Benutzer Diskussion:Ss112
Herzlich willkommen in der Wikipedia, Ss112!
Ich habe gesehen, dass du dich kürzlich hier angemeldet hast, und möchte dir ein paar Tipps geben, damit du dich in der Wikipedia möglichst schnell zurechtfindest:
Tutorial für neue Autoren •
Hilfe zum Bearbeiten •
Häufige Fragen •
Alle Hilfeseiten •
Fragen stellen •
Persönliche Betreuung •
Wie beteiligen? •
Richtlinien
- Sei mutig, aber vergiss bitte nicht, dass andere Benutzer auch Menschen sind. Daher wahre bitte immer einen freundlichen Umgangston, auch wenn du dich mal über andere ärgerst.
- Bitte gib bei Artikelbearbeitungen möglichst immer eine Quelle an (am besten als Einzelnachweis).
- Begründe deine Bearbeitung kurz in der Zusammenfassungszeile. Damit vermeidest du, dass andere Benutzer deine Änderung rückgängig machen, weil sie diese nicht nachvollziehen können.
- Nicht alle Themen und Texte sind für eine Enzyklopädie wie die Wikipedia geeignet. Enttäuschungen beim Schreiben von Artikeln kannst du vermeiden, wenn du dir zuvor Wikipedia:Was Wikipedia nicht ist und Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien anschaust.
Schön, dass du zu uns gestoßen bist – und: Lass dich nicht stressen.
Einen guten Start wünscht dir Rogi 07:11, 30. Mär. 2016 (CEST)
US chart date
The date for the upcoming Billboard 200 edition is the 12th of November, not the 19th, as you recently added to some articles. --Ali1610 (Diskussion) 11:55, 31. Okt. 2016 (CET)
- @Ali1610: Yes, I realised that later but forgot to come back on here to fix it. Ss112 (Diskussion) 12:03, 31. Okt. 2016 (CET)
The revert earlier
It would be nice of you to stop accusing me of random things. I don't know a) when this chart updates and b) who updates its peaks. I never checked for it. If it's you I apologize, I just thought it would only make sense to add this peak since the remix was recently added to his page and I was assuming that there would already be a source für this chart there because he's Norwegian. -- Lk95 10:03, 3. Dez. 2016 (CET)
- @Lk95: Well, I apologise if that's the case, but I found it rather coincidental you added that position half an hour after the chart updated (it's not a new peak, but still). I assumed you had been looking at my edits and had seen the Norwegian chart had updated and were looking for things I had missed (which has happened in the past—perhaps not intentionally, but there have been many such "coincidences" from you and other editors for me to be wary and often, I jump to conclusions). Ss112 (Diskussion) 10:21, 3. Dez. 2016 (CET)
Hamilton
Maybe both is wrong. Best thing would be, do it without any link. An album is not a musical.--IgorCalzone1 (Diskussion) 22:22, 11. Dez. 2016 (CET)
Listen der Nummer-Eins-Hits
Hallo, die von dir angelegten Weiterleitungen sind hier, im Gegensatz zur en:wp, nicht erwünscht. - Squasher (Diskussion) 14:18, 27. Dez. 2016 (CET)
- @Squasher: Sorry, I don't speak very good German, but then, since the Austrian number ones page wasn't deleted because it had content created on it, the others are fine with content instead of just being redirects? Ss112 (Diskussion) 15:13, 27. Dez. 2016 (CET)
- There is no problem if there is relevant content for each page, correct. Regards, Squasher (Diskussion) 15:21, 27. Dez. 2016 (CET)
Dead by April - Worlds Collide
Hi, where do you find a placement in swedish charts on Place 8? I couldn't find it anywhere..
