Talk:Rae Sremmurd discography

Orphaned references in Rae Sremmurd discography

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rae Sremmurd discography's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BPI":

From Baauer: "Certified Awards" (enter "Baauer" into the "Keywords" box, then select "Search"). British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved June 22, 2014.
From British Phonographic Industry: Gallup (4 February 1989). "The Top of the Pops Chart" (PDF). Record Mirror: 4. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
From List of music recording certifications: "The BPI". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 2013-11-19.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

An editor seems to be removing the content for "Other charted songs" and replacing it "Other songs", which it is clearly not how a discography page should look. I would like to get @Ss112: and other editors opinions on this. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should definitely remain "Other charted songs". But perhaps the column should be the R&B/Hip-Hop Bubbling chart. Ss 112 01:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed to "other songs" because the editor who added it had included no charted songs. Had it been named "other airports on Tijuana", and no airports in Tijuana had been listed, I would expected a competent editor to remove this too, without question. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"You didn't do [thing I expected], so you must not be competent"—Magnolia, comments like this are entirely unnecessary and essentially a veiled insult. I have no interest in what you think of me because I didn't do what you expected. I'm not you, and you can't expect other users to do what you would all the time. Your dispute is over the dash+note representing a different chart, but yet it still charted, so no, the section did not include "no charted songs". The specific chart was not listed because the user who added it mistook practice in most sections for what should be done in that section. Ss 112 04:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The summary to my original edit (which was reverted by JustDoItFettyg) read: "removed unsourced content, unnecessary citations, and unnecessary/empty chart". Since then, you have added a source, removed the unnecessary sources, removed part of the unnecessary chart, and found something to add to the other part of the chart. I'm not sure what your issue is because your edits seem to have completely supported my original concerns. Thank you for improving the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think the source is necessary, as this is not standard practice on discographies, and I only added it because it appears you were/are unwilling to accept no source for something as simple as the self-evident fact that a song is part of a track listing. As I said at your talk page, I'm pretty sure I know what this particular addition was picked up on for and that's something for you and those editors to resolve, so I don't care to discuss the reasons for what I saw as double standards on the page any further. Ss 112 04:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]