User talk:Ss112/Archive 15

Windowlicker

Hi Ss112, would you say this description of Windowlicker by The Guardian is direct enough to cite glitch as a genre? Theo Mandela (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: I think it's using glitch as a different term there, especially considering it says "glitch-fest". I mean, things that sounds glitchy can occur in different types of (electronic, predominantly) music, so my personal opinion is no. Ss112 06:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Theo Mandela (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello! I came onto your talk page quite awhile ago and began an altercation over something very minor, and for that I'd like to apologize. I generally wasn't in the right state of mind back then, and had taken something too personally that triggered my lashing out, but that definitely doesn't excuse it. Your contributions have always been beneficial and valuable, and I sincerely hope that I didn't deter you from it. diplomat’s son (talk+contrib) 21:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Diplomat's Son: That's alright, I don't even really remember what it was about. Ss112 23:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Rolling Stone charts

Hello,

I would like to know your take on the subject I pointed above as this are new charts. Do you consider their mythology to be reliable and that can be added to Wikipedia pages or is it just too soon to say so?

MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: I think they're okay to add to song and album articles, but I'd hesitate to add the chart's peaks as columns on discographies or in discography sections. I don't like that anybody would be positioning them as already having anywhere near the importance of the official US charts, which is recognised to be Billboard, and not a chart that literally just started. And already, editors are being really annoying with changing the peaks to what the song/album says below it, which is from the daily charts that Rolling Stone has said they calculate every day to arrive at the weekly chart data. Nice4What has already written the essay WP:RSCHART for editors to link to, so hopefully that solves some of the issues, but certainly it won't solve all of the issues. I just know fans of certain musical acts are going to cry about how they think the Rolling Stone chart should be considered more important because their favourite act is doing better on there than on Billboard, as they have already started doing on Taylor Swift articles. Ss112 10:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for discography

Hi Ss112 -- I'm working on this article about a musician named Marc Rebillet, and I'd like some advice. He has released three albums (one LP and two EPs) that I can find by looking for them on streaming services like Spotify. But I can't find any news articles or album reviews or any traditional sources that confirm their existence, not even on Discogs, which lists him as an artist but does not list the albums. The only thing I can find is this from albumoftheyear.org: https://www.albumoftheyear.org/artist/48212-marc-rebillet/. Is it sufficient that the albums exist on the streaming services in order to list them in a Discography section of the article? Thanks for any help! -- Cloud atlas (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cloud atlas: Yes, it's sufficient if not ideal per WP:AFFILIATE: "Inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times". Ss112 01:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: thanks for the tip and for pointing out the right policy. I'll keep my eye out for additional reliable sources on the discography. -- Cloud atlas (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

J Balvin discography

Hello! As it appears in this article, Billboard has revealed the amount of copies of Oasis that have been sold on its first week: "nearly 36,000 equivalent album units (of which 5,000 are in album sales)." Which one (equivalent or pure) do you consider that should be added to the studio albums sales table on J Balvin discography? --Gab10 (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gab10: We normally don't put units in columns on discographies (I'd say as most editors don't consider streams significant enough to note there), so you should probably go with pure sales, even if that figure is small. Ss112 04:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gab10 (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: Use edit summaries and please don't change lists for no reason

Okay, sorry about that. Sometimes I get a bit OCD about how some formats look, and I thought the flatlist formats looked better than the hlist formats. But if that bothers you, then I won’t do it anymore. I hope you have a good night. Goldfeathermil (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Goldfeathermil: It's not only that, because as I pointed out, flatlists are encoded into Template:Infobox song now, so you can just list names/items as bullet points without putting {{flatlist|}} around it. Ss112 05:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Charts

Hi, just asking a question in regards to album charts. I understand that if an album peaks from say 5 and moves to 2 on the charts, we update it. But what happens if an album goes down, so 5 to 8 on the chart, does it get updated or are the charts only supposed show their highest peak that they got to? Sorry if it sounds stupid--Mjs1991 (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mjs1991: Yes, peaks only, as the wikitable usually notes "Peak position". Ss112 01:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Africa Express

Hey there - let me know which bits of the Africa Express organization's page you're feeling aren't Wikipedia enough in tone and I'll endevour to change them up (or better yet please feel free to go in and sort that yourself, it's quite a large page and I'd rather not get into a long & continued back and forth on 'this works'/'this doesen't particularly as that often just reaches a point of different interpretations of the aesthetics of writing, with-in Wikipedia's guidelines.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaroldPalmer (talk • contribs) 17:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey there Ss112 - am still looking for a reply on this, thanks. HaroldPalmer (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@HaroldPalmer: The entire tone of the article comes from a place of "this organisation is so good for people". That's great, but that's not encyclopedic. It does not matter how much good we think somebody or something does, we write about it neutrally. It would need substantial rewriting to make it neutral. I don't have that much interest in the topic to rewrite it myself, hence why I did not respond. Editors do not have to "fix" problems themselves—often times that is left up to somebody who can. Ss112 21:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Access dates

Might sound like a stupid question, but I'm working on this and in the process of cleaning up all the citations, and after reading the bit on your user page about updating access dates I'm wondering if I should have updated the ADs for all the references? Ones where I replaced the existing ref with a new one obv have that date on it, but others where I added archived links (did this for 90-95% of them) for example, I don't think I updated those. My thinking has been if I didn't originally locate the reference then regardless of how I edit it I don't change the AD. Am I just misinterpreting this? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: If you accessed the website again and/or changed part of the reference, you should probably update the accessdate, as it shows that the webpage is still active. It's not really so common to update the accessdate if you're just archiving references however, as bots and programs that help do this don't change the accessdate so I don't see that it should be required for users to do so. Some users don't believe the accessdate= parameter is particularly necessary at all when a website is archived. Ss112 19:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: I accessed every single website referenced to verify that they all clearly contained the info they're supposed to support/locate dead links/add missing archived links which led to my archiving everything because I felt more comfortable in that knowledge/and for posterity. So I guess I should still update them? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