- @HyperionPL: Hey, it's on the official Swedish charts here: http://www.sverigetopplistan.se/ (just click on "Veckans albumlista" in the sidebar). The database at swedishcharts.com just hasn't updated yet. Ss112 (Diskussion) 00:40, 19. Apr. 2017 (CEST)
- @Ss112: Ahh, you're right. Good research. I just wondered because I had this topic on my observation list .. and never found something. thank you
Charts France
We only had both charts standing in there as there was no combined chart. As there is one now, keeping all three updated means that all three are the official single charts. But in fact it is only the combined one... Even on Twitter they are now advertising the combined chart instead of the Streaming chart: look here. --Ali1610 (Diskussion) 17:54, 28. Apr. 2017 (CEST)
- @Ali1610: What does that matter? They still exist, and it seems nonsensical to stop their chronologies when the combined chart began being published. Several chart lists have multiple charts listed on them. Ss112 (Diskussion) 17:56, 28. Apr. 2017 (CEST)
- Because they all are non-combined ones. For example Airplay, Streaming and Downloads, as being practised in Hungary. Or just Singles and Airplay, as being done in Slovakia and Czech Republic. But nowhere there's a page with two sole charts AND a combined one. Why not just explain in the article that in favor of the combined ones, the other two ones are not depicted? --Ali1610 (Diskussion) 18:09, 28. Apr. 2017 (CEST)
- @Ali1610: As long as they're on the page, I don't really agree with not updating them because then it appears that they no longer exist and/or are being published. Even explaining it seems pointless. Ss112 (Diskussion) 18:11, 28. Apr. 2017 (CEST)
- Because they all are non-combined ones. For example Airplay, Streaming and Downloads, as being practised in Hungary. Or just Singles and Airplay, as being done in Slovakia and Czech Republic. But nowhere there's a page with two sole charts AND a combined one. Why not just explain in the article that in favor of the combined ones, the other two ones are not depicted? --Ali1610 (Diskussion) 18:09, 28. Apr. 2017 (CEST)
UK chart date
Hello Ss112, thank you very much for your regular chart updates. Please note, that the UK charts are “week ending” charts. That means that the official chart date is the last day of the week on top of the page. The chart date is not identical with the “change date”. If you look at the artists pages (e. g. Maggie Lindemann) you will see that the date there is always the week ending date (11.05.2017 for the current week) as is the date in all our chart boxes. Please do also use this date or the boxes won't be correct. Greetings -- Harro (Diskussion) 23:58, 6. Mai 2017 (CEST)
- @HvW: I don't agree with changing the dates based on what the OCC's artist chart history pages say. Their own archives archive pages based on the first date (the link provided is for last week's, beginning April 28). I understand that you want to use this because the OCC's artist chart history pages are the sources cited on most pages rather than the actual chart archives, but beyond that, there is evidence they use both. So until there is some definitive evidence beyond what the OCC wants to list on artist pages, I'm sorry, but I think the week beginning date makes more sense to use, as this is in line with what all the other charts do. It makes no sense to use the week end date for the UK, but to use the week beginning date for Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the US (and all other charts used on this Wikipedia). Besides, I'm not the only one who has used this date. Before I did regular chart updates for the UK, Lk95 also provided the week beginning date. I think it makes more sense. Ss112 (Diskussion) 01:07, 7. Mai 2017 (CEST)
- Em, the Billboard charts are also „week ending“ charts, cf. en:Billboard Hot 100. Apart from that, the British charts have a history far beyond OCC. There are chart books from Guinness and later Virgin up to 2010 and they all use the end of the week date. And I have copies of older OCC pages and they also had this date (e.g. “Official UK Singles Top 100 - 7th January 2012”). It was only when they introduced this countdown that they also invented the “change date”. There was never an official change of policy to use the change date as official chart date and the artists' pages wouldn't use the week ending date if there were a different official date. en:UK Singles Chart also talks about “the chart week ending ...”, Britische Musikcharts says “endende Woche”. And of course it makes no sense at all to have an artist chart box in WP that differs from the artist chart pages by OCC. Nobody will understand if the dates are not the same and accept it that we use some “change date” instead, that only exists on the weekly chart pages that most user won't even find. It's bad enough as it is with some Hung pages like australian-charts.com using different dates than the official charts. This is confusing and most annoying. We do not need this chaos with the British charts where it has always been quite straightforward all the years, just because two Wikipedians have different notions. -- Harro (Diskussion) 02:23, 7. Mai 2017 (CEST)
