed to at least be notified. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Daddy Yankee - Tropical Songs chart

Hi! I was wondering if Daddy Yankee's Tropical Songs/Airplay chart should be replaced by another, bigger chart in the future (of another country) because the table has reached the 10-column-limit and I think that the Tropical chart is not that relevant as the Hot Latin Songs chart. Also, Daddy Yankee is not a tropical music act and he would never chart any other reggaeton song again there because of Billboard's new methodology. Brankestein (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Brankestein: Sure, if there's a country he's charted more often and higher in than on the Billboard Tropical Songs chart, then by all means it's probably best to replace. Ss112 15:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Daddy Yankee discography - Mexican singles chart

Hi! Sorry to bother you again. I was thinking about adding the column for Mexico on Daddy Yankee's singles as lead artist section, but I have a question. Since Billboard and Monitor Latino both measure airplay for their respective Mexican charts, this airplay-based column should be composed only for Billboard or Monitor Latino entries (only one) or it could be composed by both of them? I'm asking this because the single "Shaky Shaky" peaked at number one on Monitor Latino's Mexican chart but at number four on Billboard's Mexican Airplay chart. Also the Billboard chart has a few more entries than the one from Monitor Latino. Brankestein (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy notice of discussion

Considering you do edit a good amount of albums on the Wikipedia, I thought I'd make you aware of this discussion to edit the current battle of {{Infobox album}}. Hope to see you there! livelikemusic talk! 15:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Future class

I understand the use of future class, but it truly doesn't matter if an album that hasn't been released yet has a stub article that is assessed as stub class or future class. I like future class because you can allow the article to become more developed as more sources become available, but I don't feel it has to be. I mean, you can have what amounts to a C-class or B-class article for a highly anticipated album, and I don't think it matters whether someone assesses it as C or Future. This is an area on which people do not need to be a stickler.

For the assessment you reverted Talk:Memories Don't Die, I just went through the entire category for future-class albums, since March 2 is just a couple days away and I don't keep track of the release date of every album, I reassessed the article to a stub because how pointless to have to come back to do it. There were also a number marked as future that were released months ago, so it's not like these are being checked regularly, so doing two days in advance rather than months afterward shouldn't be a big deal. When you assess a stub article for an upcoming album as a stub, I have no problem with that. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Don't get me wrong, I used to assess upcoming albums as stub or start, until Koavf reverted me for it on Talk:American Utopia. I'm not saying Koavf's word is law or anything, I just wanted to get it straight, because it appears users have different ideas. I mean, I have Memories Don't Die and a number of other upcoming albums on my watchlist, so I usually will come back to them and reassess if they end up developed and/or when they're released. I suppose for other users who are not sure they will come back to said article, then there's a use for assessing the article as stub/start/whatever. Ss112 16:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't have different ideas. When I see upcoming albums that are unassessed, I assess them as future-class, but I rarely change an assessment to future if it already has been rated. This one in particular showed a release date of March 2, 2 days away, so since I came across it while reviewing the entries in Category:Future-Class Album articles, it was going to do zero harm to make it stub-class now. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: I didn't say it was going to cause harm; however, it's still technically a future release. Also, it wasn't rated—it said future, and I merely changed it back to that by reverting you. If you mean importance, that isn't a rating, and it's "low" because importance applies to long-term significance and an unreleased album can't have long-term significance the moment it's released. That only comes with time. Ss112 17:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't care about importance. I will always put future albums as low or nothing at all. What I said is that I reassessed an album that was going to be released in two days anyway as a start (not a stub, my mistake). Reassessing one or two from future to whatever because the release date is two days away is not a big deal. Like I said, there is no reason to be a stickler on this. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It saw it as a simple revert; if it weren't on the talk page of an upcoming album I hadn't edited, I wouldn't change it to future. I'm not really concerned about it either way; I'm only explaining what I did because you brought it up. Ss112 17:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Lil Yachty discography

I was just in the process of moving the Takeoff album to "Collaborative Albums", sorry for your misconception there. BAPreme _{(T / C)} 19:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Lundell

I have created a article about musician Joakim Lundell who charted at the Chart last week. But you are more experienced with Chart tables, so when you got time please take a look at the article. Regards,BabbaQ (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I have today created a article about Felix Sandman and his song Every Single Day. Peaked high on the chart yesterday with his debut single, doing good in Melodifestivalen as well. Take a look if you like. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Cola

It still calls the song electro house. Can I remove it or will I get blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:892B:3D00:B0F8:D46A:9961:86F1 (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC) The Camelphat page says they make house and deep house. Where does Wikipedia get their facts? Listen to their music and it's TECH HOUSE. Cola page still calls it electro house in the summary?--2A02:C7D:892B:3D00:B0F8:D46A:9961:86F1 (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@2A02:C7D:892B:3D00:B0F8:D46A:9961:86F1: Now it doesn't. I don't know who put it there; I assume the editor who created the page. Ss112 20:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hello, I was wondering if you could help me in adding the chart section for Victory Lap . Have a nice day Josueuler (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Your message

I passed your concerns along to a CU and asked them to have a look in their Magic 8-Ball. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Port Saint Joe album

