User talk:SnapSnap/Archive 9

Frevel8093
Hello can you clean the Elton John Candle in the Wind page, it's a song but that page needs a clean up. (Frevel8093 (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

Hello
Can you keep an eye on pages The Big Picture (Elton John album), Sleeping with the Past and Sacrifice (Elton John song)? Make sure if who will editing unsourced genres and material. 115.164.214.48 (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

PLAGIARISM
Hi Snap! I'm not sure what to do but it seems that one of the articles http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Beauty_(Lana_Del_Rey_song)&action=history has copied mostly everything from this site: http://lanadelrey.wikia.com/wiki/Black_Beauty_(song)

I'm not sure what to do because isn't copying and pasting not allowed? Thanks! :) 60.242.83.242 (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Pray to God Official Artcover
Hi again, I was just asking if you could replaced Pray to God (song)'s art cover with the non-remix official cover here: http://www.josepvinaixa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Calvin-Harris-Pray-to-God-2015-Final-Official-1500x1500.png Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.83.242 (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The non-remix cover is not official since the remix was the only version of the song that was officially released. Also, that blog you got the cover from is not a reliable source.  SN▲P •  SN▲P  22:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Froot's Album Genre
Is this a reliable source that "Froot" by Marina And The Diamonds is considers alternative pop? Marina starts to considerd it as rock and pop but then changes her mind as alternative pop.

Refrence: http://www.thelineofbestfit.com/features/interviews/marina-and-the-diamonds-froot/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidABear (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 April 2015‎


 * No, because it's Marina herself describing the album as alternative pop. You must provide a reliable third-party source (e.g., a professional critic writing for a reputable publication) that refers to the album as alternative pop.  SN▲P •  SN▲P  03:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You (Ha Ha Ha)
Hi!

I recently beefed up the article of Charli XCX's song "You (Ha Ha Ha)", with many more references to articles that were not only talking about the song in the context of an album review, but also of the song itself and its music video (in fact, a lot of high-profile magazines discussed both the release of the video and the response from Charli to critics who were offended by the gun imagery of it). I knew that for a song to get an article, it needed to be cited in several neutral publications, but I just learned about the "album review" exemption, when talking about a song in an album review isn't enough to justify the presence of an article. I do believe that the extra research I did to find more suitable articles and sources shows that the song deserves its own page, especially given its presence in several year-end lists by many important music publications.

I therefore started back reverting some other changes you did, specifically those concerning links in other articles leading to the "You (Ha Ha Ha)" page. While I've been doing several minor modifications anonymously in the last many years, I only just started truly using a username on Wikipedia to create and edit articles more seriously. I therefore figured out that before continuing on this, I'd better ask for your blessings first.

Thanks for your time!

Florence+TheCodeine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florence and the Codeine (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Froot's Album Genre Pt.2
I have found more sources and need to know if these are reliable sources that identifies the album as alterantive pop. Also, thank you for your contributions and help. :D

Refrence #1: http://m.lsureveille.com/entertainment/review-marina-and-the-diamonds---froot/article_9d2f59e4-cddc-11e4-8c6e-2ffac28e91ff.html?mode=jqm

Refrence #2 : http://www.collegiannews.com/2015/03/a-cultural-timestamp-and-2015s-madonna/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidABear (talk • contribs) 04:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * These are both student-run newspapers, so not reliable, sorry. You might want to take a look at WP:RS and WP:V for further information on identifying reliable sources.  snαp • snαp  (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Dornan's image
There has been a conflict over the use of the infobox image in the Jamie Dornan page, I'm hoping that a vote to choose a preferred image would settle the dispute. I am therefore writing to those editors who have ever edited Jamie Dornan page to voice their opinion in the Jamie Dornan Talk page so we can reach a consensus. I would welcome your opinion. Hzh (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Love Me Like You Do
Hi, sorry for bothering. Tonlist is an Icelandic Music Chart and I see nothing wrong to put it among the charts of Love Me Like You Do by Ellie Goulding. You may take a look at it again. (DeshintaChandra talk) 09:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * How do we know Tonlist is a notable chart, though? It's not listed under WP:GOODCHARTS.  snαp • snαp  (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Songwriter
I know the hassle. I tried protecting Love Me like You Do, but it was declined. There is currently a discussion about, if you would like. This is to prevent further edit warring and get a darn answer already :P Callmemirela  ( Talk )  &#9809;  23:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

"albums with wikipages don't require refs"
Re: this, what policy states that the songs don't need refs if they are on an album that has an article? Surely everything needs a references, especially on a FL........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * None that I'm aware of, but personally, it seems redundant to add references to songs that appear on albums for which there are wikipages.  snαp • snαp  (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

FROOT genre
I don't know why you consider the genre of an album to be a "point of view"... but regardless, FROOT is literally called a synthpop album on the wiki page for M&TD. It's not just my opinion, that's what the album is. Calling it "pop" and nothing else is just really nonspecific and nondescript.