- @HvW: The Billboard charts are dated well in advance of when the actual date they are issued is, so it doesn't matter whether those are week ending or beginning or not. Guinness and Virgin were never the official chart providers for the UK, were they? As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia primarily uses the OCC. What dates were used before it began, in 1969, is not really of a concern to me, because when organisations change, so do their dates (and as for your example, ARIA has changed their issue days/dates multiple times). I don't know what countdown you're referring to, because I'm not using dates from any "countdown". To call this "chaos" and claim readers will be "confused" because of "two Wikipedians[' ...] different notions" is a huge overstatement. To be honest, I don't think most readers would care what the date says. I merely told you that Lk95 did it because I took their example, and I think it makes more sense to use the week beginning date, as the OCC also uses that. Ss112 (Diskussion) 02:35, 7. Mai 2017 (CEST)
- That's just not true, the OCC uses the week ending date for the chart data of the artists. And we are not reproducing chart lists, we are giving chart data of different artists in their respective articles. In WP you have to give references and the data sources are the artists' pages of OCC. And if you keep doing this the WP data will differ from those on the referenced pages. This ominous “change date” appears only on the weekly chart pages and refers to the countdown of days, hours, and minutes in the top right corner. First stating that the USA “and all other charts used on this Wikipedia” are using week starting dates and calling it irrelevant when I prove otherwise is not very consistent either. You seem to lack a understanding of the charts' history or you would know that the OCC started only in 1997. Before that the Guinness books were the official chart publications comparable to Joel Whitburn in USA. And the Virgin books of 200x/2010 are the official publications of the OCC. You are right if you say most readers do not mind the date anyway. But as soon as they compare our data with other data they will find that the German Wikipedia does have this chart dates exclusively. Just because you keep saying “it makes more sense” it does not make more sense, it's just something Lk95 and you invented and does not match reality. And in an encyclopedia this does make no sense. -- Harro (Diskussion) 03:44, 7. Mai 2017 (CEST)
- @HvW: Seriously, you waited over an hour later to continue arguing with me over this? I didn't "invent" anything with anybody, because as I clearly already told and showed you, the OCC also uses the week beginning date. Lk95 started using week beginning dates for whatever reason and I stuck to that. Please stop acting like it's a damn conspiracy. I didn't call anything "irrelevant", and that's not what I was trying to say even if you thought I was, so don't put words in my mouth. Also, you appear to have the limited understanding, as you're clearly only reading the German article on Official Charts Company; read en:Official Charts Company. It was founded in 1969 and they've been compiling charts since when, whether considered "official" since its foundation or not: Only after that does it say: "Since 1 July 1997, CIN and then the OCC have compiled the official charts. Prior to this date, the charts were produced by a succession of market research companies, beginning with the British Market Research Bureau in 1969, and later by Gallup. Before the production of the "official" charts, various less comprehensive charts were produced, most notably by newspaper/magazine New Musical Express (NME) which began its chart in 1952; some of these older charts (including NME's earliest singles charts) are now part of the official OCC canon." Before 1997, it's not like anybody pulled out actual bound books to learn what was number 1, published by Guinness, Virgin or not.