Re this- my superhero suit won't be returned until sometime tomorrow. If it's still an issue then, I will zap them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Your AIV report

User now blocked, after your AIV complaint. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Pitchfork Media and citations

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

---

Not sure what you're talking about with CS1 etc. but please see {{Cite web}} and if the documentation needs to be amended, do so. Also, "Pitchfork Media" has published several things other than the site Pitchfork (e.g. The Pitchfork Review and The Dissolve); they are not the "same thing". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: I think you need to read further down on Template:Cite web: "Having both 'publisher' and 'website' is redundant in many cases." Where one says "Pitchfork Media", they do the mean same thing, and they are the same thing, because the publisher of Pitchfork is not Pitchfork Media, it's Condé Nast. I'm quite sure "Pitchfork Media" supposedly being the publisher of The Pitchfork Review just means it was published in-house and not by the company that owns the website. Ss112 04:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, your insistence is just contrarianism at this point because you don't like when I edit pages you created. If that's the case, Koavf, I'll be starting the content on any music-related redirects I make that I think you might be interested in before you get a chance to, as I was going to do for Wilco's album, because your insistence on having everything your way, like list-defined references and red links that nobody is going to make, is ridiculous, and you edit war over the slightest things—and not only that, but you get away with it in most cases, as we saw on Kamikaze (Eminem album), and no admin is willing to block you for it or take you up on it. Ss112 04:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

"Honestly, your insistence is just contrarianism at this point". Seems like the glove fits. You pointed me to a page that suggested adding the publisher when it's non-obvious. I learned a new thing today about who publishes Pitchfork--thanks for educating me where I was ignorant. And since it is not obvious that this print publisher who has lifestyle and travel magazines also owns this music review website (which they did not found), then it's totally appropriate to include it. You are the one who seems to care so much about list-defined references: I'm just following the standard. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:POINT about things like adding whitespace that accomplishes no purpose. Any allegation you could make that I am being petty could just as easily apply to nonsense like that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Koavf: Pitchfork was called "Pitchfork Media" before the website changed its name to just "Pitchfork". Ss112 is right, Pitchfork and Pitchfork Media are the same thing. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: WP:POINT? The spacing is IN the documentation for Template:Infobox album, and I'm quite sure it was put there after users discussed it. My point that you edit war over stupid things just to have things your way because you're used to getting it is proven. Ss112 05:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ss112, Where in the template documentation are we obliged to have these whitespaces? Is there any policy saying that we are supposed to add whitespace to make the equals signs in templates align that I don't know about? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that most template documentation does not say we are obliged to do things, it just lays the template out and recommends how it should be. Your insistence we would need template documentation to state we must do it a certain way is just finding excuses to not do so now. I believe the alignment by inserting spaces was discussed and inserted (either on this or the infobox single template) after users (I believe it was Livelikemusic) were annoyed that users were removing or disregarding/misformatting it and wanted a formal consensus on the matter. Ss112 05:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ss112, If you can show me this consensus, that's great. Otherwise, you're adding noise to a page to... do something but I'm not going to speculate as to what it is. You know as well as I do that you don't get to come to a page with an established style and change it because you don't like it. (By the way, it's been a year since you've called list-defined references "outdated", I'm still waiting on some proof that's true). This cuts both ways, so I also don't get to change pages to American English or use mdy dates just because I like them. If you want to make articles to preemptively add {{track listing}}, I guess that's up to you. Do you think I should revert this edit? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: I can't be arsed to find it; go ask Livelikemusic on their talk page. You've come to my talk page two days later to continue an argument for God knows what reason when I was over it already and assumed you were. Literally nobody said they wanted to change an established style here; I just voiced my opinion that I and a lot of editors don't like list-defined references because most music articles these days don't use them. If users liked that style, it would be more widely used. Don't tell me it's not, because I edit newer music articles more often than you do and 99% do not use list-defined styles. I stand by calling them old; it feels like an old method of approaching citations to me and it's a royal pain in the arse to navigate to an end section where all citations must be kept! so the prose can look all pwetty and neat. I only really still see list-defined references on the few album articles you start. I don't even know what you're on about with the track listing template now and I really don't care. Please spare me a reply. I'm archiving this. Later. Ss112 19:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, Thanks for this. Either way, it seems like their proper publisher is CN. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Album charts

So there is an article with Top Current Albums and Top Album Sales, the only difference being the former also includes catalog titles. It never peaked on the Billboard 200 and it also debuted on the Digital Albums. Not sure which charts should be kept in order to pass the GA review? Thanks in advance. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Even though the final decision is up to you, I wouldn't recommend keeping the Top Current Albums chart as it's just Top Album Sales without older albums, so it's a redundant component chart. Even the main Billboard 200 includes older albums. Top Album Sales also includes physical sales if I'm not mistaken, so Digital Albums should be fine to keep as it's only factoring in digital sales and the album didn't make the Billboard 200. Ss112 15:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

My exact toughts. Thak you so much. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

MJH?

Modernghettolicious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: For sure it's MJH, the Grace Jones edit warring is a dead giveaway, as is the Camila Cabello articles. Ss112 18:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Also AO, while I'm on the topic, could you drop a warning to Magnolia677 for edit warring? He seems to think that reverting editors for adding unsourced material is a justification for clearly going over 3RR, having performed four reverts of two editors (TropicalIce and an IP editor) on World War Joy. I think he perhaps needs a reminder that that's not an excuse as it's not vandalism. He thinks he gets a free pass because WP:V is an "overriding policy", despite the fact editors have been blocked for less. Ss112 14:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Another one? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: From the name alone and genre warring on a Beyoncé album article as their only edits, definitely. Ss112 16:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Rolling Stone charts

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't see any consensus either way, and usually "off-the-grid" charts like that are frowned upon. If each position is verifiable, then it should be usable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikidestruction vandal

I guess Special:Contributions/2a00:23c6:6583:1c00:947:9836:211b:fa27 is a long-term abuse of Wikidestruction vandal. Thoughts?

