User talk:Hayman30/Archive 3

You've got mail!

 * Same again.  Ss  112   21:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting advice on article improvement
Hello. Since I know you're good with maintaining articles about musicians and bands, I'd like to see if you have advice for me going forward with an article I created: Koven (group). I believe there's room for expansion since at the moment, I've only proved criterias 8 and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO: Has won or been nominated for a...music award, and Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g....inclusion on a notable compilation album (Monstercat Uncaged Vol. 2). For example, is there anything I can add about the duo or additional references about the subject? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 19:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Really sorry for my late reply. Actually I'm not as familiar with articles on artists compared to those about songs and albums, but as far as I can tell the article currently does not meet the notability guidelines and I'm really concerned about the use of those dodgy-looking and trivial websites as sources. I do use them on articles that are backed by a lot of reliable sources, but I wouldn't base the article primarily on them. Now that it's been AfDed I think it'd be sensible to let it go unless you could find some reliable sources to help establish notability. Cheers, Hayman30 (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

My edits you reverted
Why did you revert my edits on Young Dumb & Broke and Thunder? They were perfectly reasonable, gave the page a better appearance, and were the format used on all the other song-related pages with track listing sections. The other format looks somewhat messy (no offense). Every875 Talk to me 00:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edits were not reasonable at all. Both "remix" and "medley" are not proper names, thus should not be capitalized. Changing cases to "give the page a better appearance" is apparently a personal preference. There also isn't an "universal format" for track listing sections, you totally made that up. Hayman30 (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirects
Please check before creating redirects to see that there is not a disambiguation page that lists songs of the same name or even a song of the same name with an article. You created Freed (song) and Seeing Red (song), but these are common titles and already the names of other songs covered on disambiguation pages. I'm also quite sure there would be other songs in existence titled "Are You" and "Cross Your Mind" besides those on the Fifty Shades Freed soundtrack even if there are no pages for these at the base namespace. In most cases, the article you're redirecting to should contain information about the songs you're creating redirects for, otherwise your redirects can be nominated for speedy deletion for being an implausible redirect. Never mind the fact that you said a while ago you don't "give a crap about credits" (despite your recent spree of creating redirects saying otherwise) and that some of these songs are probably covers (Bishop Briggs' "Never Tear Us Apart" is probably a cover of INXS' "Never Tear Us Apart"), so some of these are probably pointless anyway.  Ss  112   08:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There there, it's my fault, okay? I only did this because I saw the user Love on the Brain created redirects on several notable songs on the soundtrack and thought it'd be sensible to redirect the rest as well. Look, who's trying get credit here? Can't even pin down why you're relating to it. Hayman30 (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you said a while back in relation to Kids in Love (Kygo album) when I still planned to create an article for the other album of that name that you don't "give a crap about credit". Meaning you don't care about who creates a redirect first. I'm saying obviously you care now considering how many you do in fact create. It's got nothing to do with me; it's an observation.  Ss  112   10:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't care about who creates the redirects first means I couldn't create them? I already said I wouldn't have created them if some of them wasn't already created. You gotta stop with these accusations. Hayman30 (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How is any of this an accusation? You need to chill. I was trying to clarify your previous statements with your current behaviour. I said you evidently do care about creating redirects. That's not really an accusation when it's proven you do by you creating them despite previously being nonchalant about it. There was no air of "you can't do that". The end point is, please be more careful when creating them in future to make sure if they are common titles there is not somewhere more general they can point instead of one new album. This is an example of WP:RECENTISM.  Ss  112   11:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bro you literally said I created these problematic redirects because I care about credits, how is that not an accusation? I stated three times that I wasn't planning on creating these redirects in the first place, it was only because I saw another editor redirected a few notable songs from the album, so I thought I might complete the rest. No idea why you even brought the credit thingy up. Anyway I guess we should stop here before it escalates into another long ass pointless thread. I'll bear those in mind when I'm creating redirects in the future. Cheers. Hayman30 (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, because an accusation is a claim that someone has done something wrong. 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.) I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with creating redirects in general here; I was, as I said above, trying to reconcile your creation of them with what you had previously said. However, you've just explained why, so it's alright, I get why now.  Ss  112   18:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

2U (song)
This song is future bass, no revert the changes. If you have different thought, search about this genre. Please elude a war of editions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madoka79 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This song is not future bass unless a source say it is. It doesn't become future bass because you call it future bass. This has nothing to do with my opinion. Either find a reliable source to support your changes or quit edit warring. Hayman30 (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirects being covered at the article you're pointing them to
Please make sure in most cases that the redirects you are creating are at least covered/mentioned at the article you're pointing to them to, otherwise they can be nominated for speedy deletion for not being valid. Generally redirects are supposed to serve the purpose of being a plausible search term for the article you're pointing them to—redirecting songs to discographies are generally placeholders until an album article is created or page for the song is created. I'm trying to make sure in most cases the redirects I make now are covered at where I point them to, as should most users. You just created Melanin Magic for Remy Ma's song that's been in the works for a year and it's not mentioned on her discography at all. Same with Zayn's apparent song "Hurt"—this could be WP:OR for all anyone knows.  Ss  112   06:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, says the editor who literally does this himself everyday. Don't wanna get into it any further as you would most likely defend yourself in every possible way. Sure, I'll bare it in mind. Hayman30 (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also a quick question while you're here: I'm currently drafting an article for Kesha's cover of "This Is Me", should the article be created at This Is Me (Keala Settle song) or This Is Me (Kesha song)? The former would be a sensible choice but I feel like it'd look odd with little content on the original version but a comparatively large section about the cover. Hayman30 (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just said, I'm trying to make sure "in most cases" I only create redirects when the topic is covered at the page I'm redirecting to. As it's the same song, I would generally say Kesha's version should be at This Is Me (Keala Settle song). No point in having two pages for essentially the same song.  Ss  112   12:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

About the genre of Stay
Regarding the removal of the genre of the track (even after being referenced[a basic rule of Wikipedia to accept accurate referenced sources] and seeing it's obviously a pop track [poppish vocals, massive pop radio play]), what would be your opinion on the actual genre of the track?

ANode (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC) ANode (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The source you added says "'Stay' follows Zedd's characteristic pop productions", it doesn't necessarily or directly imply the song is pop. Adding a reference doesn't mean you're right, the source you're referencing to has to be valid. "It's obviously a pop track" is purely your own opinion. My opinion on the genre doesn't matter, Wikipedia isn't some dodgy website that generate content based on users' views. Find a reliable source to support your changes, if you wish to re-add it. Hayman30 (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeahhh, you're right on the personal opinion area. I'll attempt to look for a proper reference to be added to the article!

ANode (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

spotlight genre
the article from the sources i provided says the genre of the song later in the article. read the article and find my changes were accurate Davatki (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Naming Marshmello an "electronic producer" doesn't mean the song is electronic. Saying that the song is "more in line with the grungy pop-punk aesthetic" doesn't mean the song itself is pop punk. Hayman30 (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * so is the song’s genre just going to stay blank? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davatki (talk • contribs) 05:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes and it's not a problem. We don't add unsourced information for the sake of making the article look complete. Not something you should be concerned about. Hayman30 (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ok thank you for this info, i’m relatively new here and everyone has been telling me to provide sources so i thought i did something right

Credit removal
Hi,

I am writing to understand why an acting credit was deleted for Justin Timberlake’s Supplies video. The little girl at the end, with lines, was added to the page and you deleted it. Please clarify.

Thank you 1LibbyRose (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are the credits for the song, not the music video. The acting credit you added was not in line with other content in the section, thus the removal. Also, as far as I'm aware, you did not provide a reliable source for your changes. Hayman30 (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of changes to Martin Silverstein entry
Hayman,  I've been offline for a while so I just saw  your message and changes. It seems like you shortened the entry on Silverstein even more, but on the live version it is the old one I had edited, although the language skills were back. I agree with the shorter version you did but would also cut out the language part. Nopromo2 (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

ClubLife, Vol. 5 - China redirect and article removal
Hello.

As the title says, it has come to my recent attention that the content of the ClubLife, Vol. 5 article has been removed and redirected over claims of failing WP:NALBUM and notability issues. Indeed the article is not too large and is lacking in some areas such as "critical reception" and "release history", but it cannot be denied that the topic itself is of a notable subject and is covered by multiple independant sources on the web (Billboard, Dancing Astronaut) and has charted on Billboard and Megacharts. Besides, it has an accurate track listing and background section which contains multiple album background explanations from Tiesto himself. References are indeed lacking, but more can be found over time from the sources stated above and be added to the article as content.

I am requesting that the article be allowed back onto Wikipedia provided more sources are found (I'll take the honour to search for them to be included in). It also confuses me that although this article is removed for notability issues, articles for the previous compilations for Clublife still exist. They have even less article content on them (no background, critical reception), just the track listing and chart tables. For example Club Life: Volume Four New York City, Club Life: Volume Three Stockholm, and even Club Life: Volume One Las Vegas. If anything, it would be fair that those articles be removed and redirected too for being not notable, but they still exist until today.

The same too can be said for the Anjunabeats Worldwide 07 which was removed and redirected. I followed the exact formula for the previous articles such as Anjunabeats Worldwide 03 and Anjunabeats Worldwide 04, yet mine was removed and these articles still stand.

It would be much appreciated if I could have your time to look into the arguments I've brought up! Thanks. ANode (talk) 06:49, 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) 12:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your enquiry! Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with certifications so I'd rather have other editors to update it. Hayman30 (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

About the Genre change/addition
Hi, Sorry to interrupt, I added 1 genre because i have listened to that song and i discovered something on my brain so I put it, My apologies of what I'm doing in the page "Sick Boy (song)". I am happy to hear the message, Thank you for understanding.