Good day! If you do not mind me asking, why do you believe that the album should be the primary topic for Port Saint Joe, instead of the city (case in point, Dallas)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Because I believed the city did not have "Saint" spelt out as commonly, and if it were, I presumed it would have been redirected already. Also, can you please not template me about my talk page getting long? I'm very aware of how long it is, and as you may see at the top of this page, I have archived my talk page plenty of times over the years; I don't need to be told how to do it. I will do it when I'm ready. Thank you. Ss112 19:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply - Thank you very much for your reply. Your talk page is over 75 kB, and is not being automatically archived, while mine is now well under that amount, and automatically archived after 30 days or so. I have redirected Port Saint Joe to the city, which we can discuss at RFD if needed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: I just told you I'm well aware how long my talk page is. It's not a requirement to archive one's talk page, it's primarily for the convenience for others. I will archive it when I'm ready, and I do not wish to have automatic archiving set up. I don't need to be educated on anything to do with that topic. Also, if I cared about where you repointed the redirect, I would revert it, which you would then have to discuss at RfD, because the way it is in the first place stays until consensus is reached. Ss112 20:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for making my edit on Top Off better. I was in a bit of a hurry when making that edit so it was a bit unprofessional. lol Foxnpichu (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Why you revert my edits on Coldplay discography? I know certifications are not actual sales, in recent years streaming still growing and become important part of certifications. If you check other artist sales data, most of them are includes sales and streaming. Esambuu (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Esambuu: We need actual pure sales figures, not how many sales and streams 5× Platinum in Canada is. You cited the Music Canada reference in this edit, which is the organisation that provides certifications. That column is for sales—so what we need is either an organisation that provides sales, like Nielsen, or a news article saying "the album has sold x copies in Canada", not the amount a certification is. Ss112 03:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Margaret

Why have you reverted my edits on her articles? In all of them we use the actual numbers insted of spelling them out as advised when the article was nominted for FA. We should stick to one option for consistency. ArturSik (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@ArturSik: I linked you to the reason why I reverted you: MOS:NUMERAL. If the person who reviewed the article didn't know about MOS:NUMERAL, then they should have and goes to show anything can basically become a featured article. Also, you should not be changing other users' accessdates. Your edits came across as if you tried to find something to change. I changed the information, I accessed it before you did, and it is 17 March where I live. It did not require you changing it to 16 March. Ss112 18:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Melodrama (Lorde album)

Hello,

Thank you so much for all the extra fixes on the article. I checked the revision history and noticed that you commented about changing the citation style of the article. I had not idea I did that. What I usually do is click on "cite" and just placed all the required information on the boxes. Should I not do that in the future? De88 (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@De88: It's fine to do that on articles you're creating for the first time or that are stubs with next to no references, but I think it's best to keep the existing ref style per WP:CITEVAR instead of trying to revamp it (or unwittingly doing so). Ss112 05:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: I was looking at the talk page and noticed that there was a debate about the album's genre. Although I marked the discussion as "resolved", I am having my doubts with this. The Consequence of Sound and Idolator reviews either tag the album with this genre or mention it. The Current, a Minnesota public radio station also mentions alternative pop. Her Pitchfork profile mentions that Melodrama "advanced her indie pop sound"; the genre redirects to alternative pop as well. Los Angeles Times called the album "a self-styled alternative to the glamazons that rule Top 40 radio", while Variety labelled it "weird-pop". Obviously, there are quite a handful of sources that add somehing else to just simply pop. Now, I am not urging that alternative pop be included in the article, but wouldn't this sort of quality it as such? Or at the very least could be it mentioned that Melodrama was seen as a "left of center" pop record? Just my two cents. De88 (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

South Korean sales

I noticed that the South Korean sales edit was reverted. Just wanted to let you know that I only removed it after a user who reviewed the article for GA told me to do this. He noted that since the sales were very small and only reported after one-week, that it was quite irrelevant to include on here. De88 (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@De88: I notice that a lot of users say this—that sales should be removed if they're only first-week sales, as if the purpose of sales is to have them be continuously updated, or that there will even necessarily be up-to-date figures available. Same thing happens with first-week US sales; plenty of users want to remove them for being outdated, but I don't think they're added in the first place to continuously be updated. With a lot of popular albums there will be updated figures available sooner or later, but if this is the only figure we have available for the performance of Melodrama in South Korea, then it's all we have. Ss112 06:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Niall Horan re IABot

To be honest, I don't know why the bot adds 'df=dmy-all' at the end of the Cite web template after rescuing. I can't see the difference between the last two revisions made there. Iggy (Swan) 12:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Just checking

Did you leave two messages on my talk page this morning? I want to be sure it was you before I act since they are signed by an IP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Nope, just saw those messages myself. I've interacted with the user they're talking about and I was a bit suspicious, but I wouldn't know to connect them to that user. Ss112 13:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I generally trust your judgement if you say that so and so is a sock of ----. But that level of trust does not automatically extend to editors and IPs I am unfamiliar with. They may well be right but they will have to make their case at SPI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I will say though, that after looking at Special:Contributions/Littlemixfan!, they appeared to extensively edit Melanie Martinez topics, and both Crystalstar accounts extensively edit Melanie Martinez topics too (here and here). I'd think it's quite a small pool who care about contributing that much to her articles. But yeah, I'm not overly familiar with Littlemixfan! and their history. Ss112 14:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Lorde

I sic'ed IABot on the whole article, but it stalled for so long that I started taking the article section by section to my sandbox & running IABot on the sections. Which worked OK until after at least an hour IABot suddenly remebered that I had called it an hour ago and... undid what I had done. So I undid the undoing. Everything seems OK now, though I didn't archive every section. You can if you want to. I'm done with it. Oh and I write ce on most of my edits because I am old and constantly skating on the thin edge of burnout here on WP. Call it laziness if you like. Anyhow, I'm done with it. Good luck. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Trying to Update/correct producer credit please help me.