--2402:1980:8243:5FD9:F050:26E9:E215:EB94 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@2402:1980:8243:5FD9:F050:26E9:E215:EB94: It definitely is them. The partial blanking, the edit summary "so someone will redirect the page"...classic signs. @Ad Orientem:, could you block 2a00:23c6:6583:1c00:947:9836:211b:fa27 for being Wikidestruction vandal? Ss112 13:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd guess the same applies to the whole /64. Note that there are a few currently-unreverted edits there. Κσυπ Cyp   14:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 2A00:23C6:6583:1C00:0:0:0:0/64 x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Benn Gunn

Hi... Being Australian and a chart enthusiast, I presume you can clear up what counts as the official country music charts in Australia, if any? The article Benn Gunn talks a lot about "number-one country hits" without anything to back it up... I'm guessing they're talking about the Country Tracks chart that is repeatedly referenced? If that's not official, then this article doesn't look like it passes notability and may be a candidate for AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Sorry, I only just noticed this message. Yeah, I have never heard of that chart. They might consider themselves an official country airplay chart but they don't really have the coverage or use to back it up. There might be enough coverage outside of the unofficial chart though. Ss112 18:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the same - it needs a drastic trimming to cut out the promotional language, but there might still be a basic stub there. Thanks for checking. Richard3120 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Discography

Hello there, a few days ago you had adjusted the discography on the page Famke Louise to the correct Wikipedia guidelines. A few months ago (when I didn't know about those guidelines) I made the discography on the pages of Ronnie Flex and Bizzey. If you have time, would you like to take a look at those pages and adjust it as you did on the Famke Louise page. Regards RuedNL2 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Finneas O'Connell

Hello, I know you are an experienced music editor having been pinged to discussions about Billie Eilish. Can you please review recent edits to Finneas O'Connell. I think there has been vandalism. I reverted but I don't think I got everything. Dartslilly (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Apology

Hi dude,

It has been brought to my attention that a source that I used on the page for the Sam Smith song 'How Do You Sleep?' ('The Recluisve Blogger') wasn't reliable or acceptable.

I did not realise this was against the rules at first and was only trying to help with the page.

I deeply regret this mistake and apologise for any anger I caused you. I will try taking precautions to ensure this never happens again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJoTheDodo456 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Billboard URLs

Hello, I came to ask a question regarding certain Billboard URLs because when I decide to click on a certain artist url page to see what charted on that specific chart, (EX: Daughter [1], Willow [2] and Logic [3]) the chart positions doesn't seem to appear up on the url anymore. Is this some sort of issue or did Billboard stopped this because Katy Perry's [4] [5] url's seems to be working fine while other artists url's I click on seem to not show up anything. I ask you because of the experience you have with editing chart positions for a lot of different artists because I don't know what's going on with them and maybe you know what is happening? FettyHyper (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@FettyHyper: Yes, a lot have disappeared and nobody really knows why. This has been raised at WT:CHARTS#Billboard online archives gone?. Ss112 15:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Hello,

I'm currently nominating Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song) for deletion, I would appreciate your expertise on the discussion with a vote and comment if possible. Moreover, if you do manage to find the time I would appreciate a vote on Talk:Spaceship (Kanye West song) and Talk:Two Words, as well.

Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit

Can you please edit a page title for me? Barbie Tingz (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Uploading images

Hi,

Thanks for your comment, i'll try to reside any other images i'll upload in the future. User:SicaSunny (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Melt with You (Carly Rae Jepsen)

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

---

Why does this redirect to an album called Kiss? I can't find anything in the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: It's on the article in the track listing section under Japanese bonus tracks. Ss112 18:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I wonder why someone decided to hide these? That's why I didn't see it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Extra bits of track listings are collapsed by default. It's an option in Template:Track listing. Ss112 18:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Even if it's an option, is this good practice?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: If you have an issue with it, you can raise it at Template talk:Track listing. I didn't hide the extra track listings. I had little to do with the article. Thanks. Ss112 18:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Olivia O'Brien

Hello! I hate to ask other editors to do work for me, but I know you can do it best. Would you be able to add the cover art for Was It Even Real? into the infobox? It'd mean a lot! It feels a bit incomplete without a photo. Thank you! – DarkGlow (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@DarkGlow:  Done Ss112 09:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"Melt with You (Carly Rae Jepsen song)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Melt with You (Carly Rae Jepsen song). Since you had some involvement with the Melt with You (Carly Rae Jepsen song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: So you came to my talk page, found someone had mentioned this and nominated it for deletion. This would be setting a ridiculous precedent if it were to be deleted. We might as well go around and delete redirects for all tracks on an album. Ss112 22:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"Go Slow"

Hey @MaranoFan: I just want to let you know that I created the article for Go Slow because it's number one on the Dance Club Songs chart this week and I noticed it didn't have an article while I was updating the peaks earlier. I only saw after I added the link to "With You" that you had earlier reverted an IP for adding the link to the redirect, which is fine, but I didn't want you to think I saw that and thought it should have an article for that reason. Ss112 02:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Fine by me. Article looks great.—NØ 03:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

2-step songs

Hi, Do you know why on Wikipedia most of 2-step songs are just labeled UK Garage? Examples -

• Sincere (album)
• Flowers (Sweet Female Attitude song)
• Sweet like Chocolate
• Ladbroke Grove (song)

