Talk page policy: I prefer to see both sides of a discussion together on one page. If I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting If That's Your Boyfriend (He Wasn't Last Night), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. HarlandQPitt (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, regarding your edits to the article i do believe they are in WP:good faith but nevertheless they have been reverted. Please take a look at Talk:Battlefield (album) where i have given a general reasoning for my own edits and reasons why my edits should not be reverted. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, I noticed you've been contributing to the Fefe Dobson article and I was hoping you would agree to clean up the article, so the said article could reach a good article status. It's simple just try and find sources to her debut album and sophomore unreleased album, by using the Google search. I only cleaned up the early section and didn't have time for the other sections but your HELP would be kindly appreciated.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Fringe (TV series) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — DædαlusContribs07:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odd about that IP user from Florida. It's the second time he/she has deleted sourced material from the article without explanation. I've left the appropriate warnings, so that if it continues one of us (or anyone else following the article) can seek admin action.--VMAsNYC (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. Unfortunately, people edit ALL THE TIME without explanation. It is definately disconcerting.
Yep. They don't need to have explanations if it is noncontroversial or the thinking is clear ... but pure deletions of sourced material? BTW, do you want me to be the one putting back what you call the confusing material? Without it I fear someone may think Fefe is competing for the award (looks like one magazine already made that mistake!).--VMAsNYC (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as you first conributed it, you are welcome to the honor to restore it. THAT was/is part of my concern also. People reading that Fefe is at a competition may ASSUME that she is also COMPETING in it. Hopefully it can be made clear that she is NOT [as I understand?] :Iknow23 (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Good enough for government work, I think at this late hour. The oddity is this -- depending on what you read, it is either a Battle of the Bands at which she happens to be singing, or I guess it is her singing, and there happens to be a battle of the bands at the same time! I think what happened was it was always pitched the first way at first (probably because they didn't know who the singers would be), and now LiveNation is leaing the other way no doubt because they expect that Fefe and Cobra S will be better sells than the bands competing. At least that is my take, if you look at all the article in chrono order. Good work on catching the date mistakes -- missed them myself.--VMAsNYC (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I bet you are right. Fefe & Cobra are the "BIG NAMES" and should get a better "draw."
"I guess it is her singing, and there happens to be a battle of the bands at the same" Event. < That's what I'm trying to say.
I said its a CONCERT with...FIRST. Then a "by the way" there is ALSO a competition that will be there too. AND if anyone reading it knows anything about Fefe, or reads the first line that she "is a Canadian singer-songwriter" they may be able to figure out that she wouldn't be a NYC Artist competing. Although people call me Mr. DETAIL I don't think we need to put the detail that the CONTESTANTS will perform interspaced between the "CONCERT" acts. [If I understand] Iknow23 (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OH! So then they should rename it from: "The Best Breakout New York City Artist Award" to "The Best Breakout Artist Award Given Out in NYC"!!! LOL < couldn't resist a bit of texting lingo here Iknow23 (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a "verifiable" reference should be able to be viewed by all. I would recommend to find a different source or link for this information. Iknow23 (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In aCharts it shows the entry position so that can be used. Oh, and I added its current position, please web archive it. I would do it myself, but I have no idea how to do that. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice if you click [I think] ANYWHERE on the number 97 listing at Billboard it opens a dropdown with ADDITIONAL info! Unfortunately the url does NOT change so can't link directly to the "expanded" view. I'm sure any archive [if allowed-see below] would just show the "regular" number 97 view. I clicked on the Canadian chart link in the expanded view but can only access chart positions 1-50 [it is 82] so it can't be DIRECTLY viewed there [by me anyway] but that's just me, "Mr. DETAIL" haha checking everything out. It is NOT really necessary because IS IT shown in THAT "expanded" view. Similarly with the Digital Songs I can only see positions 1-40 [it is 55] I CAN see it on Heatseekers Songs at position 14, by clicking on the tab [11-20] and AGAIN when I click on the 14 position a dropdown opens with the additional info. As regards to archive, in my experience NOT all websites allow you to archive them, but that doesn't stop anyone from at least trying. This is the archive site that I have been using webcitation.org archive form. Give it a try and let me know how you make out. It you have any problems, I'll try it then. If a GOOD ref link can be found, it looks like a lot of ADDITIONAL chart info can be added to the page. Looks like you could add a column to the Charts for "Debut". The word "Position" as in "Peak Position" probably is unnecessary being generally understood. Especially if debut or other columns are added, probably don't need to see the word "Position" added to each one. Iknow23 (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heatseekers lists the top singles by groups that have never had top 50 single. I can't say that there is a compelling consensus against its inclusion, but not a strong one for it either. It's more or less a marketing tool for the perennial "also-ran" and the occasional new group. I won't take it out again, but I'm willing to bet that it will be removed by multiple editors.—Kww(talk) 01:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. My thinking is that it is a chart by Billboard, a recognized industry leader, so it is "encyclopedic" to include any of their charts where it is shown. It is verifiable. Iknow23 (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't know that... Well I don't think it's charted on the Top 40 that's why I added it! I will get involved with the question when I get a spare second. Jayy008 (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to restore it. It charted at #91 on the Dutch Top 100. Component charts are allow if it doesn't chart on the main chart which is didn't. Jayy008 (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, yes I definately agree now highly confusing!! As soon as I see it chart on the Top 40 I will personally delete the Top 100 listing! Jayy008 (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I don't know if this helps, and I'm sure there are mistakes, but I took a stab at it anyway. I assume Latin, Christian, and Jazz songs don't have any impact on the Hot 100. I'm not sure about Dance airplay and sales, but even if they do count into it, it's very neglible. --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me for overwriting your last edits there (got edit conflict and slow database access). I shall stop for now. Please clean up that article if you can. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Naturally (Selena Gomez & the Scene song). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
invitation to discuss important issue with music and notability.
Good question. I don't work with Discographies that often so I don't really know. I'd appreciate it if you tell me if you find out.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't know where to put it. I know Record Charts is for charts etc and the certifications but where would I put a discography question? Jayy008 (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DISCOG#Content subsection "Per-release" #6 only states "A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested,..." but that is RECORD CHARTS, I see nothing about a limit on certifications. Therefore, I would recommend for you to ask your question at their Talk page.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Single vs Song Chronologies
Hi user,
did you have a good xmas/new year?
i was actually wondering if we've reached a consensus about what to do with single chronologies for featured artists? (Beyonce ft Gaga Video Phone and Gaga ft Beyonce Telephone) Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes & Thank You. Hope you had a great xmas / new year also. I'm unsure if we could truly call it a consensus, but there hasn't been any dispute (edits) for a while now in their infoboxes. Note that they just state: "Lady Gaga chronology" and "Beyoncé chronology". The word "singles" has been removed. In the Project Talk page there was an example of this type of resolution found elsewhere (in at least one other article). I am quite satisfied with it this way and would welcome this to be 'the consensus'. Based upon its acceptance in these two cases + the prior example, I will edit future occurrences that I come across in a similar fashion and will cite these examples of an 'accepted' resolution.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I will accept for example "Lady Gaga singles chronology" ONLY where ALL the infobox items (prior, present and future) are released by her.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", it is my position that Track list and Personnel need to cite references as well. I do not understand that you say these sections are granted an exception? As with other references they should be displayed on the article page and not require one to click edit to read a hidden note.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information is obviously coming from somewhere, no? "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable"? It is. I've explained where I'm getting my information from. Please again see the example articles I have mentioned – they are viewed as some of the best song articles on Wikipedia, so obviously they're doing something right. It would be totally unnecessary to have [#] randomly plopped somewhere in the section. –Chase (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is being displayed on the article page as unreferenced material. Other cases of unreferenced material could come from 'somewhere' as well. Just because something is unreferenced does not mean it is just a figment of someone's imagination yet 'we' often delete it as 'unsourced'. How would you tell these TWO types of unreferenced material apart? REAL vs. FAKE? Why is it wrong to display on the page where it came from? —Iknow23 (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not with sourcing the information. The problem is with where the citation would fit in the section. It would be totally unnecessary to have a random [#] just lying around with nothing to attach it to. For editors who might wish to remove it as unsourced, there is a hidden note explaining where it comes from – this is exactly the reason the hidden note is there.
I would place it where I did before, as I've seen this done in other articles. But I am open to suggestion as my point really is that it should just be there somewhere.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got it done. Sourcing without a floating ref citation number by just putting it right there.
Source: The Fame Monster (Liner Notes) Interscope Records (2009)
I believe that resolves your objection and satisfies displaying the source.—Iknow23 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glitter soundtrack
Oh, I didn't understand what you meant on the talk page, I do now. I don't think it should be allowed because in all respect it is a component chart. If it was the UK, it should be allowed because soundtracks aren't allowed.
