Jump to content

User talk:Ss112

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lllogan (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 21 January 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you have a query or would like me to participate in a discussion or help you out, I appreciate it, but please approach another user. I have pings turned off. Please try to avoid leaving template notices. If you have been asked to not post here, please respect that request.

The Music Barnstar!

The Music Barnstar
Does anybody contribute to the music pages more than you do? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date disambiguation suffices

Hi Ss112, just dropping by to let you know that I partially reverted your edit to BTS to restore the date disambiguation suffix. These are needed in articles that use short footnote references where there is more than one source with the same author list and year; removing it broke the links from the short footnotes to the corresponding sources. Unfortunately the error message that might have warned you about this is disabled because it generates lots of false positives. If you frequently edit articles using short footnote references you might like to install this script, which produces reliable error messages. There's more of a description of disambiguation suffices here. Best wishes, Wham2001 (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paula (album)

Hi I just saw you reverted this edit [1] but per WP:OVER200 this still can’t be included as it’s over 200 positions. As my time here on Wikipedia, I don’t believe I have ever come across an album coming from any of ARIA’s album charts that exceeded past 100 as well. Pillowdelight (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pillowdelight: I assure you there are hundreds out there; you clearly just haven't been looking at the same articles I do. As I noted, there are certain people who work at ARIA who are known to reveal below-100 data to people upon email request, and ARIA has occasionally noted as such too. For example, on their top 50 charts now, they will note the prior week's position of an album or song in the "last week" column if it jumps into the top 50 from below it (sometimes even far below the top 100). To address your initial message before you added onto it, that wasn't the reason you gave 11 months ago, and I'm well aware of that guideline, considering I've cited it thousands of times myself and was removing peaks below 200 before it was even a guideline (you'll notice in the original discussion deciding upon that, Richard3120 noted I was already removing ridiculously low Portuguese year-end positions). That being said, there are exceptions to every guideline, it's 207 (7 places below the threshold) and the commercial failure of Paula worldwide was widely reported on in news media as significant considering the highs of Thicke's preceding 'era'. Australia is a far more notable music market than the normal below 200 peaks you get on Wikipedia, like #2456 on the Portuguese year-end chart, which definitely isn't notable. Ss112 00:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright well I’m being honest as I’ve never come across a single albums charts from ARIA that have exceeded past the 100th position — I don’t want you to think that I’m lying or something. And as for you saying it took 11 months, I had just recently came across WP:OVER200 not too long ago. But I also have always been told that in most cases it needs to be coming from their databases regarding chart positions. Pillowdelight (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pillowdelight: I believe you, I'm just saying they are cited in places on Wikipedia. That being said, any editor telling you chart positions need to come directly from the publisher's own website/sources is incorrect, because nowhere is this stated as a requirement. As long as it's a reliable news source and it's reporting that the data has come from the chart publisher/been revealed by them in some way, it's perfectly fine. Ss112 00:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now if you don’t mind me asking some user had previously tried twice to include this on La Fuerza as well as in the charts. [2] which I had removed and now that I’m discussing this with you what do you think? I don’t believe any of their charts even have a digital albums chart, as well as Panama and Guatemala just seem random. I’m assuming there’s a possibility that the article is referring to the iTunes charts. Pillowdelight (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pillowdelight: That was my impression too, that the article is probably talking about the iTunes charts of Panama and Guatemala. While Portugal probably has a digital albums chart, I think if true and not just the iTunes chart this claim should come from the actual chart publisher (Billboard might have previously provided a Portuguese albums chart, but currently should be Associação Fonográfica Portuguesa). I'm honestly not aware of any other charts for Central American countries aside from airplay songs charts. Not sure Panama and Guatemala would even have enough of a developed recording industry association to publish albums charts, let alone digital albums charts. I'd say unless there's another more reliable source reporting on this other than some potentially dubious Polish source (how Polish media would know anything about the music charts of Central American countries is a mystery to me) then it should be left out. Ss112 00:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is such an odd question but I know you’ve been editing for 16 years it says but are you in the music industry? I’m just curious because you’re obviously very smart. Pillowdelight (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pillowdelight: Nope, just an enthusiast! Ss112 02:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow well you’re very smart on here that’s for sure. Is there a way you can fix my mistake on 3800 Degrees? I added the source twice, I noticed you typically add the ref name for repeated articles. I think I messed it up. I also did the same thing to Whoa, Nelly! with the New York Times article in the commercial performance Pillowdelight (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you don’t mind me asking for the UK chart position on Paula (album), it states it reached the 200th position but it’s not listed on the OCC website. This source doesn’t provide the company it charted on, [3]. I’m assuming maybe it’s refereeing to UKChartsPlus which handles charts positions below 100. But it’s recommended to avoid them per WP:BADCHARTSAVOID. Also is it okay to remove the 207th position on the charts for Australia as it’s still per WP:OVER200? Pillowdelight (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pillowdelight: I explained yesterday why I believe this is an exception—every guideline has exceptions. It was covered in media as a significant commercial failure; it's seven places below 200 not say, number 441 or 2356, which should be removed; and the UK chart position is covered in The Guardian source. Can we move on now? Thanks. Ss112 00:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARIA Digital Charts