I mean there's a page for 2-step Garage so why not point people to it? Rate Your Music for example treats 2-step seperate to Garage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:5568:FB4A:347B:3B5 (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@2A02:C7F:3846:4500:5568:FB4A:347B:3B5: It just depends what sources say. 2-step is a subgenre of UK garage so it's not entirely incorrect, but I get what you mean about specificity. Rate Your Music is WP:USERG so we can't cite that as a source. (Also, I hope you don't mind but I corrected the links in your comment.) Ss112 06:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Aerosmith Capitalisation

Thanks for the correction. Any help is appreciated.PPAACCMAN4 (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Promotional singles

If it bothers you that the promotional singles released exclusively to iTunes/Spotify/etc. aren't included in Miranda's discography page, then why not make a subsection for promotional singles? But putting them in the table alongside the mainline singles to country radio just scans as inaccurate. Whenever 'Wash' is done charting and they send another single to country radio, every single publication in existence will refer to said song as the album's second single. Nobody at Billboard or Rolling Stone or whatever is gonna call it the fifth 'single' from Wildcard (assuming she doesn't release even more 'promotional singles'), etc. So if you wanna call them promotional singles and make a table for those, I say go for it. They're just not interchangeable with what has happened with "It All Comes Out in the Wash." I also still don't understand this need to be deliberately abrasive and hostile with me. I'm one of the only editors on this site that still seems to even be able to put in any effort keeping up with updating a lot of country music articles (I just had to make a page for Luke's Bryan latest single that was already top 5 on the charts -- something I would've guessed would be accomplished within a week of its release, lol), but I'll just keep making edits and doing my thing while you do yours. /shrug CloversMallRat (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@CloversMallRat: I was abrasive because, as you know, we have discussed this exact same thing before, and it seems quite a number of times when I add singles or songs to country artists' articles, even when the song has been released separately ahead of or even independent of an album (for example, when an album hasn't even been announced yet), by the next time I go to the article you will have removed it. It's frustrating that you have continued sticking to the mode that songs by country artists are not singles unless they are serviced to country radio. I still do not think that is the be-all and end-all in 2019, even for country artists, and it's still not a requirement by any music-related guideline on WP. Ss112 01:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: Whether it's 100% the be-all and end-all in 2019 or not, the country music industry still largely operates under the release schedule of something going to radio, and then they sometimes spend upwards of 9 months to a year on it climbing the airplay charts, then move on to something else, and the cycle repeats. Those "official" singles don't belong in the same table as songs that were just given a drive-by independent release on iTunes/Spotify and then moved on from immediately. She could release three more random songs from the album before it drops, none of them go to radio, and then release a completely different song as the next single to radio following "Wash" and literally no one ever would refer to that song as the album's eighth single; it would be considered the second single by any publication that writes about it. User Caldorwards4 went ahead and took the initiative to build a table for those promotional releases so they can be included in Miranda's discography page. I also can't help but notice that plenty of non-country acts have included separate tables for those types of 'singles' for awhile now too (Madonna, Ariana Grande, Beyonce just as a few examples), so I think that's a perfect solve cause like I've said, I have 0 problem with them being called promotional singles and having their own separate place on the page (when I removed "Locomotive" and "Mess with My Head," I still retained their existence on her artist page under the subsection for her new album, too). CloversMallRat (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with discography

Hello! Since I have noticed you have a lot of experience in editing discographies, I thought you might be useful with this question. Ed Sheeran has recently released a music video for his song "Nothing on You"; does that make the song a single or promotional single? According to Wikipedia:Promotional singles, a music video does not mean that the song is a single. However, the song is charting in Argentina's Airplay chart and Mexico Airplay chart, meaning that the song has indeed been serviced to radio and, thus, has been released as single (at least in Argentina and Mexico). Do you think the song should be included on the Singles > As lead artist chart in Ed Sheeran discography? I have asked this on the article's talk page but no one answered... Thanks a lot for your time! --Swe97 (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I Warned Myself

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

---

I see that you were remarkably upset at my editing decisions on the page for Charlie Puth's new single. Let me explain myself. Tidal and Spotify are not my "preferred" streaming services. Whenever I'm searching for credits, I look to Tidal first because it has far more credits than other services. It is essentially the digital equivalent of album linear notes because not only do songwriters and producers tend to be credited on Tidal, but so do engineers, mixers, and instrumentalists. There are exceptions. When there are, such as in the case of Charlie Puth's "I Warned Myself", I look to Spotify to see if there are any writers or producers credited. If not, I proceed to search for credits on BMI or ASCAP repertoires where only officially credited songwriters and publishers are listed. I could not any credits for "I Warned Myself" on either of those databases or streaming services I mentioned where releases, especially ones in more recent years, are expected to have credits, as is standard, especially for major label releases. This is why I removed the credits on the "I Warned Myself" page, which were actually wrong before I edited the page. I thank you for finding an accurate source for the songwriting and producing credits you added on the "I Warned Myself" page. However, I stand by my editing decisions and research methods. It was not my intention to start an "edit war". Bryantriplex (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bryantriplex: "Remarkably upset"? I was annoyed and baffled that you would think because you personally can't find credits at whichever services you use, that that's a reason to remove them. It's not. You could have found the source as easily as I did since you took issue with them, and credits do not always have to be sourced because the source is the release itself. Also, pro tip: It's spelt liner notes, not "linear", which is a different word. I have seen this misspelling on plenty of articles, so please don't contribute to it. Ss112 04:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The reason why Wikipedia pages are open to multiple editors is so that each one may contribute to pages what others did not, which is exactly what happened on the Charlie Puth page. The fact that I did not find a source for songwriting and production credits for the "I Warned Myself" page before you did does not warrant the irrational anger and borderline bullying I have seen on your part. The entire point of Wikipedia editing is for editors to collaborate on providing useful and accurate information, not for editors to beat others at finding sources first and belittle them. It's not a race or competition. I did not add any inaccurate sources nor did I remove any accurate sources that were already sourced in the article simply because I did not find them myself. Those would have been major issues. Bryantriplex (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bryantriplex: "Borderline bullying"....talk about an overexaggeration. Bullying is a sustained and ongoing thing, not a one-off where I told you you could have found a source since you took issue with the credits. Literally nobody was out to "beat" you at finding the source, I found one because you couldn't. I don't know where you got the sense that there was any race or competition out of this. Thanks for the rundown on what Wikipedia is, like I needed an update or was not abiding by its overriding principles, and like I haven't been here far longer than you and contributed more. Not tooting my own horn, but I have. You being upset at my reaction to your "I can't be bothered to look outside of two streaming services' incomplete credits so I'm removing it!" way of acting is your problem at this point. If you have nothing else to contribute besides some retaliatory attempt at condescension, don't reply again. Thanks. Ss112 15:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Your continued contributions to Wikipedia are much appreciated. And I appreciate your way of handling situations; much respect to you, Ss112! livelikemusic talk! 17:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Billiekhalidfan