Although saying that, R&B could be considered a component. I will not object to it being added but because of the problems with component charts before, I think someone would remove it to be honest. Bring it up in a separate discussion. Then there will be a clear consensus on whether the soundtrack chart is allowed when it charts on the main chart. Jayy008 (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you continuously keep on rearranging the sections? Haven't I already explained that this is done in accordance to the Gaga articles and GA, where the critical and commercial receptions come before everything. Also I hope you know that one of the criteria of GA is to have the prose flowing as a single content, not having tracklisting or credits in between, which is hardly possible if one reception section is suddently moved at the end. I'm just going to say this in the politest way possible, I really appreaciate what you are doing for the article by reverting the unsourced content, but please stop the re-arrangement. --Legolas(talk2me)04:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you removed what I wrote about Blah Blah Blah being a top ten in the US and a top three in Canada. It isn't correct to refer Blah Blah Blah as a top ten hit in North America because there is no "North American Chart," and it only reached the top ten in Canada and the US, which represent only a section of the North American continent. In addition, why did you remove what was written about Blah Blah Blah debuting at #1 on Canadian HDS? That IS where it debuted, and it DID debut with 16,000 copies. If it's relevant and necessary to write the HDS and sales info about BBB in the USA, then it's also relevant to include that information about Canada. Chele9211 02:36 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I see. Thanks! Chele9211 17:38 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Put It in a Love Song
Should the article not be redirected since it is not a confirmed single yet that is what the page was created for? The sources all speculate a release but this is not necessarily going to happen. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am too lenient? But I am OK with the page existing as a "song" as we do have the 'song' template available because there is some chart info, reviews and about a music video. If it is actually released as a "single" the template can be changed to reflect that. However, I would not dispute a redirect. —Iknow23 (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's no problem. This is just reminicent of Beyoncé's Broken-Hearted Girl. I don't know if you were involved with the dispute over that too... but its definately worth redirecting i think. I will have a go at it tomorrow. I'm a bit tired at the moment. I just think its too premature right now. There's an annoyingly distrubing trend of pages being created as soon a single charts and considering the likes of BPI and RIAA said in their end of year reports that sales of album tracks (not singles) will increase in 2010 this could cause a problem and headache for us. 01:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't believe I was at Broken-Hearted Girl. Yeah, I'm too tired at the moment to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. I guess that there are 'Release histories' all over with the earliest (or only) listing being "Airplay". I admit to being confused for a bit in thinking that any song that has charted IS a single. But I've learned that that is NOT correct. Using Amazon for example, when it is an Album track, the song is shown as being FROM an album, like THIS. And when released as a single, the 'Album' name is the same as the single (though not a 'Title track') instead of the album it came from LIKE THIS. The FIRST has an Original Release Date: December 9, 2003 and the SECOND has an Original Release Date: September 9, 2003. What matters most is NOT which is first but that they are different.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that they are most likely using the Promotional cover as a placeholder. It will be confirmed when the date arrives if it does not change.—Iknow23 (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I was sure that there was just some confusion. Yes, I hate how Billboard is so inconsistent within itself, one example being you can see a song on a chart but when you search DIRECTLY for the song it says something like "This song has never charted." Augh, frustrating to the max.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I know. The whole website is now full of contradictions. One such example is "We Belong Together". Billboard says it never charted, however got the accolade for being the song of the decade. I seriously hate teh new site and its browsing options. So many old and archived news items are not available anymore, including reviews, live performances, new releases etc. By the way, do you want me to develop the "Video Phone" article like I did for the Gaga ones? At present the article is quite stub-class IMO and needs a revamp. --Legolas(talk2me)03:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are unfortunately 'stuck' with Billboard. If there was an alternative, I'd suggest putting it on WP:BADCHARTS as being unreliable! HA! Yes, that'd be great to improve "Video Phone". I agree with your assessment of it's current condition.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Atlest they could have left that old sites as it is or the billbaord.com, but alas. Also, I'll add the Video Phone article to User:Legolas2186/Sandbox3. I will need your help though in developipng it, since your more expertised in the Beyonce articles like User:Efe. See if you can find any source explaining the background of the song and add it in User:Legolas2186/reviews. Hah! Secretly I can't wait for the day Billboard reverts back to the original website, seeing the amount of negative feedback it got for the site. --Legolas(talk2me)07:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Some time ago, I sent Billboard an email giving them the specific url to their current chart displaying a song and/or album and the specific url to their search results page for the SAME song and/or album that showed the dreaded "This song [or album] has never charted]. I never got a reply and re-checked the results for a period and I never saw it corrected. As for developing articles, that's not really my strong point. I do a lot of FACTCHECKING in Peak charts and some bit of restating, page cleanup, and actually removing more material as 'unsourced' than adding new material. Overzealous fans inflate peaks and sales, which is of course unacceptable. I do get involved, even starting at times, some discussions on the Project pages as you have seen. I strive for consistency.—Iknow23 (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okies no problem. I can make any article GA quality in minutes (lol, my reputation in Wikipedia), hence Video Phone will be developed in no time once I start. He he. --Legolas(talk2me)09:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you oppose how the consensus has been developed? Its just that it appeared that user's had different opinions and there appeared to be seperate ideas about the infobox vs the release history. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how they can be separated? We need to be consistent within the article. Indeed, many many infoboxes have the link '(see Release history)' in them.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
United States radio
Since this is only us that are discussion this particular point lets bring it here until we've resolved it together.
The reason why I propose it is because airplay actually affects it's chart position posibly bigger than buying it in some cases, so it should count as an official release. In places like the UK, Australia, airplay doesn't need to be known in release history or infobox, just in the prose. Jayy008 (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A single doesn't have to chart. An album track (song, not single) can chart due to Digital downloads as an album track. So, if an album track charts we should call it a single? Charting (or not) does not apply here.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never mentioned that at all, you're replying using something I didn't say to make your argument valid. I don't think the rule should be cancelled like you said on the discussion because it's only the U.S. that needs special treatment. Putting "Airplay" for the UK would be pointless because Airplay doesn't contribute to chart position, the airplay chart isn't available to the public, need I go on?
In the United States a song can reach #1 on just Airplay alone, there is no need to change things we all know are singles just because they didn't get a digital release, that is bias. The U.S. can release things however they want for their singles, it's nothing to do with us. If a song is released for separate download in the U.S. then that should be the release date obviously but if it isn't then it should be the only thing it's released to that affects it's chart position as a whole. If this goes ahead and it would only affect the U.S. then alot of pages will have to be moved and removed from discographys, creating false information claiming things aren't singles because they were not released to buy will make Wikipedia invalid for information. Please don't reply about charting from album again, I would much rather you reply to what I am saying. You have to see my point? Please reply on my talk-page Jayy008 (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are still saying the same thing. I say that charting (or not) does not make it a single. It can still chart as a song or Album track.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done an example of what a page would look like with these changes, basically saying it was never released when it was because of Wikipedia's new guidlines. H.A.T.E.U.Jayy008 (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, they have failed to complete the 'singles' process if it is only available as an Album track (song). A 'single' MUST be available INDEPENDENTLY from the album (except historically for Greece, etc.) US labels have historically set a separate digital download date for a single. I do not think we should reward their laziness. Wikipedia does NOT always put things as ORIGINALLY stated. Like we don't use "TiK ToK", but we do mention it. Similarly, we can say that the label said it is a single, even if we do not.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But my point is, it's not for us to decide. It's up to the label what they call a single! Why can't airplay be a reliable format for a country that uses airplay as it's main ingredient for charting? I agree with you on one point, it's lazy and stupid, but it's nothing to do with us, it's their problem. For an Encyclopedia claiming a song wasn't a single just because it only recieved radio format would seem to not give correct information. Jayy008 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agsin it doesn't matter about charting. I could agree to it being called a "Radio date" but NOT a Release date as historically 'Release' means it is available for purchase. In this case, we are considering singles, so it would have to be available for purchase as a single and not just as an Album track. It is counterintuitive to say it has been released as a single if it cannot be obtained as a single. If someone tells me it is avail as a single but I go to buy it and it ONLY is avail as an Album track, I'd tell them, 'No, I couldn't get it as a single. I could only get it as an Album track.'—Iknow23 (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Radio release would suffice. Not Radio date, radio release. Maybe calling for example H.A.T.E.U. calling it third and single single off Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel released as a radio single only? That seems fair. Aslo in the release history box call the banner "Radio release history" Jayy008 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we've seen that it is problematic to call Radio "a release". Could call it "Rado date" or "Radio add" Remember these?:
I have witnessed reluctance in naming Radio dates as 'release'. Examples:
In cases where no INDIVIDUAL digital download separate from the album or CD single, do NOT use a section title of "Release history". Call it instead, "Radio date" or "Radio adds".—Iknow23 (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree a section (==) Radio Adds. Make sure it's written OFFICIALY impacted mainstream radio on blah blah as the *third single* so readers know it's still a single in the eyes of the label. That would suggest that it will only have a radio date and give you all the info you need. I only mean that for songs that have no digital/physical stand-alone release. Jayy008 (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GOOD. But I'd still want something like 'The label calls it a single' and not just us, because I do not. This would ALL be accurate then. It is really Radio adds, and it does officially impact radio (if the stations play it) and it is the label calling it a 'single'.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I meant for H.A.T.E.U. sorry. If a song is released to radio but hasn't been confirmed as a single, I don't think it should have it's own page (unless it's charted high) let alone have a release history. Jayy008 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TRUE. Charting is relevant to being notable in having an article. Even if 'confirmed as a single' does NOT automatically qualify it for a wiki article.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed I have made a few changes to H.A.T.E.U. but it can be removed from the infobox quite easily and just have "Radio Adds" at the bottom. I think the problem is completely resolved now. FINALLY! lol Jayy008 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CLOSE. But like discussed above, I'd still like it noted that it is the label that is calling it a 'single' with a reliable reference upon the first prose appearance of the word "single" EVEN in the article Lead. Example in this case the ref would be placed DIRECTLY after: "US-only single." The ref (or you) may have a better way to say it then 'The label calls it a single' (that was to clearly make my point above), so I am open to suggestion as to alternate ways of saying basically the same thing.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with just saying "US-only single" or "radio-only single" with a source either official website, label or third official party. Jayy008 (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've said "It's up to the label what they call a single!". I've agreed to go along with that, but want it specifically in the prose (without having to check the references) that it is the label calling it that, not us wikipedians. I think this will also be helpful to other editors that are not willing to accept this. We could just point them RIGHT to the prose (and ref) that the label 'says so'. I still believe these are 'incomplete or quasi-singles' but am willing to say that the label calls them a 'single' if they do so. As all the confusion we and others have had, I think we should ONLY accept them calling it a single from:
I agree for "label or official website" what I don't agree with is saying on the page "Label calls it a single, we here on Wikipedia don't" It has a certain negative feel to it like we're at war on what to call a single, it will look sloppy like we can't make up sufficient guidlines. Jayy008 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I don't mean to really say in the article, "Label calls it a single, we here on Wikipedia don't"!. In a way what you said is true that there are edit wars on 'what to call a single'. In truth it is NOT us making a guideline on what is a single. We are just reporting it as "It's up to the label what they call a single!" So our only guideline, if you will, is to be guided by what the label says.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, yes, simply! I would have no objection to something like this "According to ".... Records" the song was sent to mainstream radio as the official third single in may." OR something? Jayy008 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, don't put it on me lol, I've had enough of release dates, what constitutes a single etc to last a life time these past couple of days! Also Billboard Pop songs on the Billboard charts for inclusion is now allowed - for some reason! I can't remember the page, but it's there. So if I add it back will you not revert? Jayy008 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, me too. And it's not over yet, this is just the 'radio only singles' Singles out to radio first, then their own separate (from album) digital release dates and/or CD singles are different. As to Billboard Pop Songs, I hadn't heard that, so if you can find that please point it out to me.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Video Phone
You happy with the updated version? I couldnot find anything else regarding the inspiration behind the song. Beysus didnot talk about it in any interview? --Legolas(talk2me)04:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to give you a reply now. I want to review briefly numerous articles before I set about really getting into this one. I just didn't want you to think that you were being ignored.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm just speeding though 'em and catching all that garbage. Hard to find time to read an entire article :( Glad you understand :) —Iknow23 (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blah Blah Blah
I always thought that even if you need an account to view the info, it was allowed to be used on Wikipedia. Like the Magazine references? Jayy008 (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about Print items, but didn't on Online sources until I saw at WP:Access to sources "some online sources may require payment". But in the cases of 'subscription required' or 'payment required', I think we should NOT list it as an url link because MOST won't be able to see it. When I see a link I EXPECT that I can go view it, don't you? I would just list it similar to the Print items, NO Direct url to it. Just give the article title, publication, website name, etc. which can have wikilinks to wiki articles on the publication name or website name. I hope that is clear?—Iknow23 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reformatted it to look more like a standard citation with link to Music Week wiki article. Just NO url. Does that look good to you?—Iknow23 (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I don't know where it is! All I know it's on a page which lists ALL billboard charts and tells you if they're allowed or not?