I'm attempting to update the rich the kid, the world is yours credit for cassius Jay. My name is cassius clay and I produced the song. Not cassius Jay. Can I send you proof that I am the producer of the title song, "the world is yours". But I've attempted multiple times and you have changed it back without asking me why I changed it. What makes you think that Cassius Jay is the producer? Can we please update the credit. Thanks. I dont have a wiki page yet but I'm looking forward to setting it up asap. Thanks again CassiusClayBeats (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ss112. I've been searching for sources to settle one way or the other the dispute over the name of the producer of the track "World Is Yours" on the album The World Is Yours, but I can't find any reliable source. In an edit summary you wrote "I'm quite sure it's Cassius Jay who produced that". Do you know of a reliable source to support that statement? Since the claim in the article is disputed, and there's no reliable source cited for either, I shall remove the content from the article, and the correct version can be restored once someone provides a reliable source for it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: James, the content is already sourced to iTunes metadata. As credits are directly supplied to e-commerce sites by the label, they are considered reliable for such things and widely used for this purpose. This user (CassiusClayBeats) is one of these Instagram rebloggers with relatively few followers who try to convince and confuse people by editing Wikipedia and claiming that it was them to make a name for themselves. This happens countless times on hip hop articles. If you remove the credit (which I never added by the way, I just reverted this user), I believe you're falling victim to it. Ss112 12:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, having thought about the matter I had decided that removing the credit was a bad idea, so I came back here to remove my statement about that, but you had already replied before I got here. Can you tell me how I can check the iTunes metadata? I don't know how that works. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: If you have iTunes on your computer, you can view the album within the Store by right-clicking on the track. It's not accessible from an Internet browser. Ss112 12:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that would be the situation, but I asked on the off chance there might be some way I could see it. This is not ideal as a source, because it is not verifiable by everyone, but I am far more willing to believe you than "CassiusClayBeats" when it comes to things I can't check for myself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I agree, I would prefer if album articles cited Tidal, as credits are accessible from Internet browsers by right-clicking there and selecting "Track Info". It appears in this instance though that the album has not been pre-uploaded onto Tidal yet. Ss112 12:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I really tried to give him every chance, but he decided to go for this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Oh, I didn't even notice until now. Looks like he couldn't help himself. I'm just a clown, the world is his—got it. Hahahah. I don't know how he's going to send me an autographed copy if he doesn't know my address, though... Ss112 13:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Just calling you a clown and accusing me of lying I put down to expressions of his frustration, and although I warned him about personal attacks at first I kept it at a fairly low level. However, when he continued after that warning I decided he was deliberately thumbing his nose at us, and it was time to convey to him the message that behaving in a more adult way is required, not just requested. I wonder whether he will be back, or whether the block will persuade him to give up. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Please fix the credit for the song "Ooh Wee" off of the "Bloodas" album by Lil Durk and Tee Grizzley. The song is produced by Fuse AND start96beats. Check the instagram page of start96beats (https://www.instagram.com/start96beats/?hl=de). Fuse liked and commented on the post where it says that the song is produced by both of them. I've tried to change it multiple times but you always removed it. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwolter2 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: See what I mean? There's another editor I reverted for adding credits to Bloodas who's now messaged. These people who fancy themselves as hip hop producers keep coming back around and think a link to their Instagram with 50 followers is proof they've collaborated with a famous rapper. Ss112 18:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Why would Fuse comment on the post then if it wasn't the truth? The melody is made by start96beats and the drums by Fuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwolter2 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cwolter2: Somebody's account commenting on your post doesn't mean anything. Provide a reliable source noting that you apparently contributed to the song and then it can be included. Instagram is not considered a reliable source; it doesn't matter whose account it is. Ss112 03:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Like I Do

Hey Ss112, just created a stub for Like I Do (David Guetta, Martin Garrix and Brooks song) and I'm having a little trouble adding peaks there, so I'd appreciate it if you could help me with the missing ones. Thanks. Hayman30 (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

(Fuck A) Silver Lining

On the (Fuck A) Silver Lining page, I was wondering how I could make the page better to get it up to date and allow it to have its own page. I checked up on sources, and I know it has enough talk to be its own article. So how could I do it though. Thanks - Starlightstratosphere StarlightStratosphere (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@StarlightStratosphere: You can do so by finding reliable sources, copying those URLs and adding them as references to the page. See WP:Citing sources. Ss112 01:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, how did you get that 'This user is a My Chemical Romance fan' box on your user page? StarlightStratosphere (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@StarlightStratosphere: You can add it to your userpage by copying {{User:UBX/My Chemical Romance}} Ss112 02:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Havana, na na na

Hi. The Poppy video of her reciting the lyrics of "Havana" has gone over two million views. I don't usually work in the music pages, but maybe, if you have a couple of minutes, you can check to see if a source has emerged strong enough to include it in the External links. It's been up since 10 March I believe, so the two millions hits have to come from somewhere. Maybe Havana itself! Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Succession boxes