Hi Ss112! I apologize for not following up on the ANI discussion regarding Billiekhalidfan. I received the notification that you mentioned me in your follow-up comment; I was busy over the last two weeks and I'm just now getting all caught up with the Wikipedia messages, pings, requests, emails, replies, etc that I received. :-) I just wanted to message you and let you know that I didn't forget about you or the issue that you pinged me about, and to make sure that the issue was eventually resolved. If it hasn't been, please let me know (ping me in your response here so that I get notified), or you can message me on my user talk page. My user talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome at any time to post there if you need or want to. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't combine charts and certifications

Hello Ss112 I wasn't aware of this new certain change regarding 'the don't combine charts and certifications not needed' on en.wikipedia.org, but thank you for bring this to my attention me on this. And this situation is the first time i've done this edit regarding, 'combine charts and certifications' in which i was unaware of change. Thank You - Dshun 14:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

LANY & Julia Michaels

Hey Ss112, Thanks for your two messages yesterday. RE: putting "Okay" in Julia Michaels' template in the featured artists group, that was totally my bad... I put it in the wrong group. Thanks for fixing that up. RE: Website/Publisher parameter, this is good to know. I always thought (and was taught) that website IS a publisher (hence why I use it). So to clarify, I use website for a weblink and publisher for other things (i.e. books/magazine/journals etc)? Tobyjamesaus (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus: Publisher is usually the company that owns the website, so they aren't always the same thing; per Template:Cite web: "The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)." So nine times out of ten, editors should be using website where they have used publisher instead. Template:Cite web#TemplateData goes on to say that the use of both website/work and publisher is redundant ("Having both 'publisher' and 'website' (a.k.a. 'work') is redundant in many cases"), and website is suggested for use, while publisher is only "optional". Ss112 11:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Lindsey Stirling Artemis (album) "The Upside" vs "The Upside (feat Elle King)"

I have a question about edits to Artemis (album). Specifically, these 3 edits: part of [6], [7], and part of [8].

I understand traditionally "featuring <artist name>" is displayed the way you changed it to. I agree with your edits concerning '"Love Goes On and On" (featuring Amy Lee)'. I am wondering if '"The Upside" (featuring Elle King)' should be displayed differently, as it was previously, as "The Upside (feat. Elle King)". This is because this song is on the album twice, as tracks 10 and 13. They differ not only in vocals, but other parts of the song as well. (They are quite similar .) Excluding "Elle King" as part of the name of the song itself leads to the oddity of "The Upside" being listed twice in the sidebar under singles, which appears odd and confusing, but is correct, since the two versions were released as separate singles on different dates.

I'll defer to your judgment, just wanted to bring it up in case you hadn't noticed the oddity this causes. Thanks for your extensive work in Wikipedia, and I hope to see Artemis in your all-time favorite albums once it's out.  :-D Darlingm (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Darlingm: I understand what you mean, but featuring credits are not part of the title of the song and should go in the note parameter. It is still two versions of the same song whose name is "The Upside"; a distinction is made for track 13. Ss112 04:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Charts

Hello

I would like to know your thoughts on the Nielsen SoundScan International digital songs sales, as on the wiki article regarding such is not explicit their inclusion on table charts or not. I'm not talking about the US or Canada digital sales, but rather the Portuguese, Greek, Luxembourg as well as the inclusion of Euro Digital Tracks/Songs and so on.

Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: They're generally fine to include if the release did not chart on the main charts of those countries, as Nielsen is a reliable source of chart data. If the song already charted on the Greek IFPI or the Portuguese AFP charts, then the Billboard digital songs charts for those countries would be redundant. Ss112 12:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. How about the the inclusion of Euro Digital Tracks/Songs? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Much the same, it's fine to include as it's from Nielsen. Some might hesitate to include it in discography wikitables—I remember years ago there was quite a large amount of removals of one of these (reliable) European charts from discographies for various reasons, including what I believe is a preference towards individual countries' data. It's rarely, if ever done for other continents—I don't believe there are any collective charts for Asia, Africa, South or North America. Asia, for example, would be strange to have a collective chart of—China, South Korea and Japan are mostly homogeneous markets where international acts rarely become as big as native acts, so it'd just be a compilation of multiple data sources with little to no overlap. Perhaps that's why there's so few of them. Ss112 12:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You have a good point there, thank for the help. I won't include it on discographies, just the song articles. Not only the overlap but we are speaking of huge countries with millions and millions of inhabitants, so the data would be completely incorrect as one act might perform well on Japan for instance and not on China, so the data would join both countries having a lower peak that would have on Japan but higher than it would have on China. Too bad the Templates for those digital sales charts don't work properly. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Well, my example of an "Asian Digital Songs" was only theoretical. I don't think there are any official data sources that claim to summarize Asian markets as a whole. The closest thing is probably that "United World Chart", which I'm not sure is still running and was deemed unreliable for use on WP years ago anyway. Ss112 13:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It had to be unreliable, the weight of sales/airplay/streaming of each different country around the world had to be taken into consideration and there are places that don't have iTunes/Apple Music running or any other music service but the radio. Moreover, I came across Euro Digital Tracks and Euro Digital Song Sales, the former was discontinued back in 2014 but some songs overlap each other in the charts so the same song can be on both charts, do I add both charts to the article? Regarding the Mexico Ingles Airplay and Mexico Airplay, should I use both in the article, the higher peak or first Mexico airplay and then Mexico ingles airplay? I could use some enlightenment. Thank you so much for your help and discussion. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: I would probably try to use one of them. If they're both published by Nielsen, then using both seems redundant. Perhaps Digital Tracks encompasses more than just song sales? As for the Mexican airplay charts, if the song did not chart on the Mexico Airplay, then it's fine to list the Ingles Airplay chart. The Mexico Airplay chart takes precedence though; Ingles Airplay is a component of it. Ss112 08:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I will do so regarding the Mexico Airplay. Indeed, they are both published by Nielson so I'm a bit on the fence regarding which one should I add. By definition: Euro Digital Songs → Ranks the best-selling digital singles and tracks in Europe, while Euro Digital Tracks → Ranked the best-selling digital tracks in Europe (now is defuncted). The former is the only with Chart ID, most likely because the latter is no longer active. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Leona Lewis Music Video Section