Sincrely Judahxd1 Judahxd1 (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"Friends" by Marshmello and Anne-Marie
Hey, just letting you know as I saw you added "Friends" to Marshmello discography the other day and added "with Anne-Marie" as she receives equal credit, but didn't make the namespace with her name in it, so I created it. It appears Anne-Marie receives equal credit on the cover art/official upload too: https://listen.tidal.com/album/84085588  Ss  112   14:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually just found out I redirected Friends (Marshmello and Anne Marie song) without the hyphen in "Anne-Marie" by mistake. G7-ed it already. Hayman30 (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliable?
Hi User:Hayman30, do you know if DJ Mag is considered a reliable source on music articles? Because here it calls "Nuh Ready Nuh Ready" a "dancehall number" and features an interview with the artist talking about their influences and how "My Way" (for it's article) was the least exciting release. Theo (contribs) 22:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes DJ Mag is reliable and I've added it. Thanks for the heads-up! Hayman30 (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Theo (contribs) 05:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Bom Diggy (Zack Knight song)
Hi ,

Good to see you again. Can you please make an article about Bom Diggy (Zack Knight song)? This song has achieved number 2 rank in Aisa (December rank number 1). Here is the chart rank. Music video cross 50 million views in YouTube. Also Dillon Francis made remix for this song. This song perfectly notable. If you agree then make this. Thank You, Siddiqsazzad001    (Talk)     20:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

On the Loose radio edit
Hello. About length of the radio edit of On the Loose. It is on Allaccess.com. You know that site, do you? It is one of the most reliable sources about radio in the USA. You can go to that site > Formats > Top 40/M > Cool New Music (or Future Releases). You will see there On the Loose. click play. you will listen radio edit of On The Loose. that's how radio will play it. It is official radio edit from the label. (I'm too lazy to change the page again and add the link, so ... if you want - do it yourself) All the Love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EleniSpelmen (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I do know that site, and I know how to access such information. However, you are the one who made the change, you should be providing a source, I don't have the responsibility to do so, neither should you expect me or any editor to. If you add unsourced information to Wikipedia and post on somebody's talk page with such attitude after being reverted, I don't think you should stay. Hayman30 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You totally missunderstand me. I see you want to make some pages better, that's why I said you can add this information by yourself. I've never saw before that I need to add "the source" to radio edit leight, so that's why I'll just step back and will not change anything. That's what I meant. Don't want to make it worse. I appreciate your work, and usually have no troubles with the source, but for this one I had no idea that I need to add something else. Forget about this conversation. Have a nice day))) EleniSpelmen (talk 09:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No I totally understand you. Firstly you're trying to imply that I don't know that site existed and you tired to instruct me on how to look for the radio edit length as if I'm new here. Why waste time posting this entire message on my talk page and tell me how to do it instead of doing it yourself? The former would be more tiring and hence wouldn't be a conscious choice since you said you're "lazy". And then you moved on to tell me to do it myself as if you've done nothing wrong. In fact, you've shown no guiltiness whatsoever up until now. You are making the matter worse by telling someone who reverted your unsourced changes that they should ultimately add the source themselves. I'm sure that the goal of every editor who's been here long enough is to "make the pages better", so would you go ahead and leave them a message telling them to DIY after they reverted your unsourced changes? The answer is no, because that's not how Wikipedia works, at least according to my knowledge. And now you're saying that you're not doing anything because I told you the radio edit length needs a source? What? Hayman30 (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A Different Way
Hello. It seems as though Lauv is a lead artist on DJ Snake's A Different Way. The official video is titled DJ Snake, Lauv - A Different Way, and on Spotify the song is titled A Different Way (with Lauv). It seems as though Lauv is a lead artist, even though the cover art has "feat." before his name. Every875 Talk to me 02:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, see this. A few streaming services saying otherwise doesn't override other sources. Please check the sources in critical reception as well, they generally refer Lauv as a featured artist. Hayman30 (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You've been mentioned on WP:ANI
Hey, just wanted to let you know that a user has mentioned a dispute with you here on WP:ANI. Eik Corell (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I said there: please don't edit war to redirect articles. If your bold redirect is contested, get consensus at WP:AFD to redirect the article.  This is subject to community consensus, not your fiat.  You are also wrong that sources need to be in an article to prove the topic is notable.  Sources merely need to exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Échame la culpa
Hola, Hayman30. The correct thing in Spanish is to write only the first letter of the titles of the works in Spanish with the first capital letter, except for proper names. I am sorry to tell you, then, that the titles of creative works in Spanish are all badly written here. The source can be consulted here in section 4.17. Do not write to me on my talk page, because I do not speak English and this text has been written with a Google online translator. I only speak Spanish and French. Greetings from Chile. Penquista (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging You might want to discuss here, I don't feel like edit warring with them. Hayman30 (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Pointless revert
Can you please avoid making pointless reverts like this? What purpose did that serve other than to alert me that you moved the song to a different section? At that point nothing had said it was a single, so my edit was correct. You simply moved the song to a different section, you didn't remove what I added to the page.  Ss  112   14:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No? It wasn't pointless. It was to allow me to move content straight away without having to manually undoing your addition first. The button exists for a reason, not only to allow a mere removal of stuff, but in instances like this. I never said your edit was incorrect, so stop being overly pedantic, we've been through this before already. Hayman30 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? How is this an instance of being overly pedantic when you clicked revert for no reason? My edit didn't move anything, I added the entry to the page entirely. It's not as if I moved the song from being a single to the guest appearances section. If I had, I might understand. You could have just added the entry to the singles section and then removed it from the guest appearances section without clicking revert. There was no need for it whatsoever. It's like you just clicked revert for the sake of it.  Ss  112   14:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Woah there, what are you talking about? I clicked revert for a reason: to directly add the song into singles instead of manually removing it from guest appearances first. I think there's a need for it, it's more convenient, you just don't like to be reverted. I even specified in the summary that it was a move instead of leaving that default software generated undo summary, but it appears that wasn't enough for you. Hayman30 (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, nobody likes to be reverted when the action appears to be completely pointless, including you. You've found plenty of reasons to revert users who've reverted you, if even for the slightest of things. I've seen it plenty of times, because you've also done it to me. I would bet that if I had done this exact action to you, you would've found some reason to revert me back on the page itself or have sent me a message saying it was pointless too.  Ss  112   15:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't pointless, it was a constructive edit, you just think it is pointless because you're being reverted and now you're crying because you can't do anything about it other than leaving me a message trying to put me in bad light and pretend you haven't done something similar before. Hayman30 (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm crying my heart out because you wanted to press revert to prove you can.  Ss  112   15:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You could call it whatever you like, can you just get over it? This alone indicates your pedantry. Hayman30 (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Mate, I'm over it. I just think this indicates your pettiness and me-against-everyone attitude you have to Wikipedia.  Ss  112   15:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ya, just like you ;-). Hayman30 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello?
Can I ask you something? HueMan1 (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure what's up? Hayman30 (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

About song articles HueMan1 (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

And You & Me (Marshmello song)? HueMan1 (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What. Hayman30 (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It isn't notable to be an article? HueMan1 (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Read WP:NSONGS. Bye. Hayman30 (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you? Sorry for bothering you :( HueMan1 (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Flower Road
Removed Hollywood Life. Thanks for the warning. ( Lgggioia (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Hayman30 (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Drip
E! news is an unreliable source.

""Check out my new song DRIP ft Migos out now everywhere .Invasion of privacy will be out this FRIDAY!!" tweet"

She has called the other singles, with an artwork. This is a promo single, album tracks released ahead of the album. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Calling it a song doesn't mean it's not a single. Vibe also called it a single. Stop deeming sources unreliable merely because they're contrary to your personal belief. Also, take this to an article talk page, user talk pages are not for content disputes. Hayman30 (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wrote it here because you're the only user changing it to "single" in every article. Several music websites call pre-album songs, singles. At least for every artist signed to a record label, a 'single' treatment includes sending the song to radio. Her current single is "Be Careful", per her own words. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm changing it in every article because you're reverting my edits based on nothing. You don't have any source to support your argument. By taking it to an article talk page, other editors can be encouraged to involve in the discussion. This is just going to be a back and forth situation if neither of us step back. And let me repeat: Cardi B herself has not denied that "Drip" is single. Sending the song to radio is merely a promotion strategy, it is no longer a determining factor in whether a song is a single or not. Also, don't ping me on my own talk page. Hayman30 (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you expect a tweet from Cardi saying "Drip isn't a single"? I already explained why I reverted. There's this thing about 'promotional singles', media never uses that term, though Wikipedia has a subsection in every Discography article with that name for the songs released this way-that aren't singles. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do—quite frankly, there's a rapper whom I couldn't recall tweeted out something similar before. Out of most of my encounters, though, media outlets tend to call promotional singles "songs" rather than proper "singles". Hayman30 (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Fix"
In case you don't see my edit summary on Expectations (Bebe Rexha album)—changing the website from repetoire.bmi.com to BMI is not a "fix". You frequently use this as a summary, like a catch-all for something you wish to change rather than something that needs to be. Please be more precise with your edit summaries—"change" would be more appropriate here, because "fix" would mean it was wrong, and it wasn't. It was entirely fine as it was. Website is frequently the actual shortened web address and does not have to be the organisation's name.  Ss  112   16:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, if you're going to argue about this or retort with "you do it too" (as if my edits are some are guidebook or example for you or any user to follow), then no need. Nothing wrong with asking somebody to be a bit more precise; I just notice you do this quite a bit and it's really not a "fix".  Ss  112   16:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sorry, officer. "Fix" does not necessarily imply something was wrong, it could mean tidy up or neaten. Regardless, it's always better than not giving an edit summary at all, but your "I have control over everybody" attitude is urging me to do so. Hayman30 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, we're replying 24 hours later because you want to have an argument now. Righto. Asking you to be more specific than "fix" is not "controlling you". That doesn't even make sense. "Tidy up" and "neaten" are not synonyms of "fix". Also, you really need to get over this seriously bad attitude you seem to have towards editing here. It's really going to lead to nothing but problems for you. I know I'm not perfect—nobody here or anywhere is—but if you can take any advice at this point, maybe just don't edit if you're annoyed or in a bad mood. I honestly thought the reason you became this uppity and quick to jump at somebody so quickly is that you used to regularly look at my contributions and adopted some of the attitude you saw yourself, because I saw your early edits around the time you got blocked versus now and you didn't have any of the attitude, and still, a lot of what you say sounds like you're imitating what I have said—and I don't feel imitation is flattery here when you have such a low opinion of other editors. However, if that's where this originally came from I think you've really gone off the rails. You just insert sarcasm and smart-ass responses to everything for no reason other than you are seemingly pissed off in general at everybody while editing. You haven't even really been here that long in the grand scheme of things—I'd expect such a jaded attitude out of someone who's been around here for maybe 10 years. Just chill the actual F out. Not everything requires a sarcastic response.  Ss  112   17:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bingo. You better chill out with this long ass comment. It's just the internet. Hayman30 (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Mate, if it's just the Internet, why do you get annoyed at everything? Also, why did you follow me on Twitter when you discovered my full name after emailing me? I don't get it. You don't appear to like me, so...?  Ss  112   17:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I ain't annoyed man, why did you think I'm annoyed? And I just decided to give it a search, because why not, two clicks. Hayman30 (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