- That's just not true, the OCC uses the week ending date for the chart data of the artists. And we are not reproducing chart lists, we are giving chart data of different artists in their respective articles. In WP you have to give references and the data sources are the artists' pages of OCC. And if you keep doing this the WP data will differ from those on the referenced pages. This ominous “change date” appears only on the weekly chart pages and refers to the countdown of days, hours, and minutes in the top right corner. First stating that the USA “and all other charts used on this Wikipedia” are using week starting dates and calling it irrelevant when I prove otherwise is not very consistent either. You seem to lack a understanding of the charts' history or you would know that the OCC started only in 1997. Before that the Guinness books were the official chart publications comparable to Joel Whitburn in USA. And the Virgin books of 200x/2010 are the official publications of the OCC. You are right if you say most readers do not mind the date anyway. But as soon as they compare our data with other data they will find that the German Wikipedia does have this chart dates exclusively. Just because you keep saying “it makes more sense” it does not make more sense, it's just something Lk95 and you invented and does not match reality. And in an encyclopedia this does make no sense. -- Harro (Diskussion) 03:44, 7. Mai 2017 (CEST)
- @HvW: The Billboard charts are dated well in advance of when the actual date they are issued is, so it doesn't matter whether those are week ending or beginning or not. Guinness and Virgin were never the official chart providers for the UK, were they? As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia primarily uses the OCC. What dates were used before it began, in 1969, is not really of a concern to me, because when organisations change, so do their dates (and as for your example, ARIA has changed their issue days/dates multiple times). I don't know what countdown you're referring to, because I'm not using dates from any "countdown". To call this "chaos" and claim readers will be "confused" because of "two Wikipedians[' ...] different notions" is a huge overstatement. To be honest, I don't think most readers would care what the date says. I merely told you that Lk95 did it because I took their example, and I think it makes more sense to use the week beginning date, as the OCC also uses that. Ss112 (Diskussion) 02:35, 7. Mai 2017 (CEST)
- Em, the Billboard charts are also „week ending“ charts, cf. en:Billboard Hot 100. Apart from that, the British charts have a history far beyond OCC. There are chart books from Guinness and later Virgin up to 2010 and they all use the end of the week date. And I have copies of older OCC pages and they also had this date (e.g. “Official UK Singles Top 100 - 7th January 2012”). It was only when they introduced this countdown that they also invented the “change date”. There was never an official change of policy to use the change date as official chart date and the artists' pages wouldn't use the week ending date if there were a different official date. en:UK Singles Chart also talks about “the chart week ending ...”, Britische Musikcharts says “endende Woche”. And of course it makes no sense at all to have an artist chart box in WP that differs from the artist chart pages by OCC. Nobody will understand if the dates are not the same and accept it that we use some “change date” instead, that only exists on the weekly chart pages that most user won't even find. It's bad enough as it is with some Hung pages like australian-charts.com using different dates than the official charts. This is confusing and most annoying. We do not need this chaos with the British charts where it has always been quite straightforward all the years, just because two Wikipedians have different notions. -- Harro (Diskussion) 02:23, 7. Mai 2017 (CEST)
- As for the US, Joel Whitburn compiled those after the fact. He didn't originally publish the charts himself. I'm not as naïve as you seem to think I am about what the "official" charts of the UK were at a certain point; you just seem to be saying one of the many chart sources that existed before the current era of the UK charts is the official source, when there were various (just like the US had Cashbox, Radio & Records and Billboard; Australia had ARIA and the Kent Music Report/Australian Music Report). I'm only saying "it makes more sense" because it matches the other dates provided and doesn't look like it comes a week after all the other charts. I will consider using the "end" date as that is the source used on the pages, even if I don't agree. Beyond that, I really feel this is going nowhere and I don't enjoy arguing with users back-and-forth on Wikipedia, even on the English Wikipedia, so if all you intend to do is try to find more evidence to tell me why I'm "wrong", please don't reply. I'm sorry to be rude, but if you continue after I have asked you not to (which I'm pretty sure this is the same etiquette used on the German WP as well as the English WP), I will ignore and/or revert it. Thank you. Ss112 (Diskussion) 06:39, 7. Mai 2017 (CEST)