Hi,

I noticed you updated the font size of Leona Lewis' new song from Songland after I updated it. I am still learning and didn't know how to change the font size, but I see you corrected this. Thank you for doing this! May I ask you for a favour as Leona's page seems to be of interest to you? I updated Leona's section for 'music videos', although I was unable to put lines in one of the middle rows (the year part from 2015-2019), separating the years the videos were released, which makes it look untidy. If you know how to update this the correct way it would be appreciated. Thank you.

Kind regards Ajcutts1992 (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ajcutts1992: I wouldn't say her articles are necessarily of interest to me, I just came across her again. Anyway,  Done Ss112 00:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hollywood's Bleeding

Some IP added these genres [9] in the article with this source [10]. Did the source say the album are these genres? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: It describes it as a "synth-pop-rock'n'roll-bedroom-indie-trap-hip-hop-break-up album". I assume bedroom-indie-trap is supposed to be one thing, but it doesn't say just "pop" or "indie rock", so I removed those. However, hopefully better and more clear descriptions will come along. Ss112 09:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

And another thing the IP also added genres in another article [11]. I know you busy with other things but I wonder these genres are supported by these sources. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: If you disagree, revert them. Also, it's best not to cite user talk page discussions in edit summaries as a reason to revert others. User talk pages are not a formal place for consensus, and most users probably will not and should not care about what is said on them. Ss112 00:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Help on replacing files?

Hey, I guess I just need help on replacing some of the files on some articles I made. I already did the replacing part, I did what you suggested (changing jpg's to png's), but how did you add the notice in the old Free Time file I uploaded? These are the files that need the delete notice:

• [12] - "Golden Years (M-Phazes Remix)"
• [13] - "Golden Years"
• [14] - "Face to Face"
• [15] - "Real Thing"

And these are the new files, if you needed them at all:

• [16] - "Golden Years (M-Phazes Remix)"
• [17] - "Golden Years"
• [18] - "Face to Face"
• [19] - "Real Thing"

Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you. BenevolentBeast (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC) (Update: A bot automatically did it today, haha. BenevolentBeast (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC))

Explanation and apologize

Hello ! Ss112, I apologize to you. I'm from Taichung,Taiwan. My English is not well,please don't mind. I'm very like to all music charts (uk chart,billboard......and more),I don't mean no harm, I just finish charts which are Incomplete. So please don't angry. At last, I have to say sorry for you again , Ss112. If I can, I will help to editing or finishing charts which are incomplete or update yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.26.167.44 (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Question on Billboard chart search

Hi again Ss112....question about Billboard artists' history page. At some point I chanced upon the URL for an Artist History eg. [20] and found that if I click "Billboard 200" I will find the artist's other chart listings. But I can't find the Search page for all artists and have been typing in different names on the URL while searching, which works. I emailed BB long ago but they didn't respond. Do you have the URL for a main Search page? If it is obvious and i am just stupid, I apologize. The old BB search page [21] changed long ago.

Also, it appears BB chart non-subscription availabilty dropped to Billboard 100, Billboard 200 and Artist 100 and Current Boxscore only...as of September 17. I had a subscription for Billboardbiz.com (for the few charts not available without) and when they moved their subscription service and charts over to Billboard.com this past month, they had a temporary (no password needed) period, during which all charts were available for free. But on the 17th, I had to sign up for the new "Billboard Pro" service to see all the charts again, and now all but the major 3 & Boxscore are subscription only, even Social 50 is paid only. Hoping it doesn't affect any of the chart updates you and others diligently take care of.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: Really? I can see them all fine, even the Social 50. I mean, it occasionally pops up with a notification about the Billboard "subscriber experience", but you can click out of it. I thought Billboard was moving towards a non-subscription-centric model. Most of the charts I've updated haven't been subscriber-only, besides the Bubbling Under chart, which was available only on billboard.com/biz, but as that's gone, it's still showing up on Billboard's site [22]. Are you saying those don't show the full chart for you? And there's a chart search bar underneath the lead story on https://www.billboard.com/business. Ss112 02:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you're right, if you let the page load it does pop up with a Billboard Pro subscription only notice that prevents you from reading it all now. I usually stop Billboard pages from loading fully anyway (to prevent ads from loading), so I hadn't come across that yet. That sucks—they hadn't done that before for most of their charts aside from the Bubbling Under chart, and I don't know why they've started now (but the obvious answer is for financial reasons). It seems so many more parts of the Internet are moving towards being behind paywalls. If they do truncate the chart from even when the page starts loading (and they just might, as that's what used to happen on billboard.com/biz), there are forums where people (most of whom are subscribers) republish the Billboard charts in full that I'd get it from anyway. I'm glad they haven't made their artist chart history pages subscriber-only—but if they did, that wouldn't surprise me at this point. Ss112 02:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah they changed it late in the day, yesterday...But what about my question about where main Search page for Artists is? Thanks.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: I just linked to it; it's right below the scrolling stories on https://www.billboard.com/business; but using it still links to https://www.billboard.com/charts/search, which per your edit to Billboard charts, is subscriber only now too. Most artists have artist chart histories accessible from their artist pages, for example BTS's is https://www.billboard.com/music/bts (scroll down a bit, and you can select from the chart bar where it says "Hot 100"). Ss112 03:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, per BTS one, I've figured how to get there through juggling search in the URL...but it seems BB does not have a main Search (free) page to get there. Odd.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrator not following Wikipedia rules