OTW
Hi, I see you added the song "OTW" to Khalid discography earlier and created a redirect for it. I just looked and apparently in 2016 I created OTW (song) for a song that will probably not be developed into an article/isn't particularly notable, so perhaps develop the Khalid article there to avoid another annoying Freaky Friday (song) move situation (which of course, you weren't involved in, just pointing out all those moves were very pointless). As I pointed out to Anthony Appleyard, WP:NCMDAB consensus requires that we only need to disambiguate by artist name if more than one song article of the same name exists. Thanks.  Ss  112   14:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What about OTW (DJ Luke Nasty song)? Hayman30 (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't know that existed...and it was developed on a redirect I created too. Oh well, I guess it needs additional disambiguation then.  Ss  112   14:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

DRN notice
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Bardigang (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No Tears Left to Cry
Hey, saw you thanked me for my edit on the redirect earlier. Can you keep an eye on Love on the Brain's inability to understand that speedy deletion templates are not to be removed by the creator of the page/the source they cited on Ariana Grande discography stating the song title came from "rumours"? Thanks.  Ss  112   16:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Too Hotty
Hi Hayman30,

Thank you for you message.

Too Hotty has had its songwriters updated on the PRS database. Unfortunately this is not available to the public without membership so cannot be used for citation.

How can I proceed?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJMARSH (talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

So Sad So Sexy
Hey. So, I hope you don't mind, I moved So Sad So Sexy to So Sad So Sexy (song) to preserve the page history and your intention (I have since made the base name into a stub about the album; feel free to contribute—I don't know if you have an interest). I did this because you meant the song, and it was sourced on Li's discography as being for the song. I did not specifically care in this instance about taking—here's that contentious word again—"credit" (I'm perfectly willing to contribute content on redirects others made if I'm sufficiently interested; I mean, I did just earlier at your redirect Youngblood (5 Seconds of Summer album)). Additionally, some editors might say "I wouldn't have cared" (presumably because a lot of people believe albums supersede the importance of singles) but in the past, others have asked "why did you do that? I was going to make that and now you've taken the credit", etc. and I felt that if I had gone ahead and created the album at your redirect then made a separate redirect for the song, it could have worked the other way—that you might care more about the song and seen that as me taking "credit" for making the song's redirect (as that's happened before a few times with other editors as well). Anyway, hope it's not a bother.  Ss  112   05:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: your ping
I got your ping. If you feel that a histmerge is necessary to merge the histories of two similar pages, go to WP:SPLICE. If you think the name of the page itself is incorrect you're welcome to put in a move request. The capitalization and stylization of article names is a contentious one, so I cannot unilaterally make any changes even if I feel one or the other is "more correct". Primefac (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have expressed myself more clearly...I was trying to say that the user (who used to be Zawl) has returned to their old editing behavior, which is to "get credit" by creating articles at obviously incorrect namespaces. Anyway, I've requested the move and directed my concerns to arbcom. Hayman30 (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought it was odd that I'd encounter a new user with the same issues as another user. So much for a clean start. Thank you for letting me know, I'll keep an eye on them. Primefac (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Heads up
Sockpuppet investigations/Alvi Z. - keep an eye on your userspace in the next few days, this guy is known to create subpages. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  09:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted but why me? Hayman30 (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My people have been asking that for 3030 years. Alvi Z. likes the number 30 - hence and .  &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  19:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The Chainsmokers second studio album
Hey, have I missed something? I don't doubt your edit(s) to Sick Boy (song) and other Chainsmokers articles, but have the Chainsmokers already announced a second studio album and what will be on it? I was confused about their 12 singles over 12 months/"let's combine these songs into an EP then remove said EP and reinstate a different EP" mess.  Ss  112   17:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See this. It's sourced on Chainsmokers' article but I just found out it's PopCrush. Will change it to Billboard. Hayman30 (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Like I Do (David Guetta, Martin Garrix and Brooks song)
Hi. Are you sure that the song Like I Do by David Guetta, Martin Garrix and Brooks is not an eurodance song? Just listen to it. It contains a lot of elements from the 2010s eurodance genre. 195.204.12.242 (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't just listen to it and say it's a eurodance song, you have to cite a reliable source. Hayman30 (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Bigger (album)
On Bigger (album), regarding "Lean It On Back". In that context, "on" is a phrasal verb, meaning that it gets capitalized because "on" is an adverb in that context; compare Take It On Back or Turn On the Radio. "Lean It on Back" with a lowercase O would mean leaning on someone else's back. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So what explains this? Hayman30 (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Companies don't always get capitalization right, that's what. "On" is still an adverb in this context. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Revival (Eminem album)
Please explain why you reverted my edit to Revival (Eminem album). DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the first letters of genres should not be capitalized unless they're the first genre in the list or are proper names. Hayman30 (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)DangleSnipeCelly1

LSD (Labrinth, Sia and Diplo song) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LSD (Labrinth, Sia and Diplo song). Since you had some involvement with the LSD (Labrinth, Sia and Diplo song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Request
Can you upload the album cover for Leon Bridges' album Good Thing. Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hayman30 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Change (feat. James Taylor)
I took your advice and it is on the talkpage of Talk:Voicenotes, boy. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"For You" chart performance
I made the chart performance of the song if you could give a help and edit it to be better and more accurate it would be nice! ManEdit01 (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Too Hotty
I've tried to engage you in a discussion about this in April that you have ignored. I am not the one edit warring, I have provided multiple sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJMARSH (talk • contribs) 10:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You were edit warring; providing sources doesn't mean you're not edit warring, and those sources are not valid anyway. Opening a discussion on my talk page also doesn't grant you the right to make more reverts; in fact, you've made four reverts within a 24-hour period. Hayman30 (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You have made 4 reverts as well. Pot Kettle Black. I have provided numerous sources relating to this edit ranging from major music publications to direct links to the professional music songwriting databases (PRS) that is internationally recognised by all parts of the music industry. I also note there are no citations regarding the songwriting credits of the original article?
 * I did not make 4 reverts within a 24-hour period. You did. Read what I wrote. None of the sources you have provided are valid, you never provided a direct link to PRS; it was an unverifiable screenshot hosted on a random site. The original credits are explicitly sourced on the album page, as I stated before. Did you even read my edit summaries? Also, don't ping me on my own talk page, apparently you just copied my comment and changed the username in the template. Hayman30 (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Barbie Tingz
I see you reverted the edit I posted on Barbie Tingz you had took Republic Records off....they are still distributing Cash Money Records’ future releases. Jevon Tompkins (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Only primary label(s) goes into the infobox, labels that distributed later releases should only be mentioned in the article's body. This means Republic, as a radio label, should not be in the infobox. Hayman30 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

BSB New single
I know it's not a rumor but still it's not allowed to post there in the discography article as if it's already been released. You could mention it in their main article that "they're going to release a new single on this date". I'm going to let it slide for now since it's been released by now anyway but next time don't do that. Thanks.--Krystaleen 11:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please point to policy. There's not a rule like that as far as I'm aware. You kept reverting without a valid reason, don't blame it on me as if I was wrong. Hayman30 (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You Got 'Em All
I added some sources to You Got 'Em All. It has two charted singles, and was released on a major label. The album was literally just released yesterday, so give it a chance. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Having two "hit" singles doesn't make it notable, notability requires independent evidence. Whether it was released on a major label isn't a determining factor as far as I'm aware, being released yesterday is not an excuse either. I already gave it a chance by not redirecting it in the first place, I did a Google search and most of the results that showed up are country music blogs. Hayman30 (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

New article
Hi User:Hayman30, I've just created a new article for the Drake song "I'm Upset" and wondered if you can add the cover art please? It'd be a great help. Cheers, --Theo Mandela (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Hayman30 (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Friends Anne Marie
Hi, could the remaining writers' names be included / credited on this page please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbyoung00 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Hayman30 (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Ball For Me

 * I introduced ubl template which is concise and sorts entries listed in it.
 * By doing so I made that infobox accessible as a "data structure" and easily utilisable by other third parties such as DBpedia.
 * Entries in a list must be listed using a template (any list type) so that each of them can be treated separately. Those asterisks are used below paragraphs.