I will do it quickly now, if you find any others let me know and I will do them in a few days when I'm back on. Jayy008 (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're all done! I may have done one more, alot earlier if I find one I will change it but I've done all the ones I can see. Thanks for your pointing it out! Jayy008 (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consume this Cheezburgr so that you may continue to edit with a belly full of yummy
⊂Andyzweb⊃ (Talk) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!
Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.
Hi, Regarding this edit, just to let you know the thinking behind the extra column is that there will be times to describe extra information - Digital downloads in particular often have multiple versions, main single version, radio edit, live version or remixes. Anyway, leaving it off for now, will see if the column gets required in the future. SunCreator (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I guess I am more used to the way that this section is usually displayed. Just a thought about Remixes though: Sometimes there can be quite many, so I wouldn't put them all in the Release information section, just the Notable ones like "Video Phone (Extended remix)" for example as it has a featured artist, it also charts and is generally known (recognized). As to all the Club remixes, etc. I would like to just see them in their own section, Remixes. For completeness the Remixes section would show them all, don't leave out the ones that are in the Release information section though. How does this sound?—Iknow23 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are not a lot of 'Other details' we could use a Notes, like this
The 'Radio add' date is VERY important to my new notion of when a 'song' becomes a 'single'. It doesn't matter if Radio really plays it on that date or if the song charts. I know that I have yet to write my dissertation ;) —Iknow23 (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Important as it may be, I can not see that editors are going to like a release date where there is apparently no WP:RS for it. Maybe you have some solution to that I am not aware. I look forward to your dissertation. SunCreator (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there has to be proper sourcing of 'Radio add' dates. If this is not usually possible, then I shall be in great difficulty.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so. Nobody else has been able to find one. Do you have any other(s)? There is a problem like any item discussing the future in that it can change. But I presume that the info is correct at the time of posting. Is there such a thing as a site that reports the Radio adds AFTER they have occurred? That would be best of course as the past cannot be changed.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a wiki article titled Going for adds with Radio adds and Radio add dates redirecting to it, should be created explaining this music industry term? When these things are then discussed in articles, they can be wikilinked to it.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your invincible tag. Hundreds of album/singles pages have done fine without similar hidden tags. I do recognize though that Gaga is a hot commodity now and there's heightened consciousness about her work and the companies associated with it. I suppose it can stay for now to avoid further conflicts in the near future as the single is current, but ultimately tags like this should be removed. Imperatore (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
huh, never thought that. I don't know. But my 'gut instinct' says, "No." If so, any 'single' without a video would be penalized as it doesn't have one to 'air'.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Airplay wiki seems awkward. It is all about radio, except for one sentence stuck in there, "The term is also used in the same way regarding music video channels, to state how often a music video is being played." Almost like THAT sentence belongs possibly in a separate Video play article or at least in a separate section listing in this article titled, 'Video play'. When it comes to video I think it is more common to just say that it was 'viewed' or 'aired' or as you used for a future tense 'Video to air'. Yes, I think the "Mainstream airplay" may be better.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would class Video historically along with TV broadcasting, as in the new show is scheduled to have it's premiere airing on February 15, 2010. In other words, 'Airplay' is more for Radio and 'Air' is more for TV and subsequent visual formats.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go alone with that. In the UK we use air or aired as TV and Playlist as Radio, the word Airplay is not something I notice come up. The Airplay article possibly wants looking at. As a long term thing I believe videos will to included in the release somehow because already in the UK releasing a video often has more impact in sales then Radio 1 playlisting. SunCreator (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a song receives Airplay because it is on the Radio station's Playlist. I think the Release information section could get unwieldly if alternating between Audio product and VIDEO ONLY product with Country names appearing multiple times? If necessary, I would prefer the Music video section to have it's own separate Release table. —Iknow23 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did some editing at the Airplay article. I added the terms 'spins' and 'playlist' and deleted the Video mention. By the way, I recognize that Radio and Video both use the terms 'playlist' and 'Rotation' as in "The video received heavy rotation on MTV, so it is definitely on its playlist." Do you have further improvements for the Airplay article?—Iknow23 (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep removing "Right Round" from the Ke$ha chronology? I've always been under the impression that ALL singles have to be included whehter you are the lead artist or not. For example Lil Wayne. It created a better flow of songs. Jayy008 (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, YES. But this is peculiar in that she is NOT actually credited as a 'featured artist' or credited at all, as far as I've heard. Since it is true that her voice is in it, (and sourced?), it can be mentioned in the article text as something she did though.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my! See here makes it look more like a duo (even a more substantial credit than feat.) Anyway, I read the "Right Round" wiki not too long ago, and as I recall, it is stated [better be with ref] that Kesha is DELIBERATELY not credited per the record label.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, erm, thanks? Lol I'm so confused now. From that I'm guessing it's just Ke$ha's "Right Round" that is a NO. But things like Cheryl Cole on "Heartbreaker" is alloweD? Jayy008 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heartbreaker (will.i.am song) is totally different. The infobox shows "Single by will.i.am featuring Cheryl Cole" and it IS on her album too! so she had better be mentioned. THAT article is not correct however. Should not put as "from the album Songs About Girls and 3 Words" as that is 2 albums not one. Infobox does not state, 'from the albums...'. There should be 2 infoboxes in the article, One as "Single by will.i.am featuring Cheryl Cole" "from the album Songs About Girls" and a second infobox as SONG, not single ... let's see now, this is complicated ... I would show as "Cheryl Cole featuring on Single by will.i.am" "from the album 3 Words". The 'single' cover would not be used. As a 'song' infobox, her chrono would show tlhe PRIOR & SUBSEQUENT album tracks. Since she now has her own infobox, her chrono in will.i.am's should be removed.
Why not her single? It's not said to be HER single. Look at 3 Words. It's not in the "Singles from 3 Words" because will.i.am was the one that released it as a 'single', right?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's highly confusing. I didn't mean anything about the album I thought all song were included in the Chronology even if they're just featured singles. The fact that Heartbreaker is on her album doesn't make a difference, I think it's a bonus track anyway. So a Chronology you only feature songs if they're the lead artist? Jayy008 (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing with Kesha is that she is NOT OFFICIALLY a featured artist even though her voice is on it, per the record label. Remember how we eventually (:D) agreed that a song is a single if the record company says so. Well same here. If the record company says she is NOT to be credited as a 'featured artist' then we do NOT. They might have credited her as contributing some vocals, but not as 'featured'. As regards to Cheryl Cole, since Heartbreaker (will.i.am song) is a song on her album (not a single), it qualifies for its own 'song' infobox as her album should not be combined with will.i.am's in the infobox. Of course, by all means leave it as "Single by will.i.am featuring Cheryl Cole" in will.i.am's infobox, though. I just don't think it is proper to have TWO albums listed in ONE infobox. They are not made for that kind of use, are they?? This will also give Cheryl Cole a greater presence in the article (having her own infobox), since I guess that you are a fan. So you might like this. It is by coincidence though, I did not 'hatch' this plan with a 'motive'. I just believe it is the proper way to display the material.—Iknow23 (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought of it like that but if the song did not appear on her album like for example all of the songs that Keri Hilson is featured on then is it inc? And yes I think everybody in the UK is a Cheryl Tweedy fan lol. Jayy008 (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure that I understand you? But, I'll try :) If the song does not appear on the 'other' artist's album, the other artist should not (could not actually) have their own separate infobox in the article. PLEASE NOTE: When I say infobox, I mean an ENTIRE infobox, not just a added chrono to the ONE infobox. Re: Keri Hilson See "Hey Now (Mean Muggin)" As she is shown in the infobox, "Single by Xzibit featuring Keri Hilson", she 'qualifies' for her chrono to be there. However as not all (not any actually) of the items listed there are HER singles, I just edited it to 'Delete word singles from Keri Hilson chrono header as items are NOT her singles'. But they are something she is part of. Like "Beyoncé chronology" (not "Beyoncé singles chronology") is shown at "Telephone (song)" because the infobox says she featured, "Single by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé".—Iknow23 (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I also see that the featured artist Navbox gets placed on these type of articles as well, so I just added Keri Hilson's Navbox to "Help (song)" as it wasn't there.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I mean is "extra singles chronology" no extra infobox. Just the singles chronology. Like Lil Wayne's chronology would feature Turnin' Me On? Because that was Keri Hilson featuring him and it only appeared on her album. That's all I'm trying to find out. Jayy008 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like Beyoncé and Lady Gaga above. When the infobox says, "Single by Artist 1 featuring Artist 2", then Artist 2 has their chrono listed but WITHOUT the word 'singles' displayed because not all the items in their chrono can be said to be their single. At least the current one (article you are looking at) Artist 2 is 'featured' but they did not release it as a single (not their single). EXCEPTION: If Artist 1's 'single' also appears on Artist 2's album, then Artist 2 gets a 'song' infobox on the same article page. Since Artist 2 has their own infobox now, I would remove their chrono from the Artist 1 infobox. Yes. At "Turnin' Me On" Lil Wayne's chronology is there showing "Turnin' Me On" but without the word singles, as it is not his single. He is featured.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heartbreaker (will.i.am song) shows it in infobox as a 'single' from 3 Words? But isn't it just a 'song' from 3 Words AND ONLY a 'single' from Songs About Girls? Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Singles Item 2, "For songs that appear on more than one album, list the song as a single only for the album where the single was released as part of the marketing and promotion of that album." Thus, shouldn't there be a separate 'song' infobox for the 3 Words use of the song as an album track?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so. Artists have a worldwide chrono as wiki does not just pertain to only one country. Just my personal preference, if it is limited to one country (or region) I would like to see it presented as such.