Billboard 200
Hey, just wanted to let you know I already updated the pages concerning the Billboard 200 update as they broke the news some time ago and while I was already updating some of the Hot 100 peaks I decided to add the BB200 peaks too because I'm sure there are some IPs tempted to save their edits thus leaving them with pending changes (I already had to revert one two days ago). I hope you don't mind. -- Lk95 22:11, 2. Aug. 2017 (CEST)
- @Lk95: Hey, that's alright. Thanks for doing them! Ss112 (Diskussion) 22:33, 2. Aug. 2017 (CEST)
- Hey, I was wondering earlier when you updated the Hot 100 positions on here where you got them from? I was looking through artists pages and updated the chart link of the October 14 chart at the time you did it but nothing new came up until 9 am (UTC). Did you check some third party page or something? -- Lk95 11:50, 3. Okt. 2017 (CEST)
- @Lk95: Oh my God sorry, I forgot you sent this! I didn't mean to ignore you. I fully intended to get back to you; was just looking at my messages over here. In previous weeks (at least), if you went to the most recent chart and hovered over the songs (where the box pops up telling you how many weeks it's been on the chart, its peak, etc.), its peak had been updated in the pop-up (not just for the Hot 100 either, I noticed it had been on the Canadian Hot 100 and Dance charts, as well). They didn't appear to do it this week for the Hot 100, so I'm not sure how regular it is. Ss112 (Diskussion) 11:41, 10. Okt. 2017 (CEST)
- No problem! I was thinking you somehow didn't get a notification for the message or something and it wasn't really that urgent either. Thanks for answering though, I wouldn't have figured that out on my own. Looks like they changed the layout for artist pages too so maybe that was some kind of related glitch. -- Lk95 20:02, 10. Okt. 2017 (CEST)
- @Lk95: Oh my God sorry, I forgot you sent this! I didn't mean to ignore you. I fully intended to get back to you; was just looking at my messages over here. In previous weeks (at least), if you went to the most recent chart and hovered over the songs (where the box pops up telling you how many weeks it's been on the chart, its peak, etc.), its peak had been updated in the pop-up (not just for the Hot 100 either, I noticed it had been on the Canadian Hot 100 and Dance charts, as well). They didn't appear to do it this week for the Hot 100, so I'm not sure how regular it is. Ss112 (Diskussion) 11:41, 10. Okt. 2017 (CEST)
- Hey, I was wondering earlier when you updated the Hot 100 positions on here where you got them from? I was looking through artists pages and updated the chart link of the October 14 chart at the time you did it but nothing new came up until 9 am (UTC). Did you check some third party page or something? -- Lk95 11:50, 3. Okt. 2017 (CEST)
Glen Power Seite
Hey SS112,
hab da mal ne spezielle Frage. Wir haben morgen The Script hier im Sender zu Besuch und wollten Glen mit seiner eigenen Wikipedia-Seite überraschen. Nur stellt sich eine Neuanlage doch schwieriger dar, als wir uns das gedacht haben. Kann du/ können Sie mir eventuell helfen?
Grüße, Peter
- Hallo Peter. Ich antworte jetzt einfach mal, weil ich diese Diskussionsseite auf der Beobachtungsliste habe. Ich bin ja sehr überrascht, dass ihr euch für so eine Frage gerade einen der wenigen Autoren in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia aussucht, der kein Deutsch, sondern nur Englisch spricht, weil er Australier ist. Vielleicht wäre eure Anfrage bei der Wikipedia Diskussion:Redaktion Musik besser aufgehoben? Und außerdem: einen Tag vorher zu fragen, ist vielleicht ein klein wenig kurzfristig. ;) Und ihr könntet bitte auch angeben, dass ihr der MDR seid, das ist nur aus eurer IP, aber nicht anderweitig zu erkennen. Ss112, I hope you don't mind me answering to this... --Ali1610 (Diskussion) 13:14, 11. Sep. 2017 (CEST)
Laugh Now, Fly Later von Wiz Khalifa
Hi, "Laugh Now, Fly Later" ist ein Mixtape und wurde bereits unten aufgeführt. :) Grüße
Austrian charts