I know all of this explanation is in vain, being an experienced editor, you won't compromise, and will find faults here too. This is called ego and ownership issue. Though I tried my best to improve this article and keep things clean, I can't do anything further since you are hindering. It will be best for me to leave that article. I don't have energy to explain each and every person. Start editing WikiData and maybe you find a change in yourself? Harsh Rathod Poke me!  13:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for leaving me such a detailed message. We don't use list templates in infobox song, see Template:Infobox_song. Hayman30 (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow! This gentleman is following the rules. I should better leave now. Rules are rules. I don't converse with users of this mentality. Don't you think those instruction being old need to be revisited to meet current standards and practices. You did the same thing with Chun-Li without giving a second thought or mayhe you did that because it gave you an opportunity to increase your edit count by two. 😂 Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  14:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What is your problem? Calling me a hindrance and attacking me for following the rules? Seriously I was calmly informing you about the reason behind my revert and now you're here with all this nonsense? Hayman30 (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You didn't reply me for any of my given rationales. Don't worry, just show me why they are not good to be there, take your time. Don't get angry, you are making WikiPedia a great place. Keep this up. I just want to see how far editors can get to prove themselves correct. Harsh Rathod Poke me!  14:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would I have to reply to your "rationales" when none of them actually applies? It is explicitly stated at Template:Infobox_song that editors should not use other list templates. I do not welcome your poor attitude and I will ask you to stop posting to my talk page. You are deliberately wasting my time. Hayman30 (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Forgive an intrusion here. I'm kinda the person responsible for Harshrathod50's use of the ubl template, based on some interactions on Indian film articles early on in their Wikipedia editing tenure.  Docs on the infobox film template say to use a plainlist template for multiple items.  It's interesting that two different infobox templates mention using list templates for the same reason, but specifically say to use different templates.  Sigh - consistency at it's finest!  The overly aggressive attitude above isn't helpful, but hopefully this gives you some background on the origins of their views.  I'm glad some form of list is noted as needing to be used to aid in accessibility.  Thanks!  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Migos template
As according to the official songwriting credits for "Apeshit", Quavo and Offset are credited for "Additional vocals by Offset &Quavo of Migos". The group itself is credited, and should be included in the template. I put it under "Other songs" because it's true that Migos aren't at the tier of featured vocalists for the track. Nice4What (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter if "Migos" is included in the credits, it's just two members from the trio after all, how they're credited in the official credits is irrelevant. Putting this song under the Migos template would give the reader a false impression that the entire group, including Takeoff, is involved in the song. You can add the members' individual templates to avoid confusion. Nevertheless, this song should not be placed under "other songs" because Migos is not credited as a primary artist on the song. Hayman30 (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows "Bad and Boujee". It doesn't include Takeoff but it credits Migos as the primary artist. "Slide" doesn't include Takeoff but credits Migos as the featured artist. And now "Apeshit"... it doesn't include Takeoff but credits "Offset and Quavo of Migos" as additional vocalists. "Migos" are included in the official credits and have prominent vocals in the song (being credited as such and you can take the time to listen to the song yourself). There is no "false impression" that the entire group is involved. The "Migos" credit doesn't always mean all three together. And this song has two out of three members. Nice4What (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, the way they credited Offset and Quavo as additional vocalists is irrelevant. All we know is that Takeoff is not involved at all and thus Migos is not involved either because the name represents the trio as a whole. You can show me a zillion examples...other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Hayman30 (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello
Okay, I don't want edit warring with you. But please dude, please... give us a chance to source and cite those things, you know it. Thanks. hueman1 (talk)  09:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I never prohibited you from sourcing those genres, I was merely pointing out that those genres you reverted and restored were completely unsourced. Saying that it sounds similar to its predecessor doesn't mean their genres are exactly the same, and even if he says that Joytime II sounds exactly like Joytime, you can't just take all the genres from Joytime and slap them onto Joytime II. Sources must explicitly and directly attribute the genre to the album as a whole. That means sources will have to say something like "Marshmello goes future bass on Joytime II" rather than "Joytime II sounds similar to its predecessor". Furthermore, the genres on Joytime were unsourced as well. Please don't make false accusations against me just because I reverted you. Hayman30 (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, I just wanted help hueman1 (talk)  10:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"Because everything needs a citation on Wikipedia" except if it's obvious
About what you said about everything needing a citation on Wikipedia. Yes, most information on Wikipedia needs to be referenced, but with more obvious things like Lonely Together being the last Avicii single released during his lifetime, I think it's just fine to not cite it. According to the policy page No original research,


 * "but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because it is so easily verifiable that no one is likely to object to it; we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed."

I think saying that the song was the last single released during Avicii's lifetime is attributable. Kid299 (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, both "Lonely Together" and "Without You" were released as singles on the exact same day, so what makes the former the last single but not the latter? That's why we need a source explicitly saying that it is in fact the last single released by Avicii. Hayman30 (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Lucid Dreams by Juice Wrld cover art.jpg
Hi Hayman30, is there any chance the single cover for "Lucid Dreams" can be sourced from Spotify instead please? As Genius is not a reliable source since it's user-generated (WP:USERGEN). -Theo Mandela (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ with PNG cover retrieved directly from Spotify. Hayman30 (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

AllMusic
Would you like to weigh in this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Why_are_we_prioritizing_AllMusic_for_the_critic_score_infoboxes? discussion] regarding AllMusic should be in infoboxes over other publications. Only if you interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice for What compostion
Hi Hayman30, for Nice for What can you format the genre sources the same as you did with the One Kiss (song) article please? I feel like once it reaches five refs in a row it starts looking messy and harder for someone reading to know which sources support what. Cheers, -Theo Mandela (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * – After a quick review of the sources, I have removed hip hop as a genre, thus there are only three sources left and requires no grouping. Although Billboard indirectly called it a "rap song" in the provided quote "Rap songs have now led the Hot 100 for a record-extending 25 consecutive weeks", it is required by WP:EXPLICITGENRES (which is an essay not a policy, though I think it's helpful in determining whether the genre in question should be included) for sources to explicitly and directly attribute the genre to the work as a whole, which is not demonstrated in the aforementioned quote or found in the entire article. Similarly, the same logic applies to the Pitchfork review as well, in which the author wrote: "the impeccable production from Murda Beatz [...] it's the kind of beat that stands alone as a fantastic piece of hip-hop machinery". HipHopDX, on the other hand, called the song "bounce-inspired", which is just generally not acceptable as a source for bounce (bounce-inspired is different from bounce, but in this case you can write: "The song draws inspiration from bounce..." etc.) Hayman30 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * HipHopDX referred to it as "Drake's Bounce Song" in the title though, just not in the article. Thanks for that and going back to fix the other edits I sourced from the Billboard article, I'll save the genre warrior page too.


 * Would you help fix the genres on "One Dance" too please? Because the infobox has dancehall and Afrobeat as genres (with refs, but I can't access the NY Times one for Afrobeat, and I'm not sure the two for dancehall are being explicit). Whereas, the "Composition and recording" section calls it "a R&B song heavily infused with Nigerian afrobeat and Jamaican dancehall". I added a ref to the infobox I thought was calling the song UK funky, I've since wondered if that was being explicit, then an IP editor removed it. -Theo Mandela (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

High on Life listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect High on Life. Since you had some involvement with the High on Life redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The editor  whose username is Z0 08:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Arthistorian1977. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, High On Life (song), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Youngblood (5 Seconds of Summer album)
Two critics: "dance-pop sound", "pop rock sound". That user might not see your previous summary (WP:EXPLICITGENRES). I won't disturb you further about this matter. 115.164.209.20 (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC) (Updated by 115.164.81.140 (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC))
 * Are you sleeping? 115.164.182.252 (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Wake up!!!!! That user might be watching it.115.164.182.252 (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * use the mobile device can't able to see the user's own user talk page. I guess. 183.171.122.63 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Stay Dangerous
Can you upload the album cover for YG's latest album Stay Dangerous. Somebody already uploaded the cover but got deleted. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hayman30 (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Genre questions
Hi Hayman30, I've reviewed these sources, but am not sure about the use of these genres. Can you shed some light please? Thanks, Theo Mandela (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Uproxx says "Sonically, the 10-track album is a genre-bender that leans way more toward alternative rock than “Look At Me Now” implied his debut album ever would." Is it ok to use as a ref on 17 for alternative rock?
 * The National says "The deeply misogynistic track ["Look at Me"] would go down as seminal moment in the young history of SoundCloud Rap, a three-year-old hip-hop subgenre with tracks originating from the online music distribution service SoundCloud." is it explicit in calling "Look at Me" SoundCloud rap?
 * Salute says "XXXTentacion doesn’t actually start to rap until “Moonlight,” an electronic trap that gets to be a bit repetitive at times." What genre(s) should be in the infobox?
 * Hey, sorry for the late reply, but here's what I have to say:


 * ❌ – saying that it "leans way more toward alternative rock" doesn't mean it is alternative rock. "Leans toward" is not direct language.
 * ❌ – they're not directly attributing the genre "SoundCloud Rap" to the track. They would have to say something like: "The song is an quintessential example of SoundCloud rap".
 * ✅ – they're explicitly and directly attributing "electronic trap" to the song by using definitive language, which perfectly meets the requirements listed on WP:EXPLICITGENRES. However, I wouldn't consider this website/online magazine as a reliable source. Hayman30 (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've removed the Uproxx source from 17 and the Salute one from "Moonlight". I've added a couple of genres to 17 and two of his singles boldly, but do you know if this source is reliable, please? Before I add it in "Revenge"'s infobox. And lastly would you say the Washington Post is calling "Look at Me" glitch and pop ("a distorted death-glitch called “Look at Me!”", "Even if “Look at Me!” slides off the charts next week and plummets into the public register of great pop flukes")? Cheers. Theo Mandela (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