Hi Ss112, I remember a while ago on the Bring Me the Horizon song articles, "Teardrops" and "Die4U" where you removed peaks relating to Australian Digital Tracks. ([4]) The website where it appears, Top100Singles, as you said was a "blog" and you removed it for that reason which was fair enough. In recent months, I've been trying to find the actual ARIA peaks for these songs to no avail because they do not have that chart on the ARIA site, but to do more digging. I found this, ARIA Report It was said that the ARIA Report is what you subscribe to by paying an annual fee, but the sample they use for the report shows that the Digital Track charts do exist. [5] This gave me the hunch based on the blog site, that I'm not adding back in was adding all of this information in per their own copy of the weekly ARIA Report. I noticed that you were the one to add the Australia chart peaks for "Parasite Eve" and "Obey" by citing the ARIA Report, which also includes peaks in the Top 100 and not just the Top 50 which is standard on the ARIA site. This leads me to believe you are also one who's paid to receive the ARIA Report weekly by email. Due to the information of Digital Track peaks also being used on these reports, I wanted to ask you whether you could please check the supposed Digital Track peaks for "Teardrops" and "Die4U", possibly even "Strangers" (if that peaked) to corroborate what that blog site says and potentially add them back (per the ARIA Report) in as I have no way of checking this information. Thank you. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockmusicfanatic20: I'll have a look and add them if I find them. Ss112 04:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen you've added them to those articles, thanks. It's much appreciated. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I’m really asking for

Can YOU add Sam to the best selling artist wiki page I would do but I’m afraid I might mess it up HengeBoy (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I counted everything TWICE in case you think I’m wrong, I can help provide the links if needed HengeBoy (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HengeBoy: Then you should have made that clear in your message. Articles concerning the best selling music artists is not really my wheelhouse, and from what I've seen goes on there, it's a lot. There's a lot of disagreement about who and what qualifies. I don't think an editor can just say "I've tallied up all the artist's certifications and we should add them now", it would probably require discussion to add a new artist, so sorry, you might need to approach another editor for this. Ss112 13:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh!

Thanks for helping clean up "Sheesh!". Would you know how to determine if this song has achieved any certifications anywhere? Also, since you are interested enough in the subject to clean it up, please consider the issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheesh!.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: I edited the article as I saw Lil-unique1 respond to you that the song was not certified by the RIAA or any other organisation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. While I know the song went a little viral on TikTok, I think as Lil-unique1 said, the lack of chart success should tell you it wouldn't have been certified anywhere. Ss112 04:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using Infodisc for certifications