Just thought that some may search without the 'The' and if they put 'Remix Lady Gaga' or 'Remix album' they may find it easier? Remix is a general term.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, can you check the 'French, Greek, Italian & Mexican download EP' tracklist section. I need to go to bed! 5:19 AM here! Appreciate it :)—Iknow23 (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be sourced? She has only said the abbreviation on her shows. I will add a YouTube link to her saying it or will you remove it? Jayy008 (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Is it mentioned anywhere in the album booklet, or magazine interviews, etc.? YouTube should only be used if from an official source, not a fan video or fansite video of her performance. If it can't be appropriately sourced it should be removed until it can be. Remember "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."—Iknow23 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have accepted SunCreator's offering because of "Source: Press of Atlantic City - Scott Cronick" but would have suggested to look to see if it could be found at its original source instead of using the Mariah Carey Connection quotation of it. But that is now moot due to Jayy's OFFICIAL sourcing, the Best reference. :) As regards to "Ke$ha", that is a different case as it appears with the "$" in her album and single covers and also in articles or reviews quoted at Animal (Kesha album) and "Blah Blah Blah (song)". Plus look at the References section at both of those AND "Tik Tok (song)" to see many outside of wiki articles showing the "$". "Having A Typical Emotional Upset" however, does not have a prevalent showing so it needed to be sourced. It is definitely better now. :) Also, I'm sure that you discovered that I found a source for Radio add date ;) —Iknow23 (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree it looks better now ha. Oh goodness, I spend ages looking for a radio add date. I'm glad you found it!! Btw I also replied above. Jayy008 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hot 100 is calculated from three component charts:
Airplay: Hot 100 Airplay
Sales: Hot Digital Songs and Hot 100 Singles Sales
In turn, the Hot 100 Airplay is comprised on the various airplay-only charts, including but not limited to Top 40 Mainstream, Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks, Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks, Hot Country Songs, Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks, Alternative Songs, and theRhythmic Airplay Chart.
When tabulating sales, the raw amount is left unaltered for tabulation of the sales charts by themselves. However, when points are being tabulated for the Hot 100, sales in both sales components are multiplied by two before being added.
Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs) is comprised of airplay-only charts, which includes Pop Songs, but Pop Songs isn't 1 of the 3 component charts of the Hot 100. By your logic, no song should have Adult Contemporary, Country, or Rock listed either, which is stupid
Pop Songs being a component of Hot 100 Airplay, is a 'sub'-component of Hot 100. So by putting it again it is getting DOUBLE credit for its share (by itself and as part of Hot 100). The other genre charts, Rock, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, Hot Dance Club Songs, etc are NOT part of the Hot 100 so can be shown even when the Hot 100 is. (Not a duplication)—Iknow23 (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"988 stations, comprised of top 40, adult contemporary, R&B/hip-hop, country, rock, gospel, Latin and Christian formats, are electronically monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This data is used to compile The Billboard Hot 100."
According to this Rock and R&B/Hip-Hop are part of Hot 100 Airplay, so following your way, Hot Dance Club Songs is about that only other billboard chart that could be shown on a song page besdies Hot 100, and that sounds right to you?
I saw this. The problem was that the Hungarian archive moved to a different location. I updated the template to point at the new location, and now the reference points to the archive page again. Hopefully that will solve your problems.—Kww(talk) 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. I was going to get around to ask about it. I've been bad. Haven't really learned the singlechart template. I just reviewed it now trying to find a parameter to leave a NOTE in the ref display but find it displays in the table. Help, please!—Iknow23 (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that I want to show the specific list is because the 'Rádiós Top 40 játszási lista' was used before as it appears there also. My thinking is that the 'Single (track) Top 10 lista' should be used where possible.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This IP, 188.129.253.214 continues the Chart vandalism at "Fight for This Love". I recommend that "Editors' Choice rádiós játszási lista" be listed at Badcharts and a note in Goodcharts left to mention to NOT use this chart. THAT must be the chart that 188.129.253.214 is using as it shows "18" that they are always editing it to. "Editor's Choice" does NOT seem like a proper chart to me. It sounds more like a critical rating than a real chart. What do you think?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am not disputing it. I truly don't know. We'll see what others say and whatever turns out will be fine with me. :)—Iknow23 (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a link to a Wikipage on record charts which shows the component charts of the Hot 100. Hot 100 Airplay is one so I guess that's the answer to it :) Jayy008 (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please reply. I've made a change and struckout my argument before. Sorry you was trying to tell me and I wasn't listening. I was drifting and got confused. Jayy008 (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that and correcting the Artist paramenter in the infobox to 'Taio Cruz featuring Kesha'. I was just about to do it ;)
However please DELETE the 'Taio Cruz (US) chronology' and just use ONE chrono for worldwide. We can't start putting up chronos for each country. This will become too unwieldly.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darn, what happened to the Artist paramenter in the infobox showing 'Taio Cruz featuring Kesha'? Shouldn't ONLY one album title be in the Singles infobox. Kesha has not released it as a single. She should have a 'song' infobox in this article showing the album track (Part II) from Animal as such.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, got the 'Taio Cruz featuring Kesha' back but removed from the chrono so it just shows 'Taio Cruz singles'. What about Kesha having a 'song' infobox because a version of the song appears as an album track on her album, Animal?—Iknow23 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Record Charts
Hi Iknow23. As I predicted in our conversation Wikipedia talk:Record charts page over the past few days I've met some resistance from an over zealous editor IllaZilla on the Crash Love page. I used the statement you offered: "Per WP:CHARTS "component charts should not be used in the tables, unless [it] fails to enter the main chart", though he's stating that the "component chart" definition isn't valid for genre charts. He's gone so far as to threaten to report me on my talk page. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you misunderstood what I had said at the Record charts talk page. I said that Genre charts are allowed even when charting on the 'main' overall charts (Billboard 200 or Hot 100). But ANY 'component' chart of a chart that does appear in the Chart table is NOT allowed. Let me use singles for an example as I am more familiar with it:
Hot 100 - (charts on), so show in Chart Table (Main overall chart)
Pop 100 - (charts on), so show in Chart Table (Main GENRE chart)
Pop 100 Airplay - (charts on), do NOT show in chart table (component of Pop 100, that appears above)
Note: Pop 100 Airplay is allowed if it does not chart in the Pop 100. But MOST may not bother to put it, even though allowed. —Iknow23 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Inkow, I'm having trouble understanding the problem you see. All of the albums I placed it with are there, if you don't see them then I didn't change the page in the sourcing, which I can fix. Secondly the only thing I did was round them off by 1000 or so, if you'd like we can write the exact number, it doesn't bother me. Tell me which albums you didn't see in the source, I'll resource them.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That I know, anything that didn't take you to the exact page was just a mistake, where I forgot to change the web address. Hmmm, Iv'e consulted another editor, because I don't see why it's not. Thanks--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To what edit on the page are you referring. The last edit I made since today was adding this source, which does state The Remixes sold 199,000 copies, and that happens to be exactly the figure I wrote.--PeterGriffinTalk • Cont.
Oh, sure, I think it makes more sense that way, but when I was editing Celine Dion articles a certain editor kept fussing about how They for sure sold more by now, so let's round it...lol..However I agree with you, when quoting a source it must be precise.--PeterGriffinTalk • Cont.
Well besides for the source, we seem to have found a consensus, however if you want to we can just not have it until we have a concrete source. I already went ahead and removed then from any other article I recall seeing or placing them in.--PeterGriffinTalk • Cont.
Hey Iknow, I want to know what you think about this source, even though I'm pretty sure I know the answer. I find this source even less reliable than Ticketspecialists.--PeterGriffinTalk • Cont.18:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Little help
Could you join the discussion here [3], please. This user puts this source [4] claiming that it proves that The Ballads (Mariah Carey album) was certified gold in the UK. However there is no mention like that in it. The socend thing is about Infodisc.fr. It is a good source for certifications, as it has copied all of them from SNEP. But sales, as we can read on the website, are just estimations made by the Infodisc team. However this user is adding exact sales numbers from Infodisc to Mariah Carey articles. Max24 (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello i noticed you've commented on the billboard component charts issue at WP:record charts on the talk page. I have left a more detailed response, i was wondering if you could take a look and comment etc. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm actually i wasnt aware that the number of charts had been removed. i do remember being involved a discussion about it about 10 months ago when it was decided that 20 was the limit but there must have been another consensus since then to remove the the limit. I do mind personally. Also by default i've always automatically counted multiple charts from once country as one charting region i.e. pop songs, dance club play and hot 100 = one U.S. chart. that had relevance when the chart limit was in place.
Lil-Unique told me it with the reasons of what I put in my edit summary, so if you need a better explanation ask him. I left Billboard Hot 100 as Billboard Hot 100 because that's the exact name of the chart? Jayy008 (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard
Well in the length discussion we had that formed the WP:USCHARTS page it was said that only the official names should be used. Billboard is only the chart provider and so the only chart which should be called Billboard is the Billboard Hot 100. All others should be used with their given name at WP:USCHARTS as these are taken from the physical copy of billboard and billboard.biz. I will change record charts now. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay
This was indeed an error. It is in fact Mainstream R&B/Hip-Hop which is a component of both Hot Rap Songs and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs. Hope that clears things up? Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
to add or not to add
Okies i agree. I've changed record charts back so that you it shows that all US charts should have Billboard in front of them. It will be easier than getting KWW to change the chart macro and also the number of articles that use Billboard already its hardly worth implementing the removal of it. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kesha discography
Hey Fixer23
I'm wondering about Kesha discography. There is a section titled "As featured artist" and another section titled "Other appearances" with the description "These songs have not appeared on a studio album by Kesha." Wouldn't that description also fit "Right Round" (Flo Rida featuring Kesha) as it is not on Kesha's album?? Also doesn't "Dirty Picture" feature Kesha but it isn't in the "As featured artist" section. I guess I'm just all confused over those two sections.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Brought over here for completeness of discussion.—Iknow23 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I modeled my edits after featured list, Lily Allen discography. They did not have duplicates when a song was used as a single. In this case, the Taio Cruz song should be under featured artist in the Singles section because it is a single that features Kesha, but it hasn't charted yet so I guess we can do the change when it does? :) Fixer23 (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this at Lily Allen discography either. Section title says "As featured artist" so it should be comprehensive and include them all whether they chart or not. One can always add like at Lily Allen discography the "—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released. —Iknow23 (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the distinction is there because As featured artists is a subsection in the Singles section. That's why it can only have songs that have been released as singles. Fixer23 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HeHe
Use your account then. :P Even though you use edit summaries, if you use your actual wiki account, you'll be taken more seriously with your edits. QuasyBoy21:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, You can do yourself, But I don't mind helping my buddy. :) QuasyBoy 3:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I know (no pun intended) but I got a bit stale on the ref formatting. Just did a bunch of date formatting and updating Joy release info on the 'others' pages (other songwriters that are credited, ADD guitar credit on Orianthi's page with links back to Fefe Dobson and the album Joy, etc.) So LOL, its not like I've been doing nothing. Oh, and added "Ghost" video link in infobox on its single page. Thank You for any help that you can provide :) —Iknow23 (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HeHe, I did it for ya. Also Claude Kelly only co-wrote "Stuttering", he didn't produce. J. R. Rotem did the producing. Kelly's Twitter account says so here [5]QuasyBoy 3:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank You...And great that you corrected "Stuttering". By the way, do you know any source to ref for "Ghost" credits (songwriting and producing?) —Iknow23 (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You yet ONCE AGAIN for more fine info :) Too late for me to put it to use right now, but I know where to come to find the link again. LOL. —Iknow23 (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darn! Was just bout to log out, when noticed that the BestFan links will disappear after the event, like just happened with "August 28, 2010 — SUMMERFEST! Sudbury, Ontario, Canada". Another ref will need to be found. THIS states she scheduled to be there as posted prior to event, but not the best to use because of all the extraneous contest info. Not apropro for Wiki :(—Iknow23 (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the link for first concert disappeared, that's why I removed it. Gonna need a permanent link for that concert info. :( QuasyBoy 5:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
RE:LLTNT
I'll get to it if I get a chance, my time on Wikipedia is limited nowadays. Btw, actually a Infobox song template is to be used since it is not an Official Gomez single, only a promo single. Candyo3218:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But I would still use Infobox single. I guess that I don't understand what a promo single is?? I believe that ALL singles are a promo for something. Just because a single is from a Soundtrack that has other artists as well, does that mean it is NOT a Selena Gomez and the Scene single? They are the performers of it. Does a single HAVE TO BE from an album ENTIRELY by the artist? iTunes doesn't treat it that way as they credit it as a single by Selena Gomez and the Scene. Is there a discussion on any Project pages about this kind of situation that you can point me to? I am certainly willing to review those and LEARN from there as well.