 * Sent you another yesterday.  Ss  112   08:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Have responded to yours!  Ss  112   07:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * +1  Ss  112   09:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Just asking
So no need to get defensive, but why are you still making redirects that aren't covered at the target article? I happened to visit your contributions in the last few minutes after seeing you edited Zayn Malik discography earlier and saw you made a few for Liam Payne's EP. I see there are assumptions First Time is the title, but he made a post about the EP (without naming it), then said "First Time 24.08.18" in the next tweet. This could just be a song from it, regardless of what music gossip pages are reporting. I understand users—not necessarily meaning you, but basically any editor is willing to create a redirect—is in some kind of rush to be the first to make it, but personally I think we should err on the side of caution, as in wait for a news article or material to be verified on an article before making it a redirect, otherwise as previously stated by various users, these can be nominated for speedy deletion for being implausible redirects, or nominated for being WP:OR. If you want to be the first to make it and see another editor's went ahead and made it already without attempting to add anything to the article (if nothing is already written there about it), tell them the same thing.  Ss  112   05:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bro you look at people's contributions because you saw they edited a page on your watchlist? You "happened to" visit my contributions as if you don't do it occasionally? Let's be honest with each other. This is not WP:OR; Virgin Radio first broke the news on 14 August, the same day as MNR. Then today other sources reported about the EP. Yes, I should've added the sources to the article beforehand, but they do exist. This hasn't been a problem until you (who used to make these "unsourced" redirects all day long) suddenly started patrolling all redirects and nominating them for WP:R3, which I think doesn't even apply in some situations like this one. I don't want to sound like a "spoiled child" but I've seen other experienced editors doing this without being bothered very recently, so I don't understand why you're so concerned, just saying. Hayman30 (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bro, yes I do. At what point did I say I never visit your contributions? I wasn't specifying how often I do it because it's irrelevant, merely denoting how I visited your page this time, but it appears I was damned if I mentioned it, damned if I didn't. Thought I'd try to cover my bases; obviously that doesn't matter. Also, yes, it is still WP:OR because the information wasn't on Wikipedia. In that case you're expecting editors to know new releases or go out and find proof of them, whereas the WP:BURDEN of proving said content exists is on you. That Virgin Radio website probably read the same gossip Twitter you did. MusicNewsRumor is not a reliable source; they've been wrong before, they'll be wrong again, and honestly I'm a bit amused you're citing a gossip Twitter to me and trying to pass it off as reliable or to back up what you said. Every time I bring this up with you, you think you hold some trump card over me by pointing out "you used to do it!" Do I still create redirects when they're not covered at the target article? No. I saw the speculation about the Liam Payne song's title the other day; I didn't make it because there were no reliable sources to add to the article. I don't do it now. So your point is invalid. Everybody makes mistakes; we should aim to learn from them. I have. Evidently you haven't, hence why you keep doing it (and if I really go back and stalk your contributions, it appears at the time you created the redirect for Rina Sawayama's "Cherry", it wasn't even mentioned at her article). Oh but because there's unreliable speculation out there and "more experienced editors" do it, it's a-okay, right? Honestly. More experienced editors than you and I have sworn at users, and harassed them non-stop until they were blocked for it. Does that make that okay too? No, it does not. You should not be relying on what "more experienced editors do" to back up things you do. R3 applies because it could be construed as original research that you've gone off the speculation of a few pop music stans and created a redirect based on speculation. Your opinion that it "doesn't apply in this case" doesn't really matter because it's up to an admin to decide if it applies, not you. Again, one admin said it didn't apply once and now you think that's going to be the case all the time everywhere. Not so. You need to chill out with your attempts to be first in redirects, because as I told Lk95 last week, you, I, any editor can create all the damn redirects you/we want. It does not ensure another editor making their article there, only merely increases the likelihood of it. They can still make an article in draftspace, in their userspace, misspell it and then have it moved, create it with extra disambiguation, capitalise the "S" in "song" in the disambiguator... the ways and means go on and on. Oh and nevermind that basically every damn Tom, Dick and Harry creates redirects on Wikipedia these days but yes, you really see me going and "patrolling" all of them too, right? But you don't stalk my contributions, so of course you wouldn't know. I guess I'm just supposed to know all of who you are referring to and go and tell them the same thing (but FYI, I previously told Jennica). Looks like I can't even ask why you're still doing it without you getting defensive.  Ss  112   11:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ye I have to get defensive because you're being a little a bit aggressive and again, I think it's you who need to chill because look who wrote this entire rant. You didn't even justify why you looked at my contributions in the first place. You don't just regularly check people's contributions because you saw them editing a page on your watchlist. I didn't say you never visit my contribs, I said you were visiting for no apparent sensible reason. And it's not WP:OR because sources exist. Yes the information isn't on Wikipedia, but that's unsourced not original search because online reliable sources can verify that there's a Liam Payne EP called First Time and a Liam Payne song called First Time, that's not "unreliable speculation". I already admitted my fault for not including the sources beforehand and I was not expecting others to find sources for me. Saying that Virgin Radio read MNR's tweet before writing the article is pure assumption. MNR tweetwed at 10:48 AM UTC and the Virgin article was published at 11:26 AM, they definitely read the tweet the moment it went live and wrote an entire article under 38 minutes because that's logic right there. I didn't say MNR was reliable, I simply brought it up because you mentioned that you assume I made those redirects based on what "music gossip pages" reported, which is not true. I actual made a Google search right after reading the tweet, let's just say I forgot to add them to the article. You wouldn't believe it anyway because you just want to fire back at me. Hayman30 (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Happier (Marshmello and Bastille song)
Hello, can you help expand this article by adding more reliable sources? Thanks! hueman1 (talk)  09:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No...in fact, I've just redirected it due to it lack of notability. A Google search only pulled up 4 reliable sources. You can recreate the article when it gets more coverage. Hayman30 (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It's fine... I know it's not yet notable for wikipedia but thanks by the way. Sorry I'm pretty slow at this but I'll try. -- hueman1 (talk)  10:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Speaking of notability, why/where is Twinbow notable for? It didn't chart, nothing special about it. -- hueman1 (talk)  10:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to ping me on my talk page. I've redirected that and Moving On (Marshmello song), which was a page I created when I was first starting. It only charted on the US Hot Dance/Electronic Songs. Also, a common misconception is that as long as a song charts, it's notable. That's not true per WP:SONGS, which states that a song charting only suggests that the song may be notable, not that it is notable. Hence, being ranked on one chart definitely doesn't establish notability, and a song's notability shouldn't entirely rely on charts, regardless of how successful it is on the charts. Hayman30 (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What if there's a popular song that didn't make any charts? Is it not notable? -- hueman1 (talk)  10:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol what do you mean? If it didn't chart then it's not popular. A song must chart to some degree in order to be popular. Hayman30 (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Is Chasing Colors notable too? hueman1 (talk)  10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Borderline notable, I'd say. I've placed a tag anyway. Most of which that pulled up on Google are dodgy EDM blogs. Hayman30 (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Liam Payne
Liam Payne discography should be edited and be made a page also for the EP first time which is an official annoucement so instead of deleting my tries (because i'm new in editing in wikipedia) think about helping me or edit any fault ManEdit01 (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Liam Payne discography should be edited"? What does that mean? If you mean splitting Liam Payne to Liam Payne discography then no because its length does not justify a split. I saw you redirecting Liam Payne discography to Liam Payne discography, don't do that you're literally pointing a redirect at the same redirect, but a bot will fix it anyway. And the EP is not notable enough to have its own article at this point, he's hasn't even announced any details about it (or officially announce it, since he only mentioned the word "EP" in his fan letter). Hayman30 (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok I got it that it doesn't have enough information to be an article (i'm talking about the ep) the thing that i don't understand is when you said that the length does not justify a split. (for discography) First if its not that counts then what is it? And second i was talking about a redirection to make a new article about discography, discography to be an only page and not in his for example.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManEdit01 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I couldn't understand what you're saying. The current discography section on Liam Payne is not long enough to justify a split; it primarily only consists of the singles chart table. Usually, separate discographies are only created when it has too many sections (studio albums, EPs, other charted songs, etc.) gets too long. See WP:SPLIT. Hayman30 (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I made the music video section check it out if there is any wrong please, furthermore i was wondering if you could make the discography a seperate page because i think its long enough to justify a split.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManEdit01 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ignite (Alan Walker song)
I think you should move K-391 part to separate article because this single is definitelly encyclopedic (number 1 in Norway, no 5 in Finland and no 13 in Sweden). Eurohunter (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Charting is not the primary determining factor of a song's notability, neither does it make the song "encyclopedic" (what do you mean?). Please read WP:NSONGS. Significant coverage from reliable sources is the major determining factor. I failed to find any coverage of this song other than EDM blogs and unreliable websites. Hayman30 (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean notabilty. How can number 1 be not notable? Eurohunter (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How can number 1 be notable per se? Did you read WP:NSONGS? Hayman30 (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it says "Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable." so I gues it refers to songs that were charted in second half of the chart just for one, two weeks etc. not numbers one. Eurohunter (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you just contradicted yourself. It "indicates only that a song may be notable", it doesn't automatically make the song immediately notable. Hayman30 (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "may be notable" It says that for example 1 week at number 100 would be not notable but 10 weeks on number 1 would be. Eurohunter (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No it didn't say the last part you're making it up to support your stance. It's a vague example, not something you should be referencing. Charting is only a suggesting factor and is not the sole determining factor of a song's notability. Hayman30 (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Hayman30, I agree completely with Eurohunter here. The song is top 20 in three European countries; including 11 weeks at either number 1 or 2 in Norway. It's a BIG hit. If you believe that it's not notable, (and you're entitled to your opinion) can I suggest you put the "notability" on the article instead of redirect, so people can discuss. It appears that there are other people that think it's notable and only you who thinks it's not at this stage. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Charting in the top 20 in European countries doesn't automatically make it notable, neither does charting at number 1 or 2. Calling it a "big hit" doesn't make it notable, that's your opinion and it's not a valid reason for establishing notability. It failed to receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. The notability tag isn't meant to be placed on the past forever, you just don't want articles you create to be redirected. "Ignite" is clearly unnotable–it's been out since May and it only charted in three countries and has received little media coverage. "Darkside" received almost no coverage from reliable sources, and it's current performance on the charts doesn't establish notability on its own, but when it becomes notable in the future, you could surely recreate it. Oh and yes I am the only one who thinks it's unnotable, just because there are two editors who clearly do not understand what was written at WP:NSONGS doesn't mean I'm wrong. You are known to create obviously unnotable articles with subpar quality so I don't think your defense is even relevant here. I've already explained this extensively to you on your talk page in the past but it appears that you just don't want to hear it and you wanna continue making tons of articles with one chart position and unsourced genres. I can go through all of the articles you make everyday and redirect 97% of them, and you know that. Hayman30 (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hayman30, Hayman, I not wanting to fight with you or start an argument; merely point out that it's a difference of opinions - in line with WP:NSONGS. And I suggest that in that instance, put the "notability" on the article instead. That's all. Peace man. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you even read what I said? The notability tag isn't meant to be placed on the past forever. If it isn't notable now, it should be redirected until it becomes notable in the future. Bro I'm not trying to fight either, I'm desperately attempting to sort this out, but you're just not listening and restating what you've already said without elaborating. Every time we get into a dispute regarding your articles, you seem to think walking away is a valid solution to the problem. Oh and per your comment right here, you seem to think that the existence of other unnotable articles out there on Wikipedia that haven't been deleted/redirected is a warrant for you to create even more bare-bone unnotable articles. It is not. Other stuff exists is obviously not a valid argument here. It's like saying it's okay to vandalize articles because others can do it without getting blocked. Hayman30 (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you think if single is mentioned in some reliable sources it makes single notable? What kind of informations are you expectig from these? Professional ratings are definitelly more rare for singles than albums. Same with awards for singles or music videos. Probably you can add some information about covers but this would be all about notability. Charts are the most important part of it because these easly shows if single is notabile. Probably you can find some interviews or informations about music video, release etc. but this is not part of reception (notability). Eurohunter (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hayman30 I did read what you read and I am familiar with WP:NSONGS. Notability is not "black and white" and again, it is a often a matter of opinion. You seem to think that because I don't agree with you that I haven't heard you or read what you've written, I assure you this is not true. There are more than two editors that believe these songs are notable; there have been multiple editors on "Ignite". But if you feel you need to keep redirecting, then you do whatever you need to do. And just for the record (and in response to the last line), I don't think vandalism is OK. I hope you have a terrific day Tobyjamesaus (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What I think doesn't matter. This is a notability guideline explicitly stated at WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG, that the song must be the subject of and receive significant coverage from multiple, independent and non-trivial reliable sources in order to be assumed as notable. I didn't make these guidelines up myself, and you shouldn't make your own rules. All this talk about the presumed scarcity of professional ratings is irrelavant; single review is a thing and notable songs evidently get tons of coverage from media outlets. Sure, we do have a little bit more material to work on for albums, but the bar isn't necessarily lowered because it's a single not an album, and NSONGS is already a specifically targeted at songs. Charts are not the most important part, they are only suggesting factors, this is obviously your sole opinion. Conversely, significant coverage in reliable sources is in fact the most important part and major determining factor. You are definitely not familiar with NSONGS, I can tell you that, despite your claiming multiple times that you are. Oh and yes, notability is black and white, and it's never a matter of opinion, that's exactly why notability guidelines were set up, which is to prevent difference in opinion in determining notability. You can call a song with only one chart notable, when it is obviously not. And lol you're quoting what I said and disagreeing with it without elaborating again. And please, just because other editors (who clearly failed to understand NSONGS) don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong, you seem to think this is a "majority rules" game where the minority has to obey the majority. Just because you have an editor on your side you think you're on some sort of a success streak or something? Siddiq didn't understand NSONGS until I explained to him, he used to believe that a song should have its own article as long as it has a chart table (which is also pretty much what you believe right now). You have a good day too. Hayman30 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that even not charted song can be notable if only get awards or get any other reception. To be honest if you have charts in the article it formally meets several reliable sources requirement. Charts are provided by reliable sources. Eurohunter (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, chart providers are reliable sources, but reporting the song's chart position isn't significantly covering the song. You don't appear to get how this works. So no, it doesn't necessarily meet the requirement, both formally and informally, just because there are charts. An uncharted song can have its own article if it received significant coverage from reliable sources, they don't need to get an award or very in-depth extensive reviews, but it would be great to have them as well, of course. Hayman30 (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding reliable source without providing notablity don't makes single is notable. All we want to do is to show that song is notable and you can do it only if you have reception (charts, nominations, awards, number of professional reviews, sale data, certification, number of covers etc.). Reliable sources saying that song has been released doesn't really matters. Eurohunter (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about? "Adding reliable source without providing notability [doesn't make the] single notable"? What does that even mean? Significant coverage from multiple reliable sources establishes notability. And no we don't merely rely on "reception" to determine whether a song is notable. If many sources report on the song's release or announcement in considerably great detail (not just one or two sentences), that means the song gets a lot of attention (not some self-released single from an unknown country singer). Hence, it is considered notable. "Reliable sources saying that song has been released doesn't really [matter]" (because charts matters the most? lmao) is solely your opinion, not something you should base on when determining notability. Hayman30 (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability = attention. How reliable sources determine that song is notable, got attention? How many reliable sources is needed? 5, 10, 50? How are you describing it in the article? Can you show good example? Finally I don't guess release of single is that common described. Simply saying release of single is just first step and if it is announced somewhere doesn't matter, the most important is second step - reception - charts is only one of determinants, not need to be. As I said there are other determinants like awards, sales data or professional ratings. Eurohunter (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Stop questioning well-established guidelines when you're trying to enforce your own opinion. You opinion never trumps guidelines that are established and approved by the community, just because you disagree with them doesn't mean you can ignore them and go with whatever you believe. You are welcomed to take it up at WP:SONGS if you want to voice your opinion. Hayman30 (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okey. Could you show me an example in the article? I couldn't find it in featured articles for 50'-90' few singles I have checked. Reception starts after release not before and charts are very well exposed. Eurohunter (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about? Are you using Google Translate or something? Hayman30 (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not but I think I'm doing mistakes. I'm sorry. I mean I wanted too see example of article with "reliable sources" - how it is implemeted. Eurohunter (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO Sick Boy (song) is a pretty good example. Even without the charts and certifications, the song is perfectly and completely notable. I created the article before the song even charted. Hayman30 (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It has cool reception section (looks like 10 reviews) and only three sources for promotion. Do you mean reliable sources by this? Btw. would be good to integrate "Charts" and "Certifications" with "Critics" under "Reception" because all of them are elements of "Reception". Eurohunter (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need a lot sources in every section, that's way too ideal. Articles with such amount of material can be developed into a good article candidate. Not all articles need to be perfect. What do you mean by "Do you mean reliable sources by this?". Separating critical reception, charts and certifications has been practiced extensively in recent years, I wouldn't combine them just for the sake of it. You can definitely bring it up on the talk page of respective WikiProjects, though. Hayman30 (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean without reception section there would be only 3 reliable sources. Eurohunter (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So? The article was created with the reception section. What are you trying to say here? Hayman30 (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Darkside (Alan Walker song)
Hi Hayman30, see above with what I wrote about "Ignite". Tobyjamesaus (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