96.242.119.210 (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:FIMI
Hello, I have some questions about this template (that you created some years ago): Why is it still simply called "FIMI" (when also treating pre-1995)? And why the division M&D/FIMI, when the lists 1959–1999 do all use the charts by HitParadeItalia which is neither M&D nor FIMI? I guess that some changes to the template may be required. Regards--XanonymusX (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently FIMI replaced M&D as the main Italian chart provider in 1995. When I created that template, the official FIMI site only had archived charts from 2000 onwards, and I had no info on the M&D charts, that's why the template is simply called "FIMI". I see someone decided to create articles for the remainder of the Italian number ones, but I haven't really kept track of those pages for quite a while, so I'm afraid I'm not much help.  snαp • snαp  (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I am quite busy with correcting the information in German Wikipedia, so I won't be able to do so here, as well. The template name is, of course, a minor problem, as it is not visible for the readers; therefore I suggest to simply cancel the groups in the template (similar to de:Template:Navigationsleiste Nummer-eins-Hits in Italien).--XanonymusX (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So you think the template shouldn't be split into M&D and FIMI?  snαp • snαp  (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, because the lists that are linked until 2000 do not use neither M&D nor FIMI data (except the 1995 one).--XanonymusX (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was browsing through some back issues of Billboard on Google Books, and apparently the charts published by Hit Parade Italia do match those by M&D/FIMI (this June 1998 issue lists both M&D and FIMI as the official Italian chart providers, for example). Either way, perhaps the template shouldn't be split into M&D and FIMI in order to avoid confusion—at least not until the lists are sorted out.  snαp • snαp  (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It’s possible that some lists do match, but HPI also includes charts by other magazines, so they are mostly different. Billboard of course uses the correct data (but I have access to the original M&D chart archive, which I use in German Wikipedia), as the 1995 list shows. Well, the best (and easiest) solution at the moment seems to be the modification of the template.--XanonymusX (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the split.--XanonymusX (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me.  snαp • snαp  (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

CandidLibraryEditors-Amy Winehouse- Back to Black
Hi, SnapSnap. I'm hoping to find out why the information I added to the page (link above) was considered vandalism. I do have a respect for keeping all information non-offensive, and I have not added anything defamatory to the page. I have had this problem before with the editor IpadPerson, who believed my edition of a page to be defamatory. I thought the information I added to both pages was useful (to those interested in the entire artwork content of a CD). The text I added to Back to Black is below-if there is anything wrong with it, please let me know.

* The deluxe edition features an alternative cover, specifically a plain black background with the original text (Amy Winehouse- Back to Black), raised to a central point. The cover for the standard edition (without text) is included in the inside cover of the CD. The deluxe edition omits using the original "chalkboard" background, and instead uses a plain black background for the entire CD. * The alternative cover ( US and Japanese editions- see top of page) is used as the artwork for Winehouse's sixth single You Know I'm No Good. This edition uses an orange text for the track listing and album title, whereas the artist name is left in the original silver colouring.

I do endeavor to aid Wikipedia in any way I can, and that is what I have done. Please do reply. Thankyou. CandidLibraryEditors (Talk) 18:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. The content you added to Back to Black wasn't defamatory, but your insistence to add back such content could be viewed as disruptive, especially after both Dan56 and I explained in our edit summaries that the info you added regarding cover arts was not only unsourced, but also irrelevant to the track listing section.  snαp • snαp  (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So is it a good idea to create an alternative section on that page, featuring the information? Or is this still disruptive? Thankyou. CandidLibraryEditors (Talk)