Idk if we are looking at the same page or not, but on Selena Gomez & the Scene#Discography and Selena Gomez & the Scene discography, only AYWR is listed as the succeeding single. I think you are confusing what I meant, I didn't meant to say songs not by an artist entirely or soundtrack songs are not singles. Soundtrack singles can be official singles, such as "Get Up" or "Club Can't Handle Me", but LLTNT is not, it was not sent to radio, which is really the key in determining actual official singles for the artist/groups, and another factor is if it got any single treatment, which this didn't. LLTNT was just a simple promo single, as was Never Say Never, for example. Also keeping with consistency, most promo singles such as "Never Let You Go" and "Beautiful, Dirty, Rich" use infobox song. can't direct you do a specific point on a Wiki page that explains this, but I have gathered this information by participating and correcting several of my GA's.Candyo3200:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fairly recent version that I was referring to. It had been changed later. I see that "Beautiful, Dirty, Rich" explicitly states 'Promotional single' in it's infobox. So if I understand what you are saying...a song MUST be sent to radio (doesn't matter if radio plays it or not?) to be called a single. If it is released separately (different SALES release date) from the Artist's album or A Soundtrack 'compilation' of various artists, it doesn't AUTOMATICALLY count as a single?? I call that 'single treatment'.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops well I guess all articles aren't going to be the same as You're Not Sorry is a promo single but uses a single infobox. Im kind of confused at your last statement, but what is the typical single treatment is digital release, radio add date, and music video. And since several promo singles or even non-singles in general can have music videos, and that all songs will eventually be released via download due to an album release, this means that radio add dates are the factor. If you still need explanation, I will try my best to enlighten, but also if so, see these discussions on the "What is a single?" debate, here and here. Candyo3201:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before the digital age when only 'physical releases' were available, didn't they have radio add dates prior to the release (sales) date in order to generate demand for the audio product? No one then ever considered the radio add date as the "Release date". Release parties meant the public can NOW purchase it and artist's/label's celebration of now starting to make money from it! The radio add date is a "promotional date", so I guess one could call them 'promo singles' at that point, but when available for sale INDEPENDENTLY from its 'parent' Album, Soundtrack Compilation etc. it becomes a 'full-fledged' single. 'Promo singles' are sent out by the label for Radio adds, critic reviews, etc. all WITHIN the industry prior to sales release. When John or Jane Q. Public can buy them, they are now 'Actual singles'. Why can't we continue this way?...Correct, singles don't have to have a corresponding video, but they often do.
So if the criterion is changed to 'radio add date' is what creates the song as a 'single' ALL the articles showing a different 'sales release date' need to be changed!? —Iknow23 (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even more confusing? ... I would call a single (available for purchase) from an upcoming album that is later dropped from the album (not actually on it) a 'promo ONLY single' for that album.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woahh, wait a minute, I think we are thinking way too much through this now. I'm not saying the radio add date is a release date. But typically the artist and label only send songs to radio that they want to be singles. And the radio date usually coincides or comes after the digital download date. I thought this was about singles and promo singles not about sales release dates Lol. And responding to your last comment, the album hasn't been released so the song isn't available already for download meaning the first download date and add date correspond for the official single. So let me make this clear this is NOT about making the radio add date the release date. Like I said labels only send singles to radio so I don't know where you are getting this promotional singles and radio and all of this that is confusing me. Simpler terms a full-fledged single has a download date (if prior to album release), and after album release has a solid radio add date. Promotional singles are just to promote the album or whatever work and do not get single treatment (i.e. radio add date, music video, etc.). One more thing, I didn't mean for it to come across as the radio add date making the single, but it is the so called game-changing factor. In the digital age, songs are already going to be available on iTunes since the album has been released. So what other way are you able to distinguish a single from a regular song? --- the radio add date. Candyo3203:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, sorry...I had just came back from revisiting the "' What is a single?' debate". I agree "typically the artist and label only send songs to radio that they want to be singles." I would even go beyond "typically" to say "almost always". At THAT point (in my mind anyway) I call em 'promotional singles' if they are not available for purchase independently (different sales release dates) of their 'parent' project. That is, intended to be future singles (released independently) if they achieve Radio success. If they do not receive Radio success, they probably won't go ahead and do the independent release. So just because they have a Radio add date does NOT make it a 'full-fledged' single in my book. If it has the independent release (sales) date (even if NEVER sent to radio), I call it a single. If it doesn't have the independent sales date (even if it was sent to radio) I would think of it as a 'failed single' or 'almost single' but it recedes back to the status of just being an 'album track' or 'song' only...not a single. Hmmm, you say that in "Simpler terms a full-fledged single has a download date (if prior to album release), and after album release has a solid radio add date." Well the 'prior' could also have a solid radio add date. As for the 'after' it probably will also (because it makes sense for them to want radio to play it) but it remains a 'promotional single' until/unless it is 'released for purchase' by itself independent of the 'parent'...thus will have a release date AFTER that of the parent. There can be singles prior to and after the parent release. So my acid test as to whether a song is a 'single' or just an 'album track' is: Does it have a 'release date' (purchase) that is different from the parent project? PERIOD. I think this is the simpliest way as well. —Iknow23 (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Promotional singles are just to promote the album or whatever work" Actually all singles promote their 'parent' work do they not? Please click on the link at the word 'single' in the abbreviated infobox single example below.
"In music, a single or record single is a type of release, typically a short recording of one or more separate tracks. This can be released for sale to the public in a variety of different formats. In most cases, the single is a song that is released separately from an album, but it can still appear on an album. Often, these are the most popular songs from albums that are released separately for promotional uses, and in other cases a recording released as a single does not appear on an album." —Iknow23 (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Like I said labels only send singles to radio" I would make that 'labels only send songs to radio that are intended to be singles and in most cases will be'. But to be a single is to have a different sales date from the parent project.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand on the song being a promo single with a song Infobox. Same applies to all the same heavy promo single Justin Bieber has released 1, 2, 3, and more. Just simple promo singles. Just because it was released on iTunes does not make it an official, and every song released to iTunes is noted as a "single" doesn't apply to Wikipedia. Candyo3200:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I don't know if I ever told you that I've been given the nickname of "Mr. Detail", ha. And even more 'detail' about that :D, is that this was done in person by ppl I know, and not just someone online.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes "protecting until album released". Well after release any variance from the truth (known then) will be PURE VANDALISM. The time for speculation shall have expired. ;)—Iknow23 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Fefe Dobson (UK album).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk03:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of Pop Songs chart
Idk if we are looking at the same page or not, but WP:USCHART says, "If a song has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the charts to the right →" and one of the charts to the right is Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs). Candyo3222:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found it to be resolved already, when I went to look at it. I didn't even need to read the comments there, so I'm prolly repeating what you and others said there. If I had gotten there in time, I would definitely say KEEP. High charting position and Platinum cert definitely is NOTABLE!!! As you know me though, I don't agree to the part about Radio dates being = to Release dates. Hope you are having a GREAT day! :)—Iknow23 (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply! I tend to forgot to when I post on other people's pages. Lol. I prefer for video links to be in the external links section because it elongates the infobox and makes adds unnecessary information. Candyo3200:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I thought that I had remembered you liking them that way. I prefer em in the infobox myself, but that's just my personal preference. I hope that I don't ever change an article that you are watching because its not that much of a 'biggie' to me. :)—Iknow23 (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not a really big deal to me, even though I prefer it. I only change them on articles I plan on nominating, and once it was in the infobox and the reviewer recommended that it be taken out, which is the main reason why I do now :) Candyo3200:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STOP! Its under Digital download, it doesnt have to be under a "single section". According to Ke$sh'a Itunes page the single was deleted and merged to just a regular digital download. Thats what i have under track listing. Its allowed. Please revert your edit. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"According to Ke$sh'a Itunes page the single was deleted and merged to just a regular digital download." < I don't see that it says that. This is a singles article so it needs to be shown as being sold as a single.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know how to explain this. The title is "Tracklisting". Tik Tok is a track on the album, its just to show general download since there is no more "Tik Tok Single" page on her itunes, once the album was released it was deleted and only made available by track download from the album, this happened in most countries. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reason to do that? Amazon shows in the Album field the 'parent album' when a song is sold as an album track and has a separate listing repeating the song title in the 'album field' showing that it is a single. Can you find Tik Tok at Amazon sold as a single and use that for ref and delete iTunes since they are not selling it as a single (anymore?)—Iknow23 (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
its an iTunes error because '7 Digital US Store' still has the song available for sale, seperate from the album. According to them it was available 25 Aug 2009. See here. Often when iTunes fails, 7 Digital proves more stable -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |talk2me21:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lil if you wanna add the 7digital link please do. And Iknow23, adding US to it is not needed the way it is now. Using that your logic, saying im linking to the US itunes, i could add 53 more refs of where it was released which would be way over kill. I chose US to show generalization of the length of the track. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A generalization is not needed, just use the infobox length field for that (which shows 3:21 by the way?). The track listing section is being used to show different versions of release that includes various remixes.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, didnt notice that, thanks. Who decided this? Is this not a track? Was it not digitally released? Were going to have to agree to disagree. You may change it to US Digital Download and add the 7Single link if you wish. But please dont remove it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not being stated as an "US release" but 'in general'. IMO it should be understood that the single has to be released by itself (at least)...how else can it be a single? But oftimes these days various remixes can be included as well as another song. The only way to know that additional material is to list it all out in a Track listing section. I guess my point really is that a list of ONE just by itself is unnecessary as understood.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Couple of new questions... 1. For consistency can't we just say "US Single" as the "UK Single" is also Digital download but we don't specifically say all that? 2. Don't we need to change the US release date in the Release history table per our newly found (verifiable) 7 Digital to Aug 25 2009?—Iknow23 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didnt notice that there was a different release date. Please do then, also, the heading could be US Single or US Digital download i dont really care either way, choose what you feel is better consistent. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I just checked Tik Tok (song) and I see that my edit to collapse it into an 'Order of precedence' has not been reverted, yet! I'm sure I did that months ago and someone took it off again. I think the collapsed version might be the best compromise position; the material gets to remain for those trully interested, and for those of us that are not--we don't have to see the large 'chunk of junk' on the page."