First Time EP
Do you mind helping please to create Liam Payne's First Time EP which was released today? I don't know if the single needs to be created..ManEdit01 (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have created a stub for it, might be adding more content in the near future. I'll probably make this single article over the weekend, if it gets enough coverage from media outlets. Hayman30 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Valentine
Hi. Was it you who redirected the Valentine search to the Youngblood album? I can’t find the source code to remove the redirection. Valentine is a separate song, it has charted in Australia. That’s why I created a separated page for it. Could you please revert the changes? Chess2018 (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes that was me. Charting in Australia doesn't mean it needs it own article. Not every single from the album needs its own article. If you do a Google search, there is nearly no coverage of the song, indicating its lack of notability. There is consensus that the majority of songs do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Songs should only have an individual article when there is enough material to warrant a detailed article. So no, I will not revert the changes. Hayman30 (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I respectfully disagree. I checked your reference material. I have read it before. It says that it is notable if it meets at least one of the criteria. See the Recordings section:

“Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:...

The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart.”

Kindly revert the article. Chess2018 (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the guidelines thoroughly. See the part where it says "note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable." Also don't edit my comment. Hayman30 (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

“Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.” The song has charted and there are enough references to create a full article. I checked if I have enough reference so to cover the sections that are usually included for a single. I checked your previous page, the First Time EP, that you created. It has on only been released, it has not charted yet, you only have the announcement as reference, but you created a dedicated page for it. How is it that a song that has charted, has been performed on concert that has been broadcasted worldwide, has been discussed on a news article, is not notable enough? It has more references than what you created. Also, the person’s post above created the First Time EP article first but you removed his work, but then you create a new page for the same topic. You are confusing me. You can refer to my article as a stub if you like, but it is likely to grow so it shouldn’t be merged to the album’s article. I apologise if I have to edit this, but no reply option is displayed when I view your comment. Chess2018 (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the point of quoting that guideline when you can't even fulfill it? Do a Google Search man. There is literally no coverage of the song aside from album reviews. Charting doesn't mean it warrants an article; it's only a suggesting factor. Significant coverage in reliable sources is the major determining factor, this song failed to meet such requirement at this point. Don't quote my article creations to support your stance when you can't even justify it. That EP obviously has enough coverage to warrant its own article, it doesn't need to chart. I only created the article after it's been released. The initial article was created way toon soon, when Payne hasn't even officially announced it, and they created it at the wrong place, just like you did. You should've made the article at Valentine (5 Seconds of Summer song), not Valentine (5 Seconds of Summer single), we use "song" rather than "single" in article titles. "It is likely to grow" is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Assuming the song's future notability is WP:CRYSTAL, just recreate the article when the subject is notable. Oh and yes, there isn't a reply option here, this isn't Facebook. Add your comment under mine with appropriate indentation, please. Hayman30 (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Dude, I did a google search. Where do you think I got those references from? It’s not just because the song charted, it has been broadcasted worldwide and discussed in BBC news article too. References aren’t limited to written articles. If my sole reason was because it charted, I would have written that page two months ago, when the song first charted, but I didn’t. The reason I did now is because there are enough materials to work with. And just for clarifications, I’m a woman. "It is likely to grow", was cited as the determining factor whether a stub should remain an independent article or be merged with the artist’s or album’s page. Your reference said there should be enough coverage to write a detailed article, and I did that. The detail was enough, and I supported them with references from the web which I got from Google’s search engine. You could have renamed the article instead of removing the contents of someone’s article. It’s why this is a collaborative media, you can edit and help people correct things like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chess2018 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It being broadcast worldwide is not a supporting factor in establishing notability. Radio stations play tons of song everyday, does that mean every single one of those songs is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia? No. References are limited to written articles if your interpretation of non-written references is the song being played on the radio. There is not enough material to work with. I can't find a single article talking about the song in great detail, for the record, I can't even find the BBC News article you're bragging about. Nobody gives a shit about your gender, Chess, I didn't ask for a clarification, and I sincerely do not care. Citing "It is likely to grow" as a reason for keeping an article only applies when there is enough material to work with, there isn't at this point. You wrote an article with a Facebook video, an article about the album announcement (which doesn't even mention the song), and a YouTube video. None of these are valid sources in establishing the song's notability. I didn't "rename" (I guess you meant "move") the article because the subject is clearly unnotable at this point. There is no point in keeping the article when there's only hope for future notability. It can be easily recreated, in case the subject becomes notable, I don't understand why you're so concerned. Hayman30 (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