Hi. Thanks for the information you gave me about succession boxes on my talk page. I don't really understand why other users disapprove of them as I find them a useful tool in exploring the history of a certain country's popular music, but I'll stop focusing on them so much. I was wondering why they kept disappearing. Anyway, I appreciate the feedback. Thanks. Nowmusicfan2816 (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for Edit Summary on "Say Less" Page

Hello there! I want to apologize for my rude edit summary to you on the "Say Less" article. I greatly appreciate your help with it, and you gave me a lot of helpful information to keep in mind for the future (like removing the dm parameters and unnecessary publisher parameters). I did take your comments way too personal as you were just trying to help. I feel really bad as you were just helping out. I will probably take a Wiki break in the future to cool and hopefully learn to take constructive criticism/advice better. Hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: No worries, editing can get to us all and cause us to take things personally. Ss112 20:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the kind words! Hopefully, we can work together on something in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the help with the "Laundromat" (Nivea song) article. I worked on the article a while ago, and I considering revising it again to fix some of my previous errors and maybe put it up for FAC so I greatly appreciate your improvements. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

RE: ASAP Rocky discography

The criteria for what constitutes a 'promotional single' is quite blurred to begin with. There's plenty promotional singles that are released that don't end up on an album, plus ASAP Rocky has been releasing a lot of loose songs; this is the first to get a commercial release. Also the sources did not state it is a "lead single" or set to be part of an album ('non-album single'). Usually big singles receive more of a 'push' or 'campaign', so I concluded that it is a promotional single for his next album but won't be on the tracklist.

Put it in whatever section you want though. Ninjinian (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Hi Sean, thanks for reaching out. I can assure you that I've never even heard of a user named Madluke200, let alone operated under this alias. I've taken a quick glance at his profile and assume you've drawn some conclusions from their edits on "Man's Not Hot"; I'm far too busy with my university degree these days and don't have the time to argue the toss for that particular battle anyway! Have a nice evening. --ItsLuke (contribs) 20:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Another quick observation: the guy seems to have originally been named Madbrad200 and has renamed himself to Madluke200 - either way please know it's not a side project of mine and an IP check should be able to confirm this for you if you have any concerns. --ItsLuke (contribs) 20:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

My editing

My apologies for making those edits, the reason why I made those edits because the articles, Graduation, Unorthodox Jukebox and The Sea, have their studio locations in small text. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Theory of a Deadman discography

Hi there! I noticed that this is the second time you've edited out certain spaces in the tables of this discography, and I just wanted to ask what WP policy or guideline you are using in reference to this. Also, I was curious as to why those spaces, specifically, are not allowed. I certainly don't want to violate any acceptable standards, but I do want to understand it. I appreciate your time and efforts in explaining this to me. I'm just trying to learn here. :-) — Miss Sarita 14:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Miss Sarita: It's not based in policy or a guideline (I don't believe there would be a guideline covering how spaces are used in wikitables)—it's just avoiding using spaces between the end of the formatting (") and the pipe (|) because they don't need to be there. Also, as I said in my edit summary and at the review, as much as you want a list you've worked on to be featured, you don't need to agree with everything the reviewers say. I don't think I've ever read users saying "remove that column, because there's only one entry in it". The biggest argument against this is that there's nothing against listing columns for one entry on a chart, and that there are featured lists on Wikipedia with columns listing one entry (so if it were not recommended, I'm sure there would be far less). Ojorojo appears to have non-standard views on this, because they've worked on Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography—which honestly is not what I would consider the best example to go off. Like, what's the logic there—let's only list the US and UK and all others are relegated to a footnote in an "other" column? Hendrix has had plenty of his posthumous albums chart in other countries. You should check out other featured discographies—it's fine to do this for artists who haven't had much success outside of one or two countries. If this were a concern over the fact that we were at the recommended 10-column limit and we were listing charts the artist has only had one entry on over other charts they've had more success on, I might understand. Ss112 23:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ojorojo brought up the fact that the "Singles" table is particularly wide, which I would have to agree with, although I am aware of the 10-column maximum. It doesn't make much sense to me either to include charts where there is only one entry for a list of 35 singles. It seems like we are just "forcing" the chart to be included, but that's just me. Either way, I'm not married to one outcome or the other, so we can keep them in as you wish and we'll see how Ojorojo responds; thank you for voicing your feedback on the review. In regards to the spaces in the tables, I added them because it has made it easier for me to sift through the information quickly as I'm making mass edits to a particularly large table. Since this appears to be a personal preference of yours (and not based on a policy or guideline), I would have been more than happy to take them out at the end of the review and it would have been greatly appreciated if they had been left in...at least for now. Thanks. — Miss Sarita 00:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Miss Sarita: The singles column isn't particularly wide to me—it isn't even the full width of the page. As I said, if that's the extent of Theory of a Deadman's success outside of Canada, the US and those countries' rock charts, then so be it. Ojorojo appears to prefer to have all other columns besides the UK and US be represented with a footnote in a column labelled "other", and in case you're unaware, that is absolutely not standard for discographies. One entry or not, if those are the only overseas markets ToaD have appeared on, then one entry in a column is fine (to be specific though, Belgium technically has two including a footnote). As for the spaces, not everything has to be based in policy or guidelines, and not everything is specified in policies or guidelines. My "personal preference" aside, there's no point in extra spacing being re-inserted into the page, as you did, because I don't see anywhere on the FL review that somebody noted they should be added? Ss112 01:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I see you reverted my edit on this list (the discussion on why Discogs was used is in the FLC). The instability of the page has been noticed, which is jeopardizing the overall FLC (not assigning blame, just letting you know). May I please ask what you think I should do in this case? What references can and should be used? Can I use Template:Cite AV media notes to directly source the album covers? Thanks for your advice. — Miss Sarita 16:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Miss Sarita: I have commented at the FLC, which I really wanted to avoid. I believe citing the album covers directly using AV media notes is fine. Ss112 00:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You didn't need to comment at the FLC; I noticed that you stated that in the edit summary, which is why I contacted you here instead of pinging you on the review. I will try citing the album covers. Thank you for your input and advice. — Miss Sarita 01:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Miss Sarita: Yes, I know, but I didn't and don't appreciate Ojorojo's BS claims that I have a grudge against seeing the page becoming featured, hence my comment there. Ss112 01:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