I am asking you for asistance to help a friend, KingAttack!. You gave KingAttack! a warning. 90 miniutes later, administrator NJA blocked KingAttack!. NJA refused 2 unblock requests and one unblock request has never been answered. Administrator NJA is not following Wikipedia rules. He has mistaken KingAttack! for a group of people. NJA said: "Not providing citations and having a history of poor editing is when any discretionary use of an edit summary becomes a requirement". Administrator NJA is making up his own rules. There is no Wikipedia rule that edit summaries are required under certain conditions. NJA then said: "They are either trolling or oblivious to the reality that they’ve been warned countless times on sources both before and after the previous block. No lesson was learned by them following the previous block or subsequent warnings. No attempt for them to discuss their editing by those warning them until they were finally blocked". NJA is refering to KingAttack! as "they" or "them". He is mistaken KingAttack! for a group of people. KingAttack! has contributed positively to Wikipedia. Recently, KingAttack! made 554 edits. Of those 554 edits, those that needed sources have sources. KingAttack explained to NJA that KingAttack! made a good-faith edit but forgot to put 1 source in the last 554 edits. KingAttack! was complimented 8 times on his talk page. NJA said: "User is further indicating that they are not here to contribute positively". KingAttack! has never indicated that he is not here to contribute positively.

There are good reasons for you to unblock KingAttack!. 1) NJA is not following Wikipedia rules. 2) NJA has mistaken KingAttack! for another group of people. All of this is documented on KingAttack!'s talk page. 185.46.78.19 (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@185.46.78.19: Why do you care about this user? Are you them pretending to be acting neutrally? Because I would say this is suspicious, as you have edited two other articles recently that are pages KingAttack! has edited in the past. To answer what you said, I am not an administrator, so I cannot "unblock" users even if I wanted to, and I wouldn't in this case anyway, because this user has issues going back years with not sourcing their edits. The admins who reviewed their unblock requests are well within their rights to refuse them. Perhaps you should direct this to those administrators on their talk pages. Unblock requests do not have to be answered straight away. And if you are KingAttack! using an IP address to edit and pretend to be a neutral bystander, I would suggest you stop evading your block right now. Ss112 12:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not the one being blocked. But to appear beyond any suspicion, I will login. I don't care about this user specificaly. I care that Wikipedia be a good source of information. For that to happen Wikipedia must be fair and just to its editors. I am publicising abuse by an administrator. I am hoping other administrators of good conscious stop this abuse. Wikipedia needs better oversight over its administrators. KingAttack!'s unsourced edits have stopped more than 6 months ago. The proof is the last 554 edits did not have missing sources. This single unsourced edit was a mistake in good-faith. The editor appealed to the administrator that blocked him and that administrator continues to be unreasonable. Is there recourse for an abusive administrator? Thank you for your advice and asisstance. A concerned editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mschribr (talk • contribs) 17:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Mschribr (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mschribr: Er, it absolutely isn't "the last 554 edits they made [that do] not have missing sources", because I reverted and warned them for not sourcing all of their edits right before their block. It also wasn't just one recent edit that wasn't sourced—here's another unsourced edit (and it is unsourced, because by the time KingAttack! added that chart position, billboard.com/biz no longer worked, and Billboard does not have an artist chart history page for Bad Wolves). As pointed out on their talk page, this sourcing issue goes back years. This is not admin abuse in the slightest, and again, you are taking your concerns up with the wrong editor. If you really want to go to bat for this editor, perhaps go create a thread on this at WP:AN. Ss112 22:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Basshunter discography

Hello. I remember you from Alan Walker pages and some other EDM artists. Basshunter discography is currently a candidate for Featured List. Would you be interested in checking it and possibly further help with Basshunter and music charts? Eurohunter (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: I'll check it out. Ss112 11:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The sourcing is quite good on the article, it just contained some redundant publishers where work/website is already used. Ss112 11:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I just corrected "Official Charts" because it's de facto name of the site. For me EP is a album type, and it can be classified as album:) I think there is a problem with references to releases which are included in iTunes. We can distinguish two things; direct reference to release (AV media notes template) which is included in iTunes etc. with link to it and "via" parameter ("via iTunes Store") or standard reference (web cite) to iTunes with this release. What should be done? Eurohunter (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: Either is fine. Some editors would prefer you cite the release directly with the AV media notes template, but it's not necessary. Ss112 11:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