UTC)
 * Clearly, you care about gender since you referenced me as “man”. Look harder, there are articles online. When I said it was performed and broadcasted worldwide, I meant it was performed as part of an event. I am aware that songs are played, downloaded and streamed online. Like I’ve said, if there are not enough materials to get the basic information needed to create an article, I wouldn’t have started one. I am concerned because you could have made a discussion first that they do not conform to your standards of being notable, then I would have easily summarised the content and merged it with the album’s page for the timebeing. It’s a matter of respecting other people’s inputs. I do work with other people on my job daily, we use collaborative tools. As common courtesy, we do give a heads up before we remove someone’s content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chess2018 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't ping me on my own talk page. You should've noticed how common the word "man" is in everyday language. For you to even notice that indicates your pettiness. There is not enough material. If there is, provide it. I don't wanna keep arguing with you on this, you are deliberately wasting my time. And these are not my "standards of being notable", these are notability guidelines reviewed and established by the community. You seem to think I made the decision based on my sole opinion, but no, it was based on established guidelines. I am not subject to start a discussion prior to redirecting, you just want me to do that because that way you can still keep the article. I do respect your inputs, but they do not conform to Wikipedia's standards, so I've removed them. Removing your contributions doesn't mean I'm disrespectful, stop being so sensitive, no one asked you to be here. Wikipedia editing is not your everyday job, it's about dealing with a bunch of nerds, what a horrible comparison lol. Hayman30 (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Like I Do
Hi. Do you accept the genres progressive house and dutch house on this song if I use this source? The tags says both "Progressive House" and "Dutch House". And this is not a "press release". Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No. EDM Sauce is a blog, which is considered unreliable on Wikipedia. Hayman30 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are there any news articles or something that says that this is a song is a progressive house song and could be a reliable source on Wikipedia? Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's none of my business. You wanted to add those genres, the burden to find a source for them is on you, not me. I am not entitled to help you. Hayman30 (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Scorpion
HotNewHipHop is not a reliable source; it does not even provide the author's last name. Metacritic's weighted compilation and assessment of 26 reviews provides a clear enough picture. Please do not re-add a generalized statement from an unreliable source that does not cite other sources for its claim. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 02:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Says who? HNHH is not listed under sources to avoid in WikiProject Albums. Whether it provides the author's last name is irrelevant. Not every source you deem unreliable is actually unreliable. Please start a discussion on the article's talk page per WP:BRD or take it up at WP:RSN. Hayman30 (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have start a discussion on it last year ago, along with another source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * HNHH has been discussed at such forums as TheAmazingPeanuts has shown above with little discussion on the matter, and no clear consensus. Regardless, you're still ignoring the fact that your source makes a claim about "lukewarm reviews" without citing any sources, i.e. other reviews to back this claim up. It's a baseless claim. Metacritic cites 26 reviews to come to its conclusion that the reviews are "generally favorable". Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 16:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah it has been discussed with no clear consensus that it is unreliable. And lmao a source has to back itself up with another source? I've never heard that. Then virtually all sources are invalid because they themselves do not cite any source, everything they say is "baseless". This comparison between Metacritic and other publications is irrelevant. For the record that's not "my source", I didn't add that, I was merely reverting you for removing something without a legit reason. Hayman30 (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who added that source here. Most editors use HotNewHipHop as a reliable source in hip hop-related articles, and editors who have been in Wikipedia longer than I do seem like they don't have a problem with this website because it's is not in WP:ALBUMAVOID. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yea and I'm one of those editors, and quite frankly I don't think the fact that it does not show the author's last name is an indicator of it being unreliable. Hayman30 (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Bangarang
Hi. If you have an issue with my edits feel free, and we can reach a consensus. Thanks. 183.171.123.78 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment for RfC involving the lead section of Swimming (Mac Miller album)
Can you please vote or comment at this RfC involving the lead section of Swimming? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Happier (Marshmello and Bastille song)
I just recreated this article, if you see any errors, please help me. Thanks! -- hueman1 (talk)  09:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Question
Why this edit is incorrect in the first place? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is redundant and unnecessary to repeat the title if the stylization merely involves changes in letter casing. Hayman30 (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Now can you explain this to Theneondemon. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor singles
A discussion that requires your participation.--MaranoFan (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

7 (David Guetta album)

 * The complex magazine interview literally says "The ambitious double album is split into two distinct halves, with one credited to his alter ego Jack Back, under which he makes less pop-oriented dance music".
 * The forbes interview literally says "The album is the first time that his dual creative passions of underground house and supreme pop collaborations".

These are the reasons I'd added both Pop and house music as genres. I thought that was fairly clear... ?  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  14:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The writer was referring to Jack Back when he wrote about dance music, not the album. Saying that the album presents "dual creative passions of underground house and supreme pop collaborations" doesn't mean the album is underground house and pop. Per WP:EXPLICITGENRES, publications must use direct language. The only statement Guetta made about the genre is "The first album is completely pop, and the second album is completely underground," but we don't what underground refers to, and we should not attempt to "correct" it to underground house because that violates WP:OR.
 * I think it is clear that the reviewer is saying that the second half of the album is underground house music. The bit about "credited to Jack Back" is a subordinate clause. As there is only one Jack Back release being mentioned in the project I don't think that is WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS at all. In fact if you're correct and I'm wrong, the majority of articles are incorrectly listing genres because effectively what you are saying is that an reference must say "XYZ is ABC genre" for it to be explicit.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1  - {  Talk  } -  11:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's not clear. Anything not explicitly stated by the source is original research. The writer was clearly referring to Jack Back when he talked about dance music, no question about that. A rephrasing of that line would be "he makes less pop-oriented dance music under his alter ego Jack Back". And yes, the majority of articles out there contains original research, so what? It doesn't rationalize what you're doing. Oh yeah, nobody cares, but that's exactly the problem. I care and I'm willing to explain this to you as much as you want. Hayman30 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * there's a difference between explaining something because its very clear what is right and wrong and then being pointed in your tone or acting like your opinion is superior. No one has said that no one cares, I was merely pointing out that I don't think the policy you've referenced necessarily enforces what you are trying to say. Having said that, the album is getting more coverage now so I am sure that alternative mentions of the album's genres may come up. You can "explain things" to users as much as you want, but when there is a genuine attempt to challenge a difference of opinion please respect that. I cared about the article hence I asked about your edit. I've spent a lot of time on the article and want to ensure its as truthful as possible.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  11:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is long overdue but I feel like responding to you while you're here. My opinion indeed is superior because it's formed according a Wikipedia guideline established by community consensus. I did respect your opinion, I didn't trash your opinion or anything, you seem to think when others object to your ideas they're somehow bullying you or whatnot. Hayman30 (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I hadn't gone out and found original research. We've clearly interpreted the guidelines differently. You seem to think that if a reference/source doesn't say "X is Y" then X must not be Y. I am perhaps a bit more sensitive due to health reasons (I care not to discuss in detail on here) but I do find you abrasive and you don't seem open to discussion or assuming good faith in my edits. You simply quote guidelines and revert. I don't think things are always that literal. But there's more to life then being strong armed by another wikipedian. I'm here for the spirit of collaboration and creating factual articles on popular culture. At the end of the day I CBA to be put in situations where I'm being made to feel like I'm not following guidelines or I'm being disruptive. I'm proud of my contributions to wikipedia over the years. I do wish you weren't so quick to assume the worst though.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  17:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

One More Light (song)
Hi, Hayman30. First source "ambient vocal" is about the vocal part (WP:EXPLICITGENRES), and the second source call the song as "acoustic" as you seen at Talk:Damnation_(album), most of contributors opposed that acoustic is not a genre. 183.171.115.25 (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, but what does that have to do with me? Hayman30 (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Diamond Heart (Alan Walker song)
Can you please stop reverting my creation of this article? Please?! "Diamond Heart" is a great song made by a great DJ from my country. It's a released single, and released singles should have an own article here on Wikipedia. Why, please give me a reason that this article is unnotable! I'm not trying to edit war. Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, it doesn't matter if it's a great song or if Walker's from your country. It being released as a single doesn't mean it needs an article on Wikipedia. Read WP:NSONGS. Hayman30 (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is this article unnotable? Why? Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it fails to chart or receive significant coverage from reliable sources. I told you to read WP:NSONGS. Hayman30 (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This song failed to chart too. Why does it then have it's own article? Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are millions of articles out there that fail to meet the notability guidelines, but that doesn't mean you can create even more, and creating an article on the Norwegian Wikipedia yourself doesn't mean you can do the same here on the English Wikipedia as well...oh lord... Hayman30 (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're annoying! I've never asked you to creating an account here on Wikipedia! I have never asked you to just come here and involve my edits! Why are you doing this?!!! Why are you being such a jerk to me?!!! Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Calm down dude. Don't blame me for your incompetence and lack of basic understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Saying that you're "not trying to edit war", but then proceeds to make three consecutive reverts? I've already adequately explained my thoughts to you, yet you've ignored me and kept on reverting without providing solid reasons for keeping the article. Don't call me a jerk because that's a personal attack. Also no need to ping me, this is my talk page and I'm automatically notifed when someone leaves me a message. Hayman30 (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry that I called you a jerk, but sometimes you're annoying me. Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Polaroid
A new song called "Polaroid" is released today by Jonas Blue can you make the page? ManEdit01 (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Oops!
Reverted you by mistake. Really sorry! —  Wasell ( T ) 11:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Nuthin' 2 Prove
Can you upload the album cover for Lil Yachty's latest album Nuthin' 2 Prove. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hayman30 (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Blonde
Would you like to weigh in this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blonde_(Frank_Ocean_album)#RfC:_Is_Blonde_Frank_Ocean's_third_studio_album? RfC] regarding Blonde should be Frank Ocean's third studio album or his second. Only if you interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Under Pressure
Hello, someone just put Shawn Mendes' cover for "Under Pressure" as listed as a single. I personally couldn't find any source citing it as a single whatsoever. Wasn't it suppose to be listed as a promotional single, or even as merely a song? —  Art manha  (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hayman30, I previously thought an iTunes reference for a separate download with its own cover art was enough for you to think a song was a single. Obviously not anymore. For you and Surely I don't need to explain that releases that are merely "songs" are not released for separate download on iTunes or other music platforms. Songs in most cases don't get their own cover art—they're either part of an album or they're a single in some way, whether that's a full commercial release or classified as "promotional". In what instance do regular songs get their own separate release pages or cover art? Besides that, we have several sources calling it Mendes's latest single. If you have an objection to it, Artmanha, why didn't you raise it at the article talk page or remove it yourself in the first place? Now if you and Hayman30 only have an objection to it not being sourced as a single, surely you can rest easy now. If not, then perhaps it's best to raise it at the talk page instead of continuing to revert, regardless of who's "right".  Ss   112   04:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since when has a sperate download qualifies any song as a single? A different cover art doesn't make it a single either, regardless of whether singles "usually" get its own cover art. That, along with music video or radio push, has been deemed an invalid determining factor in whether a song is a single or not. Remixes often get their own cover arts and are labeled as "single" on iTunes too, does that make all remixes singles? And just on this, I don't think it's my responsibility to start a discussion. Per WP:BRD, as you like to quote it, the user who's being reverted should seek consensus before restoring their changes. It was you who introduced the changes and got reverted, so you should be the one to start a discussion. Also I don't think calling someone "annoying" is very helpful. I know you'll get defensive but just keep in mind I really don't have anything against you. Hayman30 (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then literally what in your opinion classifies a song as a single? You've basically just ruled out all the determining factors. Songs do not get their own cover art or separate download pages in the Internet era (for instance, for plain old songs, Spotify, iTunes and Tidal direct you to the album it's from if you search it, whereas it will generally have its own page if it's been released as a separate single—last I remember, this was enough for you to differentiate a single from a song). There are differences between songs and singles beyond what a source calls them, you know, and that's two of them, regardless of how much you want to state to every editor who raises an objection to what you personally want to believe is one. And yes, Hayman, your apparent concern was a lack of sources calling the song a single. You now have three. If that's all the concern was, then there's no reason to have any objections now. I meant if you had any concerns beyond that/what I did on the article earlier (as I was just about to provide sources and then immediately did so), you should open a discussion, because, to reiterate, your primary reason for reverting (as far as I was aware) was a lack of sources calling it a single. If there are reasons beyond that now, then take it up at the public talk page.  Ss  112   04:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source calls it a single, it's a single. Wikipedia is based on sources after all, not subjective determination. I think agree on the fact that a song does not need any radio push to be a single, right? So why would a different cover art immediately make a random cover a single? We really need to make some guidelines to replace the misleading WP:SINGLE?, which has been misused by a lot of users to back up their arguments. I've never claimed that I'm making an objection now, just pointing out the fact that you're asking somebody else to discuss and ultimately the one who should do it is you. Hayman30 (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I didn't ask you to discuss it when I first reverted you. When it became obvious that you wanted a reliable source beyond iTunes (which is an acceptable source, if not a desired one), I meant (if it was not clear) could you or whoever objects discuss or otherwise make clear if you have any objections beyond reliable sources being present. That's not deviating from my usual task of reminding editors of BRD, because it's a different thing—they're usually reverting because they object to the content being there at all, not just because we don't have sources saying a particular thing.  Ss  112   07:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Hayman30. —  Art manha  (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