"venue" parameter in {{Infobox album}}

Hello Ss112, I saw your comment about the venue parameter. I'm just going through Category:Music infoboxes with deprecated parameters (141K articles) and Category:Music infoboxes with Module:String errors (7K articles) to try and trim down the maintenance backlog. By default the venue parameter is included when the infobox is substituted, which is the method used to clean-up infoboxes and have them use a standardized set of parameters. The only way we can obtain consensus for its inclusion or exclusion when the infobox is substituted would be by bringing it up at the template's talk page. Until such consensus is reached, the venue parameter will continue to be included whenever someone uses the substitution trick on the template. Thanks. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

As a side note, I noticed you removed the "alt" parameter from an article in this edit. Alternate text, when present, aides users using a screen reader or have disabled images the opportunity to get a description of the image and is suggested in the manual of style accessibility guidelines. Please do not remove this parameter. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jon Kolbert: The venue parameter is entirely not needed for most studio albums. Also, I'm very well aware what the alt parameter is for, however nobody was bothered about it being there before so it doesn't need to be there now. Unless someone is willing to fill it out, it doesn't need to be there blank and this is of no use to screen readers if it's blank. So yes, if present, it helps, but a blank parameter helps nobody. Someone who is willing to do it will know to add the parameter, but nobody will go back through on all of the articles you've substituted the template on and describe the image just because you added the parameter. So I will continue to remove it where it's not filled out because there is no use in having blank parameters; MOS:ALT, which is not a guideline, and if I'm understanding it correctly, says with it present and blank it will skip the image as being decorative, and without it, it will read the file name... I don't see how reading a file name for the image impairs screen readers (sure, it isn't very helpful but with the alt parameter blank it pretends it's not there?). Also, please stop removing the commented-out text like <!-- Please source genres --> when you substitute the template. These are there to dissuade editors or notify them not to add unsourced genres. Ss112 01:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the venue parameter : I was just explaining that they will continue to be included whenever the infobox is substituted, there is no restriction from removing that parameter where it is not relevant. As for the alt parameters, they should not be removed even if they're blank. There's no telling when or where someone willing will come around to fill it out, but how will they know they ought to ought to fill it out if it is not there when they edit? I'd say the best course of action would be to leave them for now, they aren't doing any harm and are most definitely relevant parameters in all cases, unlike the venue parameter. Again, as for removing the generic comments in the infobox, that's a discussion that needs to go through the template talk page, just like the venue and alt parameters. If there is consensus for inclusion/exclusion of parameters and generic comments beside parameters in the infobox, those changes will be made to the standard template format. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, I noticed that the alt parameter is still being removed in your edits. I haven't taken too closely of a look, but the following edits did appear in my watchlist : 1, 2, 3, 4 but left it in these edits : 1 2. Again, I have no issue with the last pair of edits, they're really helpful and I would like to thank you for them. The only thing I ask is to start a conversation on the template's talk page before continuing to remove the alt parameter. I'll respect the resulting consensus of that conversation. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jon Kolbert: Is every page you edit added to your watchlist..? Why is this necessary just because you substituted a template on them? If that's the case, that's going to be a hell of a lot of articles added to your watchlist. I only left/leave it in where it was originally. Ss112 23:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Spacing

I don't get why the spacing between the lines is necessary (on Heart Break). Is there a difference? I don’t see one. 2003ty (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@2003ty: You appear to use Visual Edit—I don't think it looks different using Visual Edit, but editing the source it does. It's the done thing on every discography. If the rest of the article uses spaces (as it does, whether that be for aesthetic or visual purposes), then that should be observed all the way through. Ss112 02:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

America (Thirty Seconds to Mars album)

Hi there. Rolling Stone called America an "electronics-heavy album", that's why I added that source citing electronic as a genre [4]. What do you feel is wrong about that?--Earthh (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Earthh: Because if they meant the genre of electronic music, they wouldn't be using the plural. They're clearly talking about electronic equipment and/or instruments if they're using plural. A musician or band can use electronic equipment but not have an album be of the electronic genre. Ss112 23:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The source of A$AP Rocky being missing from the deluxe edition of the UK CD is my two copies of the CD along with multiple comments on the YouTube video of the track. There is definitely something going on there and I was hoping that by posting it I may get someone to elaborate rather than simply having it reversed. I've searched high and low for further information since the day the album came out with no luck. The version on my CD simply does not have that section. Same exact length but goes straight into the guitar. I have the track multiple times so know it well. I do now have another 5 copies of the CD each with a different insert along with 2 signed copies on the way. None of these are the deluxe and I've not yet checked them but will. Anything more you can find out would be appreciated but it is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.96.248 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Now listened to 4 copies of the CD including normal and deluxe. A$AP Rocky is not on the physical CD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.96.248 (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@86.20.96.248: Thanks for the update and all, but anecdotes are not verifiable sources we can add to Wikipedia. We need a reliable news source stating ASAP Rocky is not on the physical CD. Ss112 16:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