I personally hate the stupid succession box, there an unsourced, unneeded mess. You can keep them in the drop box if you want, i dont really care. If someone else removed it though i would just leave it. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yepper, sounds like a plan :) I wouldn't get into a war over it. Hopefully some standards can be set. I apologize for not remembering off the top of my head, but have you contributed to the discussion on this?—Iknow23 (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the succession box? No i havnt, i could really care less either way lol. Im leaning more towards removing them, im waiting for more people to weigh in then ill voice my opinion. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iknow23, Dance in the Dark and Alejandro were serviced as iTunes promo singles for The Fame Monster on November 9, 2009 in several European countries. These were not official singles, they were promotional. (This is done all the time on iTunes for upcoming albums.) I'm sure you know, and I know, that Dance in the Dark was not a single in 2009. The first release as a full, official single should be used, and that would at the moment be radio. When it is serviced as a CD single, the infobox release date can be changed to reflect that. –Chase (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was the main reason why the Singles vs. Non-Singles argument went stale. See, in the US, CD singles rarely exist. So if an album is already released, and all songs are available, and a song is released as a single? How could you tell it is a single from a regular album track? Just like Say Aah and thousands of other singles, a radio add dates is the only way you can identify a single. Labels aren't going to send songs for adds not intended to be singles. With CD singles being basically extinct and a full album already available for download, if you can understand my point, this is the only way to identify US-only singles after albums are release. Candyo3201:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand. That is why I am not saying it must be infobox SONG. But I do think it should be pointed out that it is NOT 'historically' a single...but a single of this 'new wonderous age' of Radio only Single. It is greater accuracy to say so, and should be distinguished separately from the 'historical singles'. Oh, btw...in the US (where I am) they wouldn't have to release a CD single. They can have a 'single' download date which is different from the album. —Iknow23 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I live in the US too, and the only time a single is re-released for download is for a remix. What's the point of re-releasing a song. For example, on iTunes even when an album comes out, when it begins to fall on iTunes a lead single is eventually phased out, and the album version is being the one worked. As a specific example, Songz's "Bottoms Up"' original single version is no where to be found within the iTunes top 100 or in a search, in favor of the Passion, Pain & Pleasure version. Candyo3201:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point of 're-releasing' a song is for clarity. For singles after the album release...They are first available as part of its album (Album track release). When released 'separately' from the album it is clear it must be a single. Phased out-We don't want them to do that! It'll leave us with dead 'single' links and problems with verifiability. Why oh why do they have to do that :(—Iknow23 (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know! It happens all the time now. smh. Anyway, I still have never seen a single re-released for 'clarity' as the album version is always the one that pushes on iTunes. Candyo3201:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I guess my point really is that anything unusual or not standard should be indicated. If I see a release date noted for a 'single' (to me anyway) it means the song has a different SALES date from it being an album track. If this is untrue, I'd like to see an indication (link) to go to the section explaning that.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. In the 'old days' singles HAD to be re-released PHYSICALLY. That was the greatest clarity. The problem today is that we can 'cherry pick' singles or songs out of an album digitally. And now to my disgust, even when released as a Digital Single, that will expire after a time. :x smh—Iknow23 (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not a big deal or set in stone, but it is the preferred usage, and will more than likely be asked to be changed whenever the article goes up for GA (i.e. Ready (Trey Songz album), The Fame, Like a Virgin, Invincible (Michael Jackson album), and so on. It's also kind of blocky, choppy & drawn out to have a single paragraph for each single. Single paragraphs would also stretch out the page and our goal is to be concise as possible. Candyo3204:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's the lowdown: LOL
A FULL, OFFICIAL, REGULAR SINGLE gets a digital download date, accompanied by a radio date. Using using Gucci's upcoming The Appeal: Georgia's Most Wanted, his only official single from the album is "Gucci Time" f/Swizz Beatz, which gets a download, radio date, and the music video treatment. Artists will usually promote their album only via performing official singles.
A PROMO SINGLE - gets a digital download date but is NOT accompanied by a radio date and usually does not have a video (but they do in some cases). Most promo singles are released onto iTunes as a part of a "Countdown to..._________" promotion for the album. So other than "Gucci Time" all the other Gucci singles (I believe it is about three or four already) released are promo only. I would like to at the The State article may not be up to par so those singles listed as promo may not really be singles at all. You know how obsessive fans get.
About the "radio single" thing. A radio single is almost in every single case, going to be an official single that has a digital download dates. Promos are not, they only have a digital download date. What i've been trying to explain to you is that nowadays a radio single is the official single. A label is not going to release a song to radio not intended to be a regular single. I still don't understand your need to split the two into a whole section. In my opinion, either way you look at it, a radio add date is a form of release. Promo singles aren't going to get radio add dates, so either its a single or a promo single. Only two types.
Another thing to remember is that official/regular singles are to promote not only the album but the single itself, while promo singles are just to promote the album.
I'm starting to see a bit about the radio. A single will generally have a Radio add date (advertisement) to generate interest to go purchase it upon sales release. If the record company is not wanting people to purchase it (in however fashion they can...Digital single, album track, physical format...) they are NOT going to 'send' it to radio. Its really all about the industry terminology. They say 'Radio add' or 'impact radio' instead of 'Radio release' or 'released to radio'.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the iTunes promo things are promo singles. But about the radio thing again of course it can't be "released" to radio as they can play them anytime they want to. But they are still given an official add date. Can't this be compared to digital releases also? A typical songs is leaked before released, and could be available prior to the date for weeks at a time and downloaded and everything. This is just how a radio station can play before an add date, no? Candyo3202:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand that fully...but digital releases are for sales. Radio play is not a sale, but can definitely generate interest so that there will be sales. My GUESS, is that the record companies like to tell radio a date when they REALLY want them to 'push' the song. I forgot the industry term and company that does this—but there is a tracking of 'radio spins', so instead of just having spins at random and languishing, they set a time they want them all to play it. Generates greater numbers...looks good to all who review that info.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that radio play not being a sale would supercede. However, radio is key in the Hot 100. Highest charting songs typically have dual digital and radio effects, as they go hand in hand for the most successful songs. Without radio play (particularly urban R&B songs nowadays) songs would not reach their heights. As for your last reply, I would assume "release" would just mean available period. Candyo3203:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "...it can't be "released" to radio..." but you want to call a Radio add date = Radio release. It seems like the industry is taking great pains to avoid DIRECTLY calling Radio 'a release' so how can we? We are to follow their lead (in references) and not consider it to be something that they refuse to say themselves.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think we've totally switched topics. Lol. Anyway, I'm not saying it should be titled "radio release," I just don't see the need to distinguish it separately from physical or digital releases. I just think since radio has so much weight, how could it be considered an "advertisement" and helps songs chart. For example, Monica's "Love All Over Me" 23 mil audience on radio has helped it chart at #58 on the Hot 100, without appearing on the digiatl songs chart, or for that fact even in the iTunes Top 200. So it's not always the case that airplay stimulates sales. Candyo3203:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Radio is beneficial for charting. But a song can be a single without charting. In such case though there will prolly not be a wiki article for it. Ahhhh...there's our key difference...you say, "I would assume 'release' would just mean available period." So availble to listen vs. available to purchase. A 'release party' is a celebration that the production work is now over and it is available for consumers to purchase so they can receive monies for their efforts :)—Iknow23 (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyway, I'm not saying it should be titled "radio release," I just don't see the need to distinguish it separately from physical or digital releases." < Ah, there IS my problem...If they are comingled in a 'Release history' table then Radio IS being called a release.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the link you [added] to Linkin Park discography article because the articled you linked was already linked not long away from there. See WP:REPEATLINK.
Hey, since you are native english speaker, maybe you can help with the Lead of that article.--Neo139 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll see how that process works. I never was involved in a FL or GA before, just some AfD's. And some of the MoS pages, of course ;) Luckly you to see em LIVE :)—Iknow23 (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More Linkin Park
Hey there, I noticed that you and User:Neo139 have done extensive work on the Linkin Park discography page. Today another editor has switched some countries around without any discussion and wanted to call your attention to this. I was hoping that he would use the article's Talk Page to bring together a consensus on his desired changes, but he chose not to.[8] Perhaps you two could work with him to discuss the replacement of JPN with CAN? - eo (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yerrr, that's probably for the best, to be honest xDD Well hope i didn't come across too weird, i am a nice person, honest ;DD Have a nice start to the week. :) AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite bemused by your reversion at Tik Tok (song). Never seen it done that way anywhere else seems an insufficient basis to remove something that must make sense to you, and isn't proscribed by any guideline.
Looking at the Charts, certifications and precession section, we see that there is a subsection labeled Chart precession, which is logical (it contains all those great succession boxes), and a subsection labeled Certifications, which is also logical (it contains the Certs table). It would be logical to expect the rest of that section to contain charts, which it does. And doing it your way, we even have a subsection labeled Charts (containing the weekly charts). But then, outside of the Charts subsection, we've got some other things, leftovers. What are they? Well, they're year-end charts and decade-end charts, in subsections labeled Year-end charts and Decade-end charts, respectively. But hey! They're charts, too, and therefore ought to logically be under the Charts subsection. Unfortunately, that's not how it is after your reversion.
In outline form, the three options look like:
Using "Weekly charts"
Using "Charts", logically
Using "Charts" as now
I. Article
I. Article
I. Article
A. Writing and inspiration
A. Writing and inspiration
A. Writing and inspiration
...
...
...