FAC: Forca Bruta
Hello. My featured-article nomination of Forca Bruta has stagnated. You appear to have a good grasp on album articles, so I would like to ask. Can you please leave comments or review? Dan56 (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

First Time (EP)
Hello,

I thought I'd leave an explanation here as I don't think the a description on the edit summary is enough to explain. Liam Payne annouced the EP First Time lead by the song of the same name. Per the official rules of eligibility with the Official Charts Company release formats are either classified a singles or albums. Within that, there are different kinds of releases such as vinyl, digital, maxi singles etc. To chart, an EP either identifies as a single or an album - those are the only true format types. The rest are release mediums (digital or physical) and within that you then have the various subtypes.

To qualify as an album, "Over 25 minutes OR more than four songs where the format does not qualify as a 'Maxi' single or remix single as defined by singles eligibility rules." (see here (PDF document from OCC). First Time doens't qualify as an album. The title song also isn't available to purchase seperately from the overall collection. This means that "First Time" is the single and the EP is the release medium. In the same way that artists release EPs for singles which include alternative versions of a song etc.

Basically the song is the prevailing/dominant release type and only the song would be eligible to chart. This is the same as Hurt: The EP by Leona Lewis. EP is a release type - all EPs have to be either a single or an album. An EP doesn't sit alone as a thing on its own.

Does that make any sense?  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  12:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * p.s. reverting something I think is incorrect with an explanation isn't edit warring. If you didn't understand, leave me a message not a crappy edit summary saying "what are you even talking about" - you tend to assume the worst quite a lot. Chill, I was trying to help! Perhaps it does need some more discussion so it is clearer as I bet there are other articles which fall into the grey area as highlighted above.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  12:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay your first message is all irrelevant talk. We don't follow the rules from OCC, or any other organizations for that matter. EP is a type of release, it's neither a single or an album, it's just an EP. So you wouldn't link a song the page of an EP, and you wouldn't put a single chronology on a EP page. Your second message indicates that you're not familiar with basic Wikipedia policies. Repeatedly reverting others, regardless of whether you give an explanation or not, constitutes edit warring. An editor cannot edit war on their own, we were both edit warring. The edit summary is not a place for you to make back and forth arguments, that's what the talk page is for. After you've been reverted, you should discuss on the talk page, instead of reverting me again, which violates WP:BRD. Hayman30 (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not irrelevant at all. I think you miss the point completely. An EP is shorter format album or longer format single - it has to either be a single or an album - we dp have to follow rules or guidelines from the OCC ad other organisations. The way that singles or albums are released has changed and our policies and guidelines constantly have to adapt to what the industry is doing. An EP is a subtype which can either be an album or a single. I'm not here for being told I'm irrelevant or being told that I don't understand wikipedia. I left an explanation which you didn't understand when I made the edit in the first place. Why not have some sense of good faith and (revert if you want to) but actually start a discussion about the edit. As I've said earlier, you're very quick to assume the worst.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  17:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. An EP is neither an album or a single, it is what it is, EP is a format on its own. It doesn't matter how OCC categorizes EPs according to their own criteria, Wikipedia has its own set of rules. EPs are not albums, hence they have their own section on discographies, you won't see them under "studio albums" or "singles", they're not a "subtype" of any kind. I don't know where you get the idea that we have to follow "industry rules". And on top of that, these "rules" vary by company/organization, so how are we to determine which is right or wrong? Just because I disagree with your view doesn't mean I don't understand it, and saying that I don't understand your point doesn't gain you an upper hand in the discussion. If you feel like I missed your point, explain it thoroughly. You're on the Internet, of course you're here to be told you're irrelevant, I can tell you all I want. If you can't take criticism and opposing ideas, I think you should get off the site, not everything has to be your way. And I think to this day you still don't understand how BRD works. You were the one who introduced the change, when you're reverted, you should be taking it straight to talk page, not the reverter. Passing the buck of discussing on me doesn't make you look any better. Hayman30 (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was trying to steer the discussion back to facts. I disagree with you based on my understanding of the rules and guidelines. Wikipedia doesn't have to follow other organisations you're right - however when we're all trying to report on facts you have to report what's actually there. Anyway its a pointless argument as you feel like your opinion is more superior or that you're correct. I don't have an issue with being told I'm wrong etc nor do I have an issue with BRD or other wiki policies. I think if you don't understand someone's edits the responsibility falls on you to clarify that. I don't disagree that I probably shouldn't have reverted your undo of my edits however I did assume that my edits make sense and are clear. That was my mistake. I don't appreciate your views about internet or your attitude regarding disagreeing with other editors. You are very strong willed clearly but you don't have to strong arm people - kindness is free. You're clearly passionate about wiki and we could do a lot together in the spirit of collaboration (which is what wiki is all about). I've never tried to make Wikipedia just may way, I have a long history of working collaboratively with other editors. By editing Wikipedia I can be told my opinion is wrong but I can also defend it when I think I'm right. I'm willing to take on board others' views, something I don't think I've seen from you. You have no right to tell me I shouldn't be on the internet - my disagreement with you is nothing to do with not accepting criticism. It's more that its not in the spirit of collaboration or particularly friendly. There is another way to be and another way to talk. Clearly you're not going to accept that you're being abrasive or frosty and clearly you have a view that your edits and opinions are somehow superior. I would rather work collaboratively with others than butt heads on differences of opinion - we should probably just leave it there. I get the impression that I won't change your opinion nor will you do anything different as a result of this conversation.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  12:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Zero (Imagine Dragons Song)
You didn't give a very justifiable reason for deleting all my work on that page  Andylugz15 (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

What was wrong with the page? Andylugz15 (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Not notable" is not a justifiable reason? What else do you want? Please read WP:NSONGS. The song failed to establish notability by its performance on the charts and it failed to receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. YouTube and Genius are not reliable sources. The article is also poorly formatted and created in an incorrect namespace. You should've made the article at Zero (Imagine Dragons song), not Zero (Imagine Dragons Song) with a capital "S" in the word "song", that's against our naming conventions. Hayman30 (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your explanation. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia, and I'll take all this into consideration next time I try to make a page. Andylugz15 (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding. Hayman30 (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Forever (Martin Garrix and Matisse & Sadko song)
I come towards you further to the deletion of this page. I do not want to have a conflict of edition between us two, but I am a little amazed. By going on the page Notability (music), I learn that a not notable page is not deleted automatically but just proposed in the deletion. I think that a page would be useful for this kind of song. I am ready to work with you to return this corresponding article. Thank you for contacting me. Futuresay (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven’t contacted you whatsoever. I never suggested that the page would be deleted “automatically”, I manually redirected it so obviously it wasn’t “automatic”. WP:NSONGS explicitly states that a song must receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, and the song failed to exhibit that, hence my redirection was completely justified. Doesn’t matter if you think a page for the song would be useful, we don’t create articles based on their presumed usefulness. I’m not planning on recreating the article. Hayman30 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Song stylizations
You keep telling me to discuss. I have been. You're the one that isn't contributing. -- wooden superman  11:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There has been absolutely no attempt to discuss, nor have you shown willingness to discuss. Hayman30 (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs is??? -- wooden  superman  11:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s a discussion that shows clear dispute, which is exactly the reason why you shouldn’t go on all these pages and remove the stylization notes (and edit war). I’m sorry but your opinion is not fact. Until a consensus has been reached, the stable versions of these articles should stay. You have absolutely no reason to be removing stuff across all these articles. Hayman30 (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have a question
Why you remove this off the track listing, is this in the guidelines? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe there's consensus somewhere that if the headline says "standard edition" or merely restates the album title, it should be removed. I recall talking about this so perhaps he might have a clue (I apologise if I'm mistaken). Furthermore, if you look at the instructions on Template:Track listing, the "headline" parameter is optional and is only used to denote different editions, sides, or disc numbers, which is not applicable in the case of Lil Boat 2, which as of now only has one edition listed on the page. Hayman30 (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering my question, I been removing "headline" parameters in articles also. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's redundant to repeat the name of the album in the headline (unless it needs clarification). Having "standard edition" implies there's another edition, even if there isn't.  Ss  112   09:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! -Fwth
 Merry Chr1stmas and Happy H0lidays, !

Hey, i lOvE yOu and wish you a pleasant Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. 🐇🐇🐇 Flooded  with them hundreds 09:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)