King Brown[edit]

I reverted your changes for several reasons, some of those are given in the edit summary. Can the notability of the song title be established? I have considered a disambiguation for the term before, athough all that I can think of refers untimately to the sanke. eg. slang for a large bottle of beer ~ cygnis insignis 11:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, thanks for being pragmatic and following it up with an explanation. A disambiguation page seems apt. As for the notability of the song, see various sources here, here, here, here, and here. It's far more notable than her article makes it appear. I'm happy to create a disambiguation page, as that appears to be the best solution at this point in time. Sean Stephens (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. That does seem to support notability, and having listened to them I am now a fan (especially liking the reworking of that cool tune from an annoying song). When the article is expanded then what you had as hat notes may be the means to direct readers to Barkaa's song, a source that connects the term to the sanke could support a mention in that article. ~ cygnis insignis 10:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delayed reply. I'm thinking at some stage, I'll draft an article and from there we can see where a potential disambiguation page would go. I'll be sure to expand the relevant article(s) in order to justify the hatnote. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP#Holy Moley[edit]

Hi! I saw this edit and was just wondering what process you followed to make that edit? The requests aren't normally supposed to go there, but that's not your fault - that's just something that needs to be fixed in the process or code somewhere. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm pretty sure I went from Wikipedia:Protection policy#Creation protection (salting) to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level and then clicked "Request unprotection" and added it in there. If I mucked that up, I apologise, that's on me. Thank you for moving it to the right place. Sean Stephens (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please preview before saving[edit]

Please do not add nonexistent templates to talk pages, as you did here and on other pages. Use preview before saving to ensure that there are no errors in the pages that you are creating or modifying. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it wasn't my intention. As I edit on my mobile phone, you see, the preview function is limited and doesn't show up non-existent templates. It didn't appear to be causing any problems when I initially checked, so I figured I'd proceed. I'm sorry if it caused you any inconvenience. Sean Stephens (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nimbus Rooftop Bar for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nimbus Rooftop Bar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nimbus Rooftop Bar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Femke (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not common practice and don't edit war over hatnotes[edit]

It's not "common practice" to list non-notable songs as hatnotes on far more notable songs' articles unless those songs have articles and are not determined not to be the primary search term. If anything, editors like you have tried to make this common practice. Don't edit war when you're reverted for things like this in future because WP:BRD trumps whatever importance you see in adding silly little features like this. You can tell me "you don't have any proof for that claim" but I guarantee you nobody is trying to find an album track from a one-hit wonder when searching "To the Moon" on Wikipedia. Common sense applies here and everywhere, and you don't get the right to edit war regardless of whether something is allowed on Wikipedia or not. Ss112 15:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic how? Don't move redirects pre-emptively[edit]

In regards to Won't Forget You, please do not move redirects pre-emptively and try to avoid moving redirects at all unless you're moving them out of the way for an actual article. I hope you realise editors like Jax 0677 have gotten blocked because of their habitual moving of redirects. You claimed in an edit summary when moving a redirect I created that the "Shouse song would appear to be the primary topic" without a hint of evidence. Based on what? Both are singles. Pixie Lott is historically a more notable artist than Shouse, who have yet to prove they're anything beyond a one-hit wonder. And then leaving all that aside, you said you would be creating an article there later and three weeks later...nothing. As I said, be careful moving redirects before actually making anything because this just looks like you wanted article credit for doing zilch. If I find you've moved more redirects of mine out of the way for nothing in future, I will be reverting you and informing an admin. This isn't acceptable and your practices on Wikipedia are becoming quite questionable. Ss112 08:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Running Touch[edit]

I'm currently busy elsewhere. I saw your edit at the above article. If you're not too busy yourself, you might want to provide Australian charting for:

1. A Body Slow, No. 1 on ARIA Hitseekers Albums, No. 31 ARIA Digital Albums. Both via "ARIA Report" Issue 1415
2. "My Hands" (Superlover / Adult Art Club / The Journey mix), No. 12 on ARIA Club Tracks. Via "ARIA Report" Issue 1497

Its okay if you are too busy, no pressure.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaidar cuebiyar: Apologies, I forgot to respond to this the other day. I'm happy to add the peaks, thanks for letting me know about them! Sean Stephens (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mopping this up, I'm still busy elsewhere.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Always happy to help. Sean Stephens (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Wray[edit]

ARIA used to let PANDORA archive their ARIA Reports which provided chartifacts and charts (including component ones), from issue 566 (1 Jan 2001) to issue 1544 (30 September 2019). The archive was taken over by Trove and is housed here. In October 2019 I contacted both ARIA and Trove by emails but neither could explain why they were no longer archiving the reports. Each blamed the other, I suspect the reason was money-related.

As for Mia Wray it was issued in early June 2014? If it charted it should have been covered by issues 1266 and/or following.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaidar cuebiyar: Thanks for all of that, I think that answers all of the questions I had. Each of them blaming the other doesn't surprise me either, I've found ARIA employees to be quite slack at their jobs in the past! I'll take a look at those issues and see if I find anything I guess. Much appreciated! Sean Stephens (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ultra (Mickey Kojak album)[edit]

Hello, Sean Stephens. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ultra (Mickey Kojak album), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rancid Eddie[edit]

If you would like to add streaming service links do that in the Charts section next to the song. The citations I removed where from either dead links or a non-valid primary source as it is easily editable. A valid source should not be easily editable. Please Do not revert the Rancid Eddie article article as very useful information and citations were added. I have no Agenda, in fact I have added the band's statement regarding the controversy from a valid source, which in any case helps them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matias4000 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't and aren't used as "streaming service" links per se, they're used to verify the digital release of the single. They should be used to source the single's official release date where possible. Dead links are still valid sources, and they're all archived so all that needs to be done is change "url-status=live" to "url-status=dead". Your changes weren't helpful, hence why I reverted them–you removed valid citations and replaced them with nothing, leaving the material unsourced, you replaced chart peaks with sentences that mislead the reader into thinking it peaked at #2 on the ARIA Singles Chart, when that's not the case, and you added sources to the lead, where it is not required. And your last sentence is entirely my point, it seems that you are acting on behalf of the band, which would be a conflict of interest. Changing peaks to reflect a higher peak on a lower chart is generally am indication of this, as it can show intent to "promote" the subject of the article. Sean Stephens (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as you can see here "Dry" did peak in number 2 https://www.aria.com.au/charts/australian-artist-singles-chart/2021-10-11 I am not acting on behalf of the band, a controversy citation should have all the information required from every part. Matias4000 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's a supplementary chart, meaning that if it's already peaked on a higher overall chart, we shouldn't mention that peak in the article. I was intending to elaborate on the "controversy" section–which it was why it was still in draftspace, it still required work. I hope we can resolve this, but several of your edits were quite destructive, which I took issue with. Sean Stephens (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]