J. Charts, certifications and precession
J. Charts, certifications and precession
J. Charts, certifications and precession
1. Weekly charts
1. Charts
1. Charts
a. Weekly charts
b. Year-end charts
c. Decade-end charts
2. Year-end charts
2. Year-end charts
3. Decade-end charts
3. Decade-end charts
4. Certifications
2. Certifications
4. Certifications
5. Chart precession
3. Chart precession
5. Chart precession
K. Release history
K. Release history
K. Release history
I hope you can see that the current way is just not logical, as J.1. in the third column is "Charts", suggesting that it's all the charts, but we've got some other charts outside that (J.2. and J.3.). We should pick one of the first two forms, and the one using "Weekly charts" is the simpler of the two. Even if you've never seen it before, it could be something new you'd be willing to adopt in those cases where an article has more than one kind of charts table with a subheading of its own. You're open to improvements, right? — JohnFromPinckney (talk)15:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to improvement, yes :) ... However, the notability is not that they are 'Weekly charts' but 'Peak charts'. It just so happens that I guess each comes out weekly. So I propose calling them 'Peak charts'. Do you like?—Iknow23 (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that L-l-CLK-l-l disagrees for across articles consistency, which is a bit of my first thought that bemused you. At least I brought a smile to your face then. I shall not persue this further, but of course you are welcome to try to convince the 'others'. —Iknow23 (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comments on the matter, tho i see your points i disagree unfortunately. The way i currently have it written in Tik Tok is:
10.1 Charts (Having it as weekly is not logical, if you think about it, weekly means week by week, Charts or Charting peak would made more sense (dont change it to that it was just an idea lol) )
10.2 Certifications
10.3 Year-end charts
10.4 Decade-end charts
10.5 Chart precession
This is how it is written at it is wide set wiki consensus, if its not broken, there is no need to fix it. I like it this way, normally im all for change but in this case i dont like it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CK, thanks for answering. My point is that it is broken (though hardly likely to cause catastrophic failure of Wikipedia...) and so should be fixed in some way.
I don't see why "Having it as weekly is not logical"; my logic is strewn across the top of this thread. I agree with you completely that "weekly means week by week", and that's how these charts are published, without exception. They are all weekly charts, which is why Yahoo! Chart Watch comes out weekly (titled "Week ending..."), and the countdown shows are weekly, and (in Europe, at least) many of the charts are labeled with the Week number rather than some calendar date.
Looking now at your 10.1–10.5 list, I see it differs from my third column above only in the order. I tend to prefer the order I showed above for logical reasons, but I often use your ordering for space/layout reasons. So no argument on the ordering. But look again at your list: why aren't your 10.4 and 10.5 under 10.1? (I know they're below, but I mean "subordinate to".) Should the other two kinds of charts logically fall under the heading of Charts (your 10.1)? It's like saying
Cakes, celebrations, and people who have celebrated
10.1 Cakes
10.2 Celebrations
10.3 Graduation cakes
10.4 Wedding cakes
10.5 People who celebrated events with cakes
Laid out like this, it seems that the graduation cakes and wedding cakes would be part of the "Cakes" category at 10.1, but oddly, they've got their own label. What's under "Cakes" then, we wonder? Well, if we change the label at 10.1 to "Birthday cakes", similar to what I'm suggesting with "Weekly charts", all would be clear. And logical.
Just had another thought. I was noticing the 'misalignment' of "Certifications" being intersperced with the 'Position' charts, whether they be Peak (or weekly), Yearly (or annual), or Decade. Why not just have the ONE subsection header "Charts" and put the other info into the CHART header (and HA, yes, I've seen 'em this way). The 'Peak' chart shows a 'Peak' column so it is obvious what that one is. The others would look like this...
This way each of the MAIN section offerings, 'Charts, certifications and precession' would be entitled to just one subheading.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
::To correlate with the prior presentations, I should show it like this. Charts, certifications and precession
This actually has a great deal of merit, Iknow23. Not only is it logical (to me), but it also allows for something that may eventually come around to help meet the accessibilty requirements for Wikipedia, namely, table captions. Table captions have been used on the examples at the recently revised WP:DISCOGSTYLE, and so also used in some/most/all of the articles where the new styling's been deployed. Look at your examples above, but with the built-in captions that tables are actually supposed to always have (per accessibility-minded best-practise, I mean):
Charts, certifications and precession
10.1 Charts
List of selected charts, with peak positions, where song peaked in 2009
Chart (2009)
Peak position
Selected end-of-year charts from 2009 with corresponding positions
Year-end chart (2009)
Position
Selected end-of-decade charts for the decade 2000–2009, with corresponding positions
Decade-end chart (2000–2009)
Position
10.2 Certifications
Selected countries [or regions] with certificates earned for quantities sold or shipped
Country
Certification
10.3 Chart precession
These captions wouldn't show up in the TOC, but they do tend to get bolded and centered over their tables. The actual wording has to be worked out, with consideration for what low-sighted users need (I'm just guessing here). Also, – dare I mention it? – the caption for the regular (weekly) charts table might still well have (need?) "weekly" in it, when there are year-end or decade-end charts shown.
There could still be some rearrangement of the tables into two columns for space reasons, but with your suggestion, the certs wouldn't usually be up next to the weekly charts with the year-ends down below (as on Tik-Tok now). — JohnFromPinckney (talk)05:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for considering my suggestion. I admit to ignorance (as I have not followed) on the accessibilty issue. I'm just guessing about what it might be. Is it a type of standardized display for cell phones, laptops, notebooks, and PC's so the material will render in a readable fashion on ALL THE DEVICES? Appreciate if you can let me know what it really is, in case my guess is wrong. I don't like the captions as they just seem redundant. The proposed table headers already tell us what they are. If the captions are necessary, I would leave out the word, 'Selected', as ALL verifiable material for all those tables is welcome. I don't think we need to use the 'Selected' to mean ONLY verifiable material is to be included and that unverified material is UNSELECTED because it is already understood that at Wikipedia "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" and to accomplish this by "Cit[ing] your sources". I do agree that rearrangement into two columns is acceptable for the various charts but that certs being a different subheading (within the 3 tiered Main heading) should appropriately be left-aligned. (If I understood your meaning.) :) In regard to the "weekly", I recall that an editor expressed concern that ALL the weekly charts the song/album appears on would have to be reported; or in other words, the FULL charting trajectory information which we don't want. I can understand their perspective on this as the "Yearly chart" and the "Decade end chart" show their 'full' Position info (the ONE and only position they can have), so that the "Weekly chart" would be expected to show their 'full' position info as well. However, I can also see how "Weekly" 'fits' into the time period designation usage at the OTHER tables. But "weekly" is only reporting ONE week for each chart, that of its Peak. So even though it doesn't fit into the time period designation, I believe it better to call the table "Peak chart".—Iknow23 (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More explanation (arbitrary heading)
OMG, run! I feel an essay coming on...
In general terms, accessibility refers to how well a resource can be accessed, or gotten to, by the potential users (customers, readers, passengers, clients, etc.) of that resource. Since the natural approach to creating things (any thing; buildings, buses, Web pages, etc.) is to make them useful and accessible for the creator and people like the creator, buildings have historically been built with stairs but no ramps (most architects have no problem using stairs) and Web pages have been written so they look good in Netscape (when that was the dominent browser, which the site designer had) or Internet Explorer 6 on a PC with 1024x768 displays (when that's what designers assumed "everyone" had). Meanwhile, the term "accessibility" has come (too often) to be shorthand meaning "making things usable by disabled people. An "accessible" bus means there's some kind of ramp; an "accessible building" doesn't have only stairs betweens levels.
For Web sites, accessibility is not just making sure that a page can be read (consumed?) by a completely blind user, it's ideally about removing obstacles to access for everyone (with whatever eyesight) and lowering barriers so more people can, well, access the info. I think 10% of males are color-blind, so using just red and green to show something's bad or good, respectively, is a bad idea. One accessibility guideline is to use text with color.
There is a guideline for table captions, too. And yes, it is a problem that the captions may seem redundant with the headings immediately preceding them. This has to be addressed (I think some guideline somewhere says that a caption may not be necessary where a heading adequately conveys the same info.) This is a good reason this is still not required on WP (as I said, "may eventually come around").
But to wrap this bit up, and address your question a bit more directly, accessibility is about trying to keep barriers out of the way of content access, whether "most designers" would instinctively use colors only to communicate some status; or use narrow drop-down navigation lists which, for example, some older people might have trouble with; or make most or all of a page uses graphics without any text, so that users have no clue when one or more of the images don't display (or can't be seen); or require JavaScript (because some visitors don't have JavaScript turned on); or expect all visitors to be using the site in a certain level of browser with the window maximized on a Windows PC with 1280 x1024 pixels and an installed mail client and sond speakers which are turned on.
Now, about the word "selected", which is what I chose after considering other examples of table captions: they're just the selected charts not because of what's verifiable, but (1) because there's no requirement to list every chart, as we're supposed to decide what's appropriate to show; and (2) we often leave verified charts out of the table when, for example, a song charts on the Hot 100, but was also on the Bubbling Under, Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs), and six other Billboard charts.
About "weekly" meaning we have to list every dated chart published: no, that's silly. And it occurs to me just now that there may be confusion because we use the word "chart" to mean two slightly different things. In these tables, we mean it as "a set of information tracking the performance (by sales, airplay, downloads, etc.) of music recordings according to some particular set of criteria". In this sense, the Billboard Hot 100 is a chart of "the week's most popular songs across all genres, ranked by radio airplay audience impressions", and Adult Contemporary is also a chart, showing "the week's most popular soft rock songs, ranked by radio airplay detections as measured by Nielsen BDS." There's the Billboard Hot 100 for U.S. songs, the Canadian Hot 100 for tunes in Canada, the Japan Hot 100 in Japan, the Austrian Top 75, etc., all different charts in the sense we list them in the table. The second sense of the word chart is one particular week's rankings of any chart in the above sense.
I propose "weekly" because these charts (first sense) come out every week. And we're not showing the charts in the second sense because then we'd have to show a date. But our column is clearly labeled "Peak position", so showing every week's rankings for even one chart would be a crazy overkill (not that some Wikipedeans wouldn't try to do it) as well as a sure copyright violation.
Thank You. No problem receiving 'the essay', lol as I asked for it. I guess that I did intuitively understand at least part of the assessibility stuff correctly. Thanks Again.
Yes, you are correct about the 'weekly' or 'peak' charts in that for singles per WP:USCHART, [and with (so far) just some common sense editing when it comes to the albums] that not ALL verifiable charts are to be reported. Haha, imagine I forget that bit for a moment! However, I believe that there is no restriction when it comes to 'Yearly' (annual), or 'Decade-end' charts as there is only one per country reported. I hope there is NOT a Yearly 'US Hot 100 list', a Yearly 'US Rock Songs list', etc. and then the same for 'Decade end' charts? I know that I have never seen them shown at Wikipedia. I am aware of the '10 chart' suggestion for discog articles, but don't recall them showing 'Yearly' or 'Decade-end' chart info.