It's delicious and nutritious!~~ Buileducanh (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Buileducanh: Thanks! May I ask what I did to deserve this delicious falafel? Ss112 09:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

172.56.11.138

Can you revert this edit by this editor. This editor have been going around changing dates without explaining why. Block evasion by User:MakaveliReed. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dhoffryn and record sales figures. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Voidz

Hi, not trying to get into a "war". The Felipe Pantone section was removed by mistake as it had a non-source in the artist's website, which had absolutely no reference to his work being used for the cover. I simply forgot to readd it in the appropriate section with the current source out of human error. The unsourced genres are part of the band's page, so is generally accepted that they don't need to be sourced for that reason. Maybe times have changed. Brooklyn Vegan was simply a placeholder until I could find a better source, which I again forgot to add due to human error. No need to beef, man. Should have probably picked my words a bit better but was in no way intending to start an argument of any kind. Nbdelboy (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Another One (song) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Another One (song). Since you had some involvement with the Another One (song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join Women in Red

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.55% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for April: April+Further with Art+Feminism Archaeology Military history (contest) Geofocus: Indian subcontinent Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The Sciences article

Hi, Ss112. I just wanted to write here and say that I didn't mean to remove your 'unreliable source' tag without removing the Discogs link. I misread the change log and thought that the link was already gone. Anyway, I just didn't want to look like I was trying to start an edit war. Sorry, and thanks for the help on the article! CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Logical quotations

Thanks for letting me know about WP:LQ. Weird, but I'll learn to accept it! Dwiki (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Camila Cabello Discography

I was adding another chart for peope to see Why did you take it away? Tolono Malop (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

single chart template/ genre (re "I Said Hi")

Hey Ss112, I thought using a singlechart template would be preference to a non-singlechart template, because the ARIA Chart refreshes the top 50 every week, whereas the australiancharts site keeps the chart information. This is why I did this in the "I Said Hi" article. I am certainly not trying to be disruptive or incorrectly source. re the genres, I apologise for that. I did copy the previous single for the template for this one. I will be more careful to remove unsourced genre moving forward. Thanks, Tobyjamesaus (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus: Yes, ARIA does refresh the top 50 every week, but we shouldn't be citing a source when the information is not shown at it. When australian-charts.com updates, change it to a single chart template then. Ss112 08:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: No problem... I can/will do. As mentioned, any action by me is meant to improve/make things easier. Appreciate your time. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

For You article

My mistake, sorry. At the time of adding the certification of Portugal I put on top. *Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Notability opinion

If you feel inclined, would you mind offering your opinion on whether "Drive Me Crazy (song)" by Peter Andre may satisfy the notability guidelines for WP:NRECORDINGS or WP:NSONGS? I concede that it's not a huge hit, but it's the debut release from a notable artist and did chart within the top 100. I have added some other info on the talk page that may help to determine whether or not it is "notable". An editor you've had some recent issues with, Hayman30, is tagging the article as not meeting the notability guidelines, and has left a warning on my talk page for 'edit warring', although I've invited him/her to discuss this on the article's talk page. For what it's worth, I don't particularly care for Peter Andre, so have no personal stake in this, but feel since it charted (albeit lowly) it satisfies at least one of the notability criteria.Nqr9 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi

I was wondering if this source gives the song Dance You Off more chart positions. Or if I am just misreading it. [5].--BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: It looks like the source has tracked a bunch of weeks on the "Swedish top 20" (whatever that is; they might re-post the top 20 of the official Swedish chart) and the European top 100...I'm not sure if it's top40-charts.com's own European top 100 or another chart's. Either way, top40-charts.com isn't really recommended for use per WP:BADCHARTS because it doesn't state where its info is from. Ss112 02:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Dance You Off have now charted in the Lithuanian official Top 40 chart. [6].BabbaQ (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: That appears to be one radio station's figures though, so we probably shouldn't include it per WP:SINGLENETWORK. Ss112 00:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Please

I just wanted to let you know that you should do a little bit more of research before accusing someone of something. Stop assuming. I just saw you were asking me not to copy-paste references and another bunch of things i never did in the Liberation article. The only thing i did was to put the "Accelerate" credits and i didn't even used a reference. The space on the hlist was just a small mistake after moving the names to order them alphabeticaly, i don't usually do that. Everybody makes mistakes. And i don't loger copy-paste the reference template, i already have it memorized. I only do that with tables and tracklistings (xD).