Why did you jump ahead of me with these Austrian chart peaks? I had started like 5 minutes before you came in and suddenly started updating. I kept getting edit conflicts because of this. -- Lk95 18:44, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- @Lk95: You were...? I thought I was the only one doing it. I did it half-heartedly because it's the Christmas chart and I wasn't sure what was a new peak or an old peak for a Christmas song. Then I just ended up going straight to the end because I couldn't be bothered. Sorry? Ss112 (Diskussion) 18:46, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- Yeah I was (1, 2, 3, 4). Would be nice if you pay a little more attention. -- Lk95 18:52, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- @Lk95: Excuse you, I don't check the number-ones list to begin with all the time, and I missed RAF Camora and Nico Santos until later. Mariah's song I didn't even notice was a new peak until I went on the English article. No need to be rude just because you got a few edit conflicts. I really don't see that I have to make sure you're not doing something before I start because I doubt you do it for me, and that would be like stalking anyway, which I always ask others not to do and expect they wouldn't for me. Ss112 (Diskussion) 18:54, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- I wouldn't even say a single thing if you didn't always complain to me about what you just did. Besides, I'm not being rude, not sure where you get that from. -- Lk95 19:09, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- @Lk95: It looks like the last time I even actually "complained" about a chart's peaks being done before I got to it on your talk page was six months ago. Also, I "got that" from you asking me "to pay a little more attention" like I'm so inattentive rather than just not stalking you or examining a chart needlessly thoroughly. Ss112 (Diskussion) 19:15, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- I'm not asking you to do that but it would be nice if you didn't just jump on a random article and update them when somebody already started. Basically what you always told me, it's kind of a rude thing to do. -- Lk95 19:52, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- @Lk95: Are you completely missing what I just told you? I didn't know you had started doing it. I wouldn't have if I knew you had, but I'm not going to stalk you to make sure you haven't. Ss112 (Diskussion) 19:54, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- Well that's unfortunate then. Thanks for the editing conflicts. -- Lk95 20:11, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- @Lk95: Why are you thanking me for causing edit conflicts I couldn't have intended to cause? No editor likes those, so I assume you must be being sarcastic and that's the time you know it's time to stop commenting. Ss112 (Diskussion) 20:22, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- Well that's unfortunate then. Thanks for the editing conflicts. -- Lk95 20:11, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- @Lk95: Are you completely missing what I just told you? I didn't know you had started doing it. I wouldn't have if I knew you had, but I'm not going to stalk you to make sure you haven't. Ss112 (Diskussion) 19:54, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- I'm not asking you to do that but it would be nice if you didn't just jump on a random article and update them when somebody already started. Basically what you always told me, it's kind of a rude thing to do. -- Lk95 19:52, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- @Lk95: It looks like the last time I even actually "complained" about a chart's peaks being done before I got to it on your talk page was six months ago. Also, I "got that" from you asking me "to pay a little more attention" like I'm so inattentive rather than just not stalking you or examining a chart needlessly thoroughly. Ss112 (Diskussion) 19:15, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- I wouldn't even say a single thing if you didn't always complain to me about what you just did. Besides, I'm not being rude, not sure where you get that from. -- Lk95 19:09, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- @Lk95: Excuse you, I don't check the number-ones list to begin with all the time, and I missed RAF Camora and Nico Santos until later. Mariah's song I didn't even notice was a new peak until I went on the English article. No need to be rude just because you got a few edit conflicts. I really don't see that I have to make sure you're not doing something before I start because I doubt you do it for me, and that would be like stalking anyway, which I always ask others not to do and expect they wouldn't for me. Ss112 (Diskussion) 18:54, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- Yeah I was (1, 2, 3, 4). Would be nice if you pay a little more attention. -- Lk95 18:52, 20. Dez. 2017 (CET)