So if there is web cite, all these parameters should be included? url=https://itunes.apple.com/se/album/masterpiece-single/1438645764 |title=Masterpiece – Single|publisher=PowerHouse|date=19 October 2018|accessdate=21 April 2019|via=iTunes Store? From my perspective it should contain publisher of the website instead release, finally there should be just website=iTunes and publication date of iTunes page which is unknown instead of release date of single. Eurohunter (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: I personally wouldn't include publisher= or date=, as while yes, PowerHouse did release the song and probably submitted it to iTunes for the artist, they didn't have direct involvement in publishing the website or the page. I suppose to some users it's not technically incorrect, hence why I leave it if I see it. Date= means publication date in most cases, not release date of the song, and sometimes songs (but more often albums) are made available to pre-order on iTunes in advance of the release date and it's impossible to verify when the link became active (as the page does not say what date it became active). You could include website=iTunes with no via= (as it would be redundant) and cut out the publisher of the song being in the reference, but it's up to you. That's just my recommendation. Ss112 12:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

So I have fixed it now. Eurohunter (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

European Top 100 Albums

Since Billboard has stop using this chart, should it still be in articles such as The College Dropout? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Even if a chart is defunct, if it can be reliably sourced, it can be included. Ss112 10:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, just wanna hear your opinion about it since you been adding charts in articles for years now. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Just spotted this thread. There is no reason why it shouldn't be there (if has reference). It was important chart. Eurohunter (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Stupid Little Things

Hi Ss112. Hope you are keeping well. Could I possibly ask you a favour and perhaps glance over the chart info for the single on this page. Is it correct? I am also wondering about the critical reception section. It was added by a problematic editor a few years ago. What do you think of it? Appreciate your time! Karst (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Karst: It looks alright to me, and the chart information is correct. Also, I notice you removed the iTunes reference from the track listing section. While your summary that it is not reliable as a chart is correct, it's fine to use as a source for track listings per WP:AFFILIATE: "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times". Ss112 11:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

removing a protection for Baby (Justin Bieber song)

Hallo !! Ss112, I have a request ,if you have users that you know , can you ask them whether removing a protection for Baby (Justin Bieber song) , it has protected for many years , I really hope the protection can removing and open general users to edit . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.26.155.52 (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@114.26.155.52: You can request this at WP:RFUP, but as this article was historically quite vandalised due to being the most disliked video on YouTube for a number of years, and being a meme, I doubt it will be unprotected—and on the off chance it is, the vandalism would most likely start up again quite quickly. Ss112 14:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks your answer!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.26.155.52 (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Dove Cameron

Hello! I just wanted to gather your advice on something. I'm looking into making an article for Dove Cameron's latest single(s). I have all the sources and information, but which do you believe to be the lead single, "Bloodshot" or "Waste"? I know "Waste" has a music video, but "Bloodshot" is first on the EP. Or, is it a double lead single like Camila Cabello did? What do you think? – DarkGlow (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: I don't think Cabello's "Liar" and "Shameless" releases are comparable, considering she didn't release them on the same single. It looks to be a double A-side to me, hence why I made Bloodshot / Waste. If need be, information about the two can be separated at a later date. That's my opinion, anyway. It's ultimately up to you. If you want to make the article at the linked redirect or somewhere else and have it moved over the one I created, that's also up to you. Ss112 15:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Once I have all of the sources collated and everything else, I'll make it on the article you made. Would you be able to add the cover art when it's done? – DarkGlow (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: Yep! Ss112 15:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Navboxes

Hi, it's not about linking to subsections, but, per WP:NAV-WITHIN, we should "avoid repeating links to the same article within a template." A navbox with a link to a subsection of a song article doesn't usually have a link to that song elsewhere. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Billboard

Do you know why does Billboard now require a subscription to see their charts and archives? It really bothers me. Brankestein (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Brankestein: No idea, they haven't announced why, but presumably the reason is more money. I'm guessing their print edition isn't bringing in the money it used to. Ss112 15:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

New stub types

Hi, I saw that you created {{2020s-album-stub}}. I just want to inform you that new stub types should be proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Typically, there should be at least 60 candidates before creating new stub type. Even though it will happen soon enough, the process should still be followed. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starcheersnewspeakslostwars: Is it required that all new stub types be proposed there before being created? Didn't think it was controversial considering it's literally changing one digit from {{2010s-album-stub}} for the upcoming decade. Oh, and this wasn't intended to be an antagonistic question I'm actually curious if it's required. Ss112 00:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I literally do not know what a cross-namespace redirect is

Ss112, I have never heard of cross-namespace before your comments to me, and I do not understand why it should exist. Per the article, it is most often applied to redirects from the main article namespace to the project namespace, but in the case of the redirect, it went from one songwriter to an associated songwriter, which did not clarify anything about who the first songwriter was. I do not understand why the article of Quintino (DJ) is the appropriate redirect, when Afshin Salmani (his fully spelled out name, not his professional name) is found on so many article songwriting credits, "Sunny Days (Armin van Buuren song)", "Four Seasons (song)", "All We Have Is Love", "Paper or Plastic (song)", "Girls on Boys", "Carry On (Kygo and Rita Ora song)", etc. I think this cross-namespace is doing a serious mis-service to this songwriter, and I cannot understand why it would ever be used. It is not my intention to challenge Wikipedia tools, but I am not seeing the function of this one, nor do I think per the article description that it was used correctly, as I don't see that a project namespace was directed to. I guess I am a Luddite. Mburrell (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mburrell: So it was not you logged out nominating the redirect for discussion/deletion above? A cross-namespace redirect is just a redirect that points to another type of space, like User: or Draft:, from another space. Ss112 20:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating something for deletion, but the follow-up nomination or whatever is not me. This appears to be a rapid moving discussion, and I have to bow out to take my dog to a groomer, but I will continue this discussion later today, or just go to the RfD page and explain my thinking there. I still think I properly used the speedy deletion criteria, but maybe I am clueless in this arena. Mburrell (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mburrell: Please don't comment at the RfD, it was nominated by a block-evading user who is, for some reason unbeknownst to everybody with common sense and an actual life, to get back at me, and it should not exist. I want it to be removed. I have no concerns if you then nominate it for deletion after, but block evasion shouldn't be allowed to stand. Ss112 20:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)