Thank you. Anonpediann (talk)

@Anonpediann: Did you read my edit summary all the way through? I tagged you first and said can you please not use semicolons to bold. Then, in a separate sentence—indicating a different matter—I tagged KieranWard94 and all of what I said after that was addressing them. I thought that was clear enough because I don't believe that you copied any references, and KieranWard94 had added quite a bit of prose with sources obviously copypasted from elsewhere on Wikipedia, hence the years-old accessdates. Ss112 08:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ohhh sorry, i guess i didn't saw you were mentioning another person. And about the semicolons, is because i saw it written like that in another Wikipedia article i use as a reference a lot. So i'm going to change the semicolons there in the first place. Thanks. Anonpediann (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

SR3MM

My mistake for changing the duo's album title. I thought the SR3MM was just a stylization for the triple-disc packaging. I stand corrected. Maintaining (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Nervous (Gavin James song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nervous (Gavin James 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/Nervous (Gavin James song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Rollback at Levels (Avicii song)

Hi, I recently noticed your rollback of some changes on the Levels (Avicii song) article. I was just wondering if it would be alright for me to undo your rollback, for these reasons:

1. The song genre is most definitely progressive house, as mentioned explicitly in the lede.
2. The information removed from the composition section was actually introduced in 2013 in this edit, this edit, and mostly this edit, and the edit from the IP 2405:204:962f:3ca5::848:58a5 was just to re-add the information (after 115.164.209.21 removed the information, thinking that it was added by a different user here).

I can understand why you'd object to this, since (off the top of my head):

1. The IP added some incorrect charting information for another article (which I see is one of your pet peeves)
2. The information, when added in 2013, was unsourced
3. The information was added by an account that is currently suspended for being a sock puppet

Also, I put this on your talk page since you performed the rollback. Please let me know if this discussion doesn't belong here!

Thanks!

Hickland (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hickland: I also removed it because even in 2013 when it was originally added, it doesn't appear t have been sourced. If a reliable source can be found for the genre and the information, then of course, I wouldn't object to it being there. As progressive house is unsourced, that should be removed from the lead as well. It very well might fit that definition of that genre, but until a source can be found it's still unsourced information. See WP:Verifiability, not truth. Ss112 02:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, fair point actually... I didn't check whether or not the lead paragraph had any sources! I will see if I can find any sources that state that. Thanks! Hickland (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ss112. I wanted to ask you if you know anything about the Latvia Top 40 chart and if it is reliable? I can't deduce if it is WP:SINGLENETWORK or not. CoolMarc 09:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: I believe it is reliable, because it's run by the Latvian public broadcaster Latvijas Radio, whereas most radio charts like this are run by a commercial network. Ss112 23:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Component chart

Hi, Ss112. On the article for The Sciences, you mentioned Tastemakers being a component chart. What is that, and when are they allowed? Thanks! CelestialWeevil (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@CelestialWeevil: You can check out WP:USCHARTS and WP:CHARTMATH, which explain some of it. Component just means their figures contribute to more comprehensive, overall charts. As far as I understand, Tastemaker Albums is just what albums are selling the most in independent record stores, whereas the sales from those stores would be contributing to the album's overall placement on the Billboard 200. If the album hadn't charted on the Billboard 200, we could probably make a case for including it. Ss112 23:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Latin Trap (genre)

Hey, could you fix the Latin Trap (genre) page, it is supposed to say Latin trap (genre), I mean the word redirect page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.19.180 (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Yearspan

Hi. I saw your edit summary regarding the year spans, the occasions I don't change it is because it did not peak in 2018 - the peak just wasn't added. CoolMarc 20:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: Well, I don't know how readers are supposed to know that, considering the page for Venezuela's chart in and of itself doesn't tell us when the song reached its peak, but I'll take your word for it. Ss112 20:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The chart page has "PICO" underneath each song which means peak. If the song peaks on the week of the new chart it will only show on the "PICO" of the next one. CoolMarc 20:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: I got that, however, I'm saying it doesn't show what year songs like "Shape of You" peaked in. Sure, it achieved most of its success last year, but it's possible it could have achieved its peaked this year on this chart. I don't entirely trust the data this chart is displaying. I just added a few peaks after looking at the website but as I got further down the chart, it appears this chart has the same glitch as a lot of charts where it shows albums and songs that re-entered the chart as having spent one week on the chart with its peak being its re-entry position, even if it had already spent a lot of weeks on the chart or was previously a number one. Italy's chart does it, Switzerland's sometimes does, they all do it. So you could be entering that something is the song's peak when it really isn't and it had previously peaked higher than what is underneath "Pico". I'm quite sure it's giving very limited statistics. Ss112 21:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm also pretty sure this is the reason other editors haven't added the chart already. I have seen users like Gab10 add the Venezuela chart from this site before, so perhaps they're only inserting data they're sure of since they began following the chart and avoiding adding it to articles if they aren't sure of when it peaked. Ss112 21:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I havent found any inconsisties though and have noticed the ones added aren't always archived which is important in this instance. CoolMarc 21:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure there are inconsistencies. Perhaps they're not immediately apparent if one hasn't been following the chart for long. But some of those songs surely peaked higher in 2017 and certainly, even if it's not the data being added, the songs (as they have a higher peak than where they are currently at, which indicates weeks previously spent on the chart) have spent more than the listed one week on the chart, so that's another glitch. Ss112 23:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Dracoijui

@Ss112: Can you check the activity of User:Dracoijui? He was modifying some discographies earlier. Thanks. HueMan1 (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