Portuguese charts
This seems to have been wrong. Did they revise the charts afterwards? --Ali1610 (Diskussion) 14:33, 29. Dez. 2017 (CET)
- @Ali1610: They must have, because I remember updating the peak on the English Wikipedia as well. Ss112 (Diskussion) 14:38, 29. Dez. 2017 (CET)
Music Canada
Yes, they ARE the official Canadian charts, because Music Canada (MC) also gives out the recording certifications. Even Billboard itself publishes both lists (the MC one goes as Canadian Digital Song Sales and Billboard archives 50 positions, while MC only has 20, but instead they have the last week's positions between 50 and 200). Billboard's Canadian Hot 100 is not officially approved by MC, but used most of the times because its length (100 vs. 20/50) and methodology (inclusion of airplay) are just better (plus it's known better at the moment). And they at least have a complete archive with all positions since the chart started in 2007, which isn't the case for MC. So I personally prefer to list both positions... --Ali1610 (Diskussion) 11:48, 31. Jul. 2018 (CEST)
- @Ali1610: Firstly, I have to say I'm confused as to how you saw my edit summary on DVBBS so quickly. Secondly, yes I'm very aware of Music Canada being the provider of Canadian certifications; my "non-official" comment referred to the fact that as far as I'm aware, being the official provider of certifications or of something else doesn't make that organisation the official provider of everything they choose to publish. According to en:Music Canada, it's not government-run or officially recognised in that regard but rather a non-profit trade organisation that has over the years come to represent most record labels and other music interests in Canada. Many countries have different providers of charts and certifications, or who is seen to be the "de facto official" provider of both. My point is that Billboard has been seen as the de facto official provider of charts for Canada since the late 2000s, and I think we should be consistent on any one page and not be picking and choosing between a country's different charts based on, say, where it ranked higher. Ss112 (Diskussion) 11:58, 31. Jul. 2018 (CEST)
en:Lover (album)
Can you remove "Taylor Swift Productions" on "label" parameter? Because it is a copyright holder for the video, while the physical release of the album where indicated as "℗© 2019 Taylor Swift", which is a copyright holder for her recordings. 183.171.113.88 07:38, 23. Aug. 2019 (CEST)
en:User:RockstarHead
Hi @Ss112: Is RockstarHead a same person of en:User:Khilieexodia17? The user focused on same Maroon 5 and Linkin Park articles and others. 183.171.113.134 09:15, 6. Feb. 2020 (CET)
Liste der Nummer-eins-Alben in den USA (2016)
Hallo Ss112!
Die von dir stark überarbeitete Seite Liste der Nummer-eins-Alben in den USA (2016) wurde zum Löschen vorgeschlagen. Gemäß den Löschregeln wird über die Löschung mindestens sieben Tage diskutiert und danach entschieden.
Du bist herzlich eingeladen, dich an der Löschdiskussion zu beteiligen. Wenn du möchtest, dass der Artikel behalten wird, kannst du dort die Argumente, die für eine Löschung sprechen, entkräften, indem du dich beispielsweise zur enzyklopädischen Relevanz des Artikels äußerst. Du kannst auch während der Löschdiskussion Artikelverbesserungen vornehmen, die die Relevanz besser erkennen lassen und die Mindestqualität sichern.
Da bei Wikipedia jeder Löschanträge stellen darf, sind manche Löschanträge auch offensichtlich unbegründet; solche Anträge kannst du ignorieren.
Vielleicht fühlst du dich durch den Löschantrag vor den Kopf gestoßen, weil durch den Antrag die Arbeit, die du in den Artikel gesteckt hast, nicht gewürdigt wird. Sei tapfer und bleibe dennoch freundlich. Der andere meint es vermutlich auch gut.
Grüße, Xqbot (Diskussion) 17:37, 22. Mär. 2020 (CET) (Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch durch einen Bot erstellt. Wenn du zukünftig von diesem Bot nicht mehr über Löschanträge informiert werden möchtest, trag dich hier ein.)
Liste der Nummer-eins-Alben in den USA (2017)
Hallo Ss112!
Die von dir stark überarbeitete Seite Liste der Nummer-eins-Alben in den USA (2017) wurde zum Löschen vorgeschlagen. Gemäß den Löschregeln wird über die Löschung mindestens sieben Tage diskutiert und danach entschieden.
Du bist herzlich eingeladen, dich an der Löschdiskussion zu beteiligen. Wenn du möchtest, dass der Artikel behalten wird, kannst du dort die Argumente, die für eine Löschung sprechen, entkräften, indem du dich beispielsweise zur enzyklopädischen Relevanz des Artikels äußerst. Du kannst auch während der Löschdiskussion Artikelverbesserungen vornehmen, die die Relevanz besser erkennen lassen und die Mindestqualität sichern.