 * It's not disruptive if you provide reliable sources to back up your edits, but I don't see a point to a section detailing the album's covers, to be honest. The only cover art not used in the article is that of the deluxe edition, and the other pieces of info (e.g., the US/Japan edition using the same artwork as the "You Know I'm No Good" single) don't seem really useful to readers.  snαp • snαp  (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, so how do I add sourcing, considering the source of information is `Physical`? (taking a look through the CD.) How do I add sources to an edit? CandidLibraryEditors (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest you take a look at WP:V and WP:CITE, but again, I don't recommend adding the information you're trying to add since it's mostly trivia.  snαp • snαp  (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Toni Braxton
Thanks for that, SnapSnap. This goes quite a few edits back all the way to here, don't know if you managed to catch them all. I can't help, as I wouldn't have a sense for which are the right numbers, as I am not familiar with her popularity. I was in fact investigating one of the IPs that has been adulterating figures when I came across this. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No problems. :) The US sales figures for her albums now match those stated in the corresponding sources.  snαp • snαp  (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

3RR report
You might be interested in this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus & Her Dead Petz - genre parameter and "Composition"
Can you expand the "Composition" section and then into genre parameter? Destiny Leo (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Justin Bieber song pages
Can you expand/better improve any section on Justin Bieber song pages? (including Boyfriend (Justin Bieber song) etc.) I hope you don't mind.115.164.48.42 (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Calvin Harris discography
Don't accuse me over adding incorrect information to "Calvin Harris discography" when all I did was change the position of the song "Open Wide" so it matches it's UK release date, and as Calvin Harris is British, that is the release date that should be used! Nathanaelsadgrove (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Release dates have nothing to do with an artist's nationality. "Open Wide" was only released as an official single when it was sent to US rhythmic radio in January 2015. Also, you replaced the song's peak on the Bubbling Under chart with a synthesized peak on the Hot 100 (the Bubbling Under chart is not an extension to the Hot 100), and Ina Wroldsen is not credited as a featured artist on "How Deep Is Your Love".  snαp • snαp  (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In the UK "Open Wide" was released in September 2014 (before "Outside" and after "Blame"). Also uncredited artists are simply a matter of opinion whether a person/company classes a featured artist as credited. Wikipedia's job is to provide information to the public which includes Ina Wroldsen featuring on "How Deep Is Your Love". However I will admit that my research into the "Bubbling Under chart" may have, and probably was, wrong, so I apologise for any controversy cause by that part of the edit.
 * It is not a "matter of opinion." Adding "featuring X" when X is not officially credited as a featured artist is original research. Also, wikilinking album titles in the singles section is overlinking.  snαp • snαp  (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, What you call "overlinking" is just adding convenience for the user. If they want to visit the page of 18 Months for example, while they are on the singles' page, it saves them having to scroll back to the albums' page. It's not bringing anything false or negative to the page so it's worth adding the links while editing other information. Secondly, (while on the subject of adding convenience) adding in all featured artists, whether credited or not, is only giving information to the readers. If they want to know extra detail, like whether featured artists are credited or not, they can click the link for the singles. The job of a discography is to tell the reader:

●The list of singles/albums published by an singer/musician/band in chronological order. ●Any other artists involved in those singles/albums. ●Any certification/peak positions of those singles/albums.
 * Actually, no, you're not supposed to add "any other artists involved", only those that are officially credited, otherwise it is original research. Once again, you replaced "Open Wide's" Bubbling Under peak with a fabricated Hot 100 peak after I told you that the Bubbling Under chart is not an extension to the Hot 100 (see WP:USCHARTS). Per WP:DISCOGSTYLE, "we want to list only those certifications which were earned in the countries for which we're showing chart peaks", and using Haim's stylized all-caps name goes against MOS:TM. I suggest you pay attention to other editors' edit summaries and review Wikipedia policies before going around making potentially incorrect edits. Also, do not use misleading edit summaries, as this was clearly not a typo fix.  snαp • snαp  (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me on some of the policies of Wikipedia which I obviously didn't receive when I became an editor. I still do not understand "Original Research" so please can you help me with that. However, since I apologised for changing the U.S. chart performance on "Open Wide", I have done further research after I encountered the same issue in another artist's discography and it appears that you're wrong, the "Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles Chart" is an extension to the "Billboard Hot 100" (Hence the name (and the original reason why I changed it)). I have also checked this with other editors who do agree with me.
 * No problems, you'll get the hang of it in time. Original research is basically "any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." You can learn more at WP:OR. Regarding the Bubbling Under chart, what I meant was that it's not correct to state that a song reached, say, number 110 on the Hot 100 based on the fact that it reached number 10 on the Bubbling Under chart.  snαp • snαp  (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So is the "Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles" an extension to the "Billboard Hot 100" or not?
 * The Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart is a component chart of the Billboard Hot 100, but it's not an extension.  snαp • snαp  (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks for your help and time over these last few days!
 * No problems. :)  snαp • snαp  (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)