French singles chart

Hi, on 2 February 2018 I asked you about Mylene Farmer and the French singles chart. You did not respond to me and Farmer has #1 in her article for "Rolling Stone" and also #1 for her 80's single "Libertine" which was re-released on vinyl in 2018. Now I see you have removed Dion position because it was on downloads only chart. So which is it? Not so long ago I asked you about this for Sheeran or Smith and the consesus was to add the chart where it charted higher. Have you changed your mind? What about Farmer? What about all others who use Downloads chart? And why have you removed it completly but in the UK case, you have yourself added Dowloads only chart in the note? Max24 (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Max24: I forgot to respond to that, but I believe you're talking in part about getting peaks from lescharts.com, which I still occasionally use when filling French peaks in. It's never replicated the downloads chart exactly; it's always a bit different. As for the UK peak on Celine's discography, that's a note, not written as a number as if that's the overall singles chart position. It's still somewhat common to substitute the lack of a peak on the overall chart with a note if it charted on a component chart. About France though—yes, I have changed my mind, hence why I don't add the télécharges chart peaks anymore. Not that I would expect you to have noticed that, just saying that I don't. I stopped after reading a series of articles about how little downloads account for overall peaks on charts and how big an impact streaming has worldwide. I mean, I'm not saying let's go back and correct everything. You can do what you like on articles you edit, but I wouldn't personally recommend using the télécharges chart anymore. Ss112 05:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi

If you have an issue with me, please bring it to my talk page instead of leaving inflammatory comments in an article's edit history. I was not trying to target you and I apologize if I did something to make you think I was. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

No Cross No Crown (Corrosion of Conformity)

Hi,

I saw there was an article on this album a while back but you redirected it to the band article. Any chance that can be restored? I've been doing a little research and it looks like there's enough coverage to establish notability. Shaneymike (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Shaneymike: Sure, I have no objections if there's enough coverage in secondary news sources to back up an article. Ss112 02:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: Okay, I've restored the article and uploaded the cover art. Right now I have two links, the ones from Metacritic and Allmusic. I'll definitely add more to establish its notability later. The Metacritic link lists 8 critical reviews. Shaneymike (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ss112. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-Ad Orientem (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey

Apologies for any problems my recent edits might have caused. I've only recently got back into editing after a long break and have been using formatting (especially in references) that was more accepted a few years ago, but obviously the standards have changed since then - I'll make an effort to act on the stuff you've pointed out to me. On the Norway page I just got flat-out sloppy, I'll keep that stuff to my sandbox in the future. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Need your help

Free Yourself Up is the new album of Lake Street Dive. I replaced a redirect with specific album information. Some unpleasant person said it had no nobility and deleted everything. Apparently you reestablished the redirect (given lack of content, a reasonable action).

I have a copy in one of my sandboxes and will try to get rid of the redirect again. Given your profile, you understand music entries. I would appreciate your help incase User:Onel5969 or some other " " person/bot gets rid of it again.

I created some other album pages for LSD and Bridget Kearney and not had this happen. Think the issue is with trying to change a redirect. Sigh I could create the page Free Yourself Up (album), and put a disambugious link or what ever. Ideas? Thanks Rcollman (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies

Thank you for the correction but you could have been a tad nicer about how you did it (I'm aware text has no aural context but it still came across like you were annoyed at me). I'm not purposely using 'publisher/work' to cause a problem. I've been doing it based on citations I saw on other articles. Thought that was how it could be done so sorry for getting them mixed up. I genuinely did not know there's a difference as I have not seen every single template on here to be aware of it in the first place. - Carlobunnie (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

About Clean Bandit discography

Hey, Ss112. you roll backed my 「Clean Bandit discography」 Edit, but you should read 「Wikipedia:NPOV」. this is Wikipedia policy, it is not guidelines.--Katanori04 (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Katanori04: WP:NPOV has nothing to do with your edit. You listed a certification for a country that is not listed on the page. This is not what we do. Discographies are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all countries the song charted in or all certifications a song received. Ss112 09:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: OK, so I will add the list Japan section, thanks--Katanori04 (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Katanori04: No, the page already has 10 columns, and there's a recommended 10-column limit for discographies. I don't think Japan has enough entries or more than a country already listed to justify it being there. Also, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page. It's my talk page. I will get a notification anyway. Ss112 12:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Love Yourself: Tear

Hi! Apologies for the confusion on the page, I'd just like to clear things up! First of all, the italicized comment wasn't aimed at you! The editor who added the song titles was Carlobunnie and they italicized the names initially.

Regarding the Naver issue, it was an error. I was restoring "work" because the articles are written and published by the news sites themselves, and Naver simply hosts it. In my opinion, it'd be more fitting to credit them rather than Naver since they wrote the article and own the copyright, which is sometimes explicitly stated in the article itself. I didn't intend to add Naver back as a publisher. My goal was actually the opposite. If you look at the changes I made to the page, you can see I removed "publisher=Naver" from many citations, however I made an error and missed some. I do understand Template:Cite web and simply made a mistake when making the changes. I used control+f to locate the parameter and remove it, however, the edit page can get a bit messy. "Naver" also appears in the URL to many articles, and in my attempt to not ruin the URLs I missed some "publisher" sections. This, however, is still an unnecessary error and creates problems for the page. This was my mistake and next time I will be more thorough.

Thank you for your help with the articles and watching them closely, it is honestly very appreciated. Also, as I am still new to editing, thank you for pointing out errors in my edits so I may improve. I apologize if my edits were frustrating or seemed like they were intended to upset or correct you, this was not my goal. Nyantatata ^-^ ^{(Say hi!)} 20:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we stop classifying "songs by artist" categories by genre?

I wonder if you'd be interested in this discussion re: the categorization of all songs by an artist by specific genre(s). Feel free to contribute if you're interested. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)