Da bei Wikipedia jeder Löschanträge stellen darf, sind manche Löschanträge auch offensichtlich unbegründet; solche Anträge kannst du ignorieren.
Vielleicht fühlst du dich durch den Löschantrag vor den Kopf gestoßen, weil durch den Antrag die Arbeit, die du in den Artikel gesteckt hast, nicht gewürdigt wird. Sei tapfer und bleibe dennoch freundlich. Der andere meint es vermutlich auch gut.
Grüße, Xqbot (Diskussion) 17:41, 22. Mär. 2020 (CET) (Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch durch einen Bot erstellt. Wenn du zukünftig von diesem Bot nicht mehr über Löschanträge informiert werden möchtest, trag dich hier ein.)
Charts today
Hey, I got some time off. I'd be around to do the charts today if that's okay with you? If you want to do them your own, just let me know. Hope this reaches you in time. Lk95 (Diskussion) 12:56, 12. Feb. 2021 (CET)
- @Lk95: Sure, that's cool. I was gonna pay attention to the UK charts later (not meaning I would do it all, if you still want to listen as they count down the top 40 and the albums on BBC Radio and do those, that's fine with me), but particularly when the rest of the UK charts update I was gonna do a couple things? If I'm still awake then, anyway. Ss112 (Diskussion) 13:44, 12. Feb. 2021 (CET)
- @Lk95: Were you including NZ and Australia in this? 'Cause I was still gonna do those. Ss112 (Diskussion) 15:13, 12. Feb. 2021 (CET)
- Oh sure, you can do the UK charts later if you want. No, I actually wasn't gonna check for the NZ/Aus charts, you can do them too. Lk95 (Diskussion) 15:39, 12. Feb. 2021 (CET)
- @Lk95: Were you including NZ and Australia in this? 'Cause I was still gonna do those. Ss112 (Diskussion) 15:13, 12. Feb. 2021 (CET)
Hey, I have different working times at the moment that allow me to leave earlier on Fridays. Is it okay with you if we do the same thing as last week, meaning I update the charts starting at 1PM UTC until like 4PM UTC and you take over from there? Lk95 (Diskussion) 13:03, 19. Feb. 2021 (CET)
- @Lk95: Yeah, that's cool. Are you planning to do the Swedish charts? Last week an IP got to most of them before I noticed you hadn't done them and it was more work undoing some of their wack referencing choices than actually updating/adding new peaks. Don't get me wrong, I know it can get a bit much and some weeks you have to choose what to focus on first, so just asking. Ss112 (Diskussion) 13:27, 19. Feb. 2021 (CET)
I'll definitely take care of them today, thanks for the reminder. Another relatively experienced editor asked to do them themselves sometime last year but it appears they stopped. Lk95 (Diskussion) 13:50, 19. Feb. 2021 (CET)
Wikiläum
Ss112
zu 15 Jahren ehrenamtlicher Arbeit
im Dienst der Verbesserung unserer Enzyklopädie
und verleihe den
Wikiläums-Verdienstorden in Rubin
gez. Wolfgang Rieger (Diskussion) 09:41, 23. Apr. 2022 (CEST)
Hallo Ss112! Am 23. April 2007, also vor genau 15 Jahren, hast Du hier zum ersten Mal editiert und daher gratuliere ich Dir heute zum fünfzehnjährigen Wikiläum. Seitdem hast Du über 22.700 Edits gemacht und 31 Artikel erstellt, wofür Dir heute einmal gedankt sei. Ich hoffe, dass Du weiter dabei bist und dabei bleibst und dass die Arbeit hier Dir weiterhin Spaß macht. Beste Grüße, frohes Schaffen + bleib gesund -- Wolfgang Rieger (Diskussion) 09:41, 23. Apr. 2022 (CEST) PS: Wenn Du es wünschst, kann Dir auch eine Wikiläums-Medaille zugeschickt werden. Details siehe hier.