Hi Ss112. Regarding infodisc, I am not aware of any discussion about the reliability of certifications from infodisc, that actually came to consensus. In my years here I have not seen a single case where infodisc certifications were incorrect, and sadly, they are the only source we have for certifications before 1994 (which might mean we want to use them only for certifications prior to that). If you feel strongly against using them, I ask that you hold on removing the certifications and start discussion. Keep in mind they are probably used in thousands of articles (I will give an exact number if needed). If this is the consensus that will be achieved, I will provide a full list of those articles to make removing them easier. Happy editing! --Muhandes (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: I don't care that much to start a discussion on the reliability of certifications, but do you know the source for Infodisc's reporting of certification data prior to 1994? Where they were initially published for Infodisc to be taking them from? I'm confused as to why SNEP's database doesn't appear to have access to the data from before 1994 yet Infodisc does, considering SNEP have apparently been awarding certifications as far back as 1973. Even still, you know as well as I do "being used in thousands of articles" does not mean something should be used or done, and even if it were determined to be unreliable, I personally feel I have better things to be doing than spending my time removing Infodisc certifications from thousands of articles. A couple hundred, fine, but not thousands—that sounds something a bot should be programmed to do. Also, I'd prefer you not frame this as if I would even have some obligation to remove them all just because I removed it from one or two Led Zeppelin articles. All this being said, we should be clear about where Infodisc got the data from. Ss112 09:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know from the top of my head where they got the certifications. They used to have some pages with explanation of their sources, but not speaking the language, I never deeply into it. I never claimed "being used in thousands of articles" is a reason something should be done. On the contrary, you know that I have taken upon myself more than once to fix thousands of articles. What I meant is that since it is used so prevalently, I believe we should handle it systematically. Have fun editing! Muhandes (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhandes: Does a website not clearly or at all telling readers where they got their data from not inherently dissuade you from using it? I think it should. I just visited the website and they don't state where SNEP made this information available. Ss112 09:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion either way. As I said, if you feel strongly about it, start a discussion. Muhandes (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhandes: You personally have no objections with using a source that doesn't tell you where it got its data from and that you presume is correct? Yikes. You 100% should as an editor, because how is this different from any website reporting on something as true but not showing its sources? I know you didn't originate using Infodisc but you're essentially defending its use. You say you've never come across an instance where Infodisc has been wrong about certifications, but have you even come across one other source reporting French certification data prior to 1994? It's easy to say they've never been incorrect if there is no other source talking about French cert data pre-1994. Ss112 09:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I follow the consensus, practice, and status quo, which for the last ~12 years has been that infodisc certifications can (and should) be used. I most certainly didn't start this practice, and since it aligned with other sources, I saw no contradiction in continuing it. I vaguely recall a page explaining the sources, but I may be mixing it with another website. What you say is not necessarily wrong, and the consensus may need changing. If it does, I'll be the first to help enforcing it, as I have been in the past. If you feel strongly about it... well, I'm starting to sound like a broken record. Muhandes (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhandes: Nobody having strongly enough objected to Infodisc's certification data does not mean there is a "consensus" to use it (let us not get into 'silence is consensus' and what that applies to et al). "Practice" and "status quo" have been proven to be wrong and change on this website, as I'm sure you're aware, so those being reasons for your continued use of it don't hold up. Also, to clarify, I feel strongly about replying to you on my talk page and telling you you should, as an editor, personally have an objection to using sources that don't tell us where they got their apparently official data from, not strongly enough (at least yet) that I want to facilitate and actively participate in a discussion about its reliability at a project talk page. There is a difference. That's all from me. As you said, happy editing. Ss112 10:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for what it's worth, you convinced me not to add any more of these certifications, although I never was very active in adding them to begin with. Muhandes (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Houston sales

Hi, I'm just a normal editor here but may I ask which of the two is more reliable? Because someone is changing the sales of the album. And also they're using the first link to the list of best-selling albums and list of best-selling albums by women

They using this: [1]

This is what I'm using: [2] Deibu2007 (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deibu2007: I don't see a problem with Voice of America being used, but in cases like this, you're going to get sources reporting different amounts for the same album. It's best to hash this out on the article talk page. I'd start a thread on either Talk:Whitney Houston (album) or maybe to get more traction as more users probably watch the main article, Talk:Whitney Houston. Ss112 11:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bekheet, Dia (February 11, 2012). "Music Industry Pays Tribute to Whitney Houston". VOA.
  2. ^ Hyman, Dan (October 3, 2017). "Clive Davis Talks New Career-Spanning Doc, Whitney Houston's Brilliance". Rolling Stone. Retrieved November 30, 2017.

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for adding the album cover image to Life After Death (TobyMac album), as I had absolutely no idea how to do it when I was writing the page. Cherrell410 (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Big Scarr

On 29 December 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Big Scarr, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 19:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hey, just sent you an email. Lk95 (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lk95: Replied. Ss112 12:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oddinary


Noeasy

Hi Ss112, I found some of the text confusing; in the last paragraph of "Songs", I couldn't work out what "It was intended to convey a cohesive and solid appearance..." is supposed to mean in the context of a song, and I also moved a kind-of-irrelevant list in the second paragraph of "Commercial performance" into footnotes because I don't think a long list there helps the reader. Feel free to undo those if you wish. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978: Thanks. I trust your judgement. I haven't contributed any substantial amount of prose to this or the other Stray Kids article (I only requested the copyedits), as a lot of the descriptions of the songs on these sorts of articles are copy-pasted machine- or manually poorly translated from Korean media that regurgitate record-label press releases to make manufactured idol music sound as if it were unique, revolutionary, or simply more special than it really is. Ss112 07:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, I thought poor translation might have been the case here. I've done a lot of music articles so I see this sort of thing quite often. Hyperbole is easy to deal with anyway, and some of the article was fine. Well, I'm too tired to go chasing copyvios now... I'll wish you happy editing and cheers, Baffle☿gab 08:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Pokémon 25: The Album

Information icon Hello, Ss112. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pokémon 25: The Album, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cracker Island (Gorillaz album)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cracker Island (Gorillaz album) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 21 § Cracker Island (Gorillaz album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

-Template aside, this is via Cracker Island (album) making the redirect pretty much entirely obsolete and also currently incorrect [linking to the discog page] whatever the outcome. This probably could have been solved an easier way but I don't know enough Wikipedia to know if and how I could, apologies if this is more hassle than it could have been / is worth.

Lllogan (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ss112&oldid=1134839190"