And true, the column header at 'weekly' WILL say 'Peak position', whereas the others just have 'Position'. So there is an indication of what that column will be reporting.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RickyYayo3
RickyYayo3 turned out to be a sockpuppet. You had a lot of interaction with him, and I couldn't undo all of his edits without undoing some of yours. I'm leaving it to you to undo as much of his edits as you want.—Kww(talk) 19:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I wanted to let you know just in case. Since not, can you please track their activity for continuing inappropriate editing and take whatever corrective measures are deemed necessary. Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was skeptical as you were about Selena Gomez singing the theme song, as it turns she does. Besides Disney fan sites saying so, JustJared also confirms this: http://justjaredjr.buzznet.com/2010/10/26/bella-thorne-zendaya-selena-gomez-sings-our-theme-song/ as well as Ocean Up: [9]. But Wikipedia will automatically not allow JustJared to used as reference even though a number of celebrities are affiliated with it. QuasyBoy18:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't entirely skeptical, just knew that the sources being cited were improper. The news will probably be reported by a 'proper' Disney source or mainstream media outlet soon. Additionally it is still unknown whether it is to be credited as Gomez only or Gomez and the Scene. I left a note on the article's TALK page about just waiting.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we should just wait for proper sources or least a good version of the pilot to be posted up on YouTube or we can just wait til the show premieres. QuasyBoy15:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already saw the talk page :), I don't know how to assist with the discussion. Considering that I live in the U.S. and I don't know anything about the 'Reserviced version' of the track. In the U.S. iTunes I only see the regular version. QuasyBoy05:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm in the U.S. Also, I searched for the 'Reserviced version' of "Stuttering" on YouTube, found nothing. Maybe it's Canadian exclusive thing. QuasyBoy05:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, you still don't see to understand my edits made to the article. First of all, Bestfan is a FANSITE, not a reliable source. Amazon.com has the correct track listing. Regarding Watch Me Move, it was not sent to radio, so can not be considered an official single, instead it's a promotional single. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT(Talk)00:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All singles are "promotional" for their parent albums. Watch Me Move and I Want You are "promotional singles" only if they failed to appear on the album itself. Then they are "promotional ONLY singles." Watch Me Move never officially impacted mainstream radio, however, it was attached to a magnitude of T.V. commercials and movie trailers, and had it's own music video. FeFe talked about Watch Me Move being her debut single back in 2008, but due to her being independent at the time, it wasn't a mainstream single like Ghost and Stuttering. That however does NOT change the fact that it was a single, had a music video, and appears on Joy. Don't Let it Go to Your Head and This is My Life are still considered singles, and they're off an album that was never released, and TiML never had a video to help promote it. Both songs didn't chart, but they are still singles.—Blackarachnophobia (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AGREED. Please re-post at Talk:Joy (Fefe Dobson album). There are 'virtual posters' and maybe even physical posters were made that show WMM, IWY, and Ghost as being on Joy. This was before Stuttering, so it doesn't appear there. Just because a new single "Stuttering" comes out, does not mean that a prior single is no longer a single.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Giving full-out explanations on Talk pages are better than just using 'Edit summaries' and even 'Instructional comments'. This will prove attempts to clear up confusion on anyone's part. Also helpful to have more editors 'chime in' to support the position that you are 'championing'.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand. I do not use multiple accounts. Occasionally, my log-in may expire and an edit or two might go in without my username, but other than that it doesn't occur. I revert vandalism on a regular basis. My best guess is that someone did this out of retaliation for reverting their vandalism.
{{unblock|IF User:Ending-start initiated the block request. They should be blocked for IMPROPER use of the block procedure. They insist on their position and refuse to discuss it on article talk pages where other editors can express their views as well. It is not appropriate to seek block of those that do not agree with you! Iknow23 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)}}
I am nowhere certain enough to overturn any admin decisions, but I am not 100% happy that these users are the same. At least one of the IPs is admitted, as a failure to log in, and most of us have done that on occasion. And Iknow23 is a long-term editor. I agree that he needs to review WP:NOTTHEM, but we should see this in the context of a user possibly incorrectly blocked. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"22:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding the unhappiness, particularly since the blocking admin doesn't seem to have left a note pointing out the alternate accounts, or any evidence of them. --SB_Johnny | talk00:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OBJECTION. It is unnecessary and excessive to issue a statement such as, "I am 110% convinced..." It is usually difficult to be 100% certain of most things in life. Examples of more appropriate language: 'I have reason to believe' or 'I am fairly certain'. As I do not participate in these types of actions (until forced into it now unfortunately), perhaps I can offer a fresh perspective. I would like to recommend a more thorough check of the background and edit history of BOTH the 'accusers' and the 'accused' prior to action being taken. My record stands for itself, but I would like to call particular attention to the section immediately preceding this one and to follow it over to the TALK at Joy (Fefe Dobson album). You will see that I admonished (without naming names at that time) both Ending-start and 'my supporter' Blackarachnophobia for un-wiki like behavior and brought the discussion there where it belongs, instead of being on my Talk.—Iknow23 (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) I would support a shortened block since it's the first block; worst case, in the event that anyone's truly innocent, the block doesn't apply for much longer. That said, for the person who's blocked, it would speak loads to the credibility of your assertion of innocence if you were willing to voluntarily avoid editing whatever articles are in question for a period of time in order to demonstrate that you feel no compulsion to have to sock anyway. After all, socking seems to be the last resort of people who are desperate to edit an article to make it a certain way—not those willing to voluntarily avoid doing so. --slakr\ talk /23:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to whatever action you think is best. My judgement was based on the arrival of Blackarachnophobia to revert in the same edit war as Iknow23 had been involved in and the remarkably similar similar use of capitals in edit summaries. Others considering this request may make of that whatever they will and act accordingly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but notice the use of block 'conveniently' knocked out ALL of a certain editor's 'opponents' with one fell swoop. They then chose not to discuss the issues on the article's Talk page. To me anyway, it seems like that is a 'desperate' approach to 'have their way' with the articles. They have deleted sourced material and have altered the article to their view with incorrect assertions. For one, an unreleased album can still be a Studio album. It just means that the unreleased album is not a Live album or Compilation (Greatest hits) album, etc. I can assure you that I did not experience any 'compulsion' to sock. I am not in the habit of pretending to be someone else and carrying on a conversation with myself (as Blackarachnophobia and I have communicated a few times). There are a number of editors that I have come to see 'around', and although we do not always see 'eye to eye', I respect them and I believe they respect me. I have never made any attempt to block them and they have never attempted to block me. I have participated in Talk at MoS pages and have contributed to their corresponding Project pages such as WP:CHARTS, etc. I revert vandalism regularly and call attention to unsourced material. Does it really seem to be 'in character' that someone like myself would then toss out all this good history of contribution and go do a sock? Now really?—Iknow23 (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reported you because I saw something fishy. I didn't know if it was true or not, but that's what an investigation is for now isn't it? I was trying to fix the article because it was a complete mess and my edits kept being reverted. Then I see these new editors that only edited that article, so I reported it. As you can see from the article now, Joy (Fefe Dobson album), I have done NOTHING but fix it up. Unreleased albums don't go in the infobox, and besides the point, the article fails WP:MUSIC. I'm sorry if this was falsely accused, but surely you can see how it would look as if you were using more than one account to get your way. Ending-start (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems 'fishy' that you refuse to discuss the issues in the appropriate forum on the article's Talk page and seek a block of all that oppose you. You are aware of article Talk pages, are you not? Also it is 'interesting' as to the timing. This occurs immediately prior to the release of the album and covers the entire period of both the Canadian and US release! Ok. So it was an 'accusation' submitted for 'investigation'. A 'punishment' was inappropriately imposed prior to the completion of the investigation (unless Wikipedia subscribes to the notion of Guilty until proven innocent). As regards to similar use of capital letters in edit summaries and positions...I just presumed that Blackarachnophobia (and their prior IP) did a Copy and Paste of my material. I know that upon occasion I will see an edit summary, instructional comment or other that I think covers an issue to good effect and I Copy and save it, then adopt and adapt it for later use. This does not mean that I am the same person as the originator of the material. If you believe the article fails WP:MUSIC, I do not understand why you waste your time to edit it at all. Shouldn't you instead submit it for AfD?—Iknow23 (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge and still uncertainty, it looked to me as if you were talking to yourself. Why the hell would I bother? And also, did I receive a message on my talk page about the discussion? No, I didn't. The only reason I saw it was because I was watching it. I reported you because it seemed fishy to me. Period. There's nothing more to it. Ending-start (talk · contribs) 22:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that my good [user]name has been vindicated, I may just retire from Wikipedia. I had been spending way too much time here anyway and I have much more important things to do in life.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey wait. You got blocked by mistake, and then unblocked. Not the end of the world. In your block log, it appears that it was a mistake. HJ Mitchell is a good admin, and he is doing lots of stuff at the same time, wherever you go at Wikipedia, you will see him, giving rollback permissions, protecting articles, etc. As everyone here, he also make a mistakes.. Another topic. I came here to tell you that Linkin Park discography just got peer reviewed and maybe you could help me to make the changes suggested in the peer review. If you have meta:Wikistress, you can always try a WP:Wikibreak (I'm trying, but can't =P) --Neo139 (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Iknow23, you're name in my eyes has not been vindicated. You are a good editor and not only do I respect your opinion but others do too. We've all been guilty of getting too involved in a heated edit war. don't let it hold you back from doing what you obviously love. Please don't retire.... you'll be missed too much. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |talk2me14:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to apologize for taking as long as I did to unblock; I noticed it a couple days earlier but got distracted by the American late November fuss. --jpgordon::==( o )15:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to express appreciation to all those that showed support (including jpgordon) during this time and apologize for the delay in doing so.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has taken part in previous discussions regarding the use of succession boxes in articles for songs and albums, I'd like to notify you of a request for comment that is taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes. It would be nice to finally come to a resolution on this. If you have already participated in this RFC or do not wish to participate, then please disregard this notice. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I confused you. In the UK "Moments for Life" was promoted as a digital download on March 20, 2011 (its digital download date). Similar to "What's My Name?" by Rihanna this date is considered its digital download despite not recieving a seperate listing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]02:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that March 20, 2011 IS the release date? That's what I edited it to show. I was puzzled by the March 29, 2010 date you put there.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Apologies... it was a typo. You'll have to excuse that. I've not been editing much recently and when I have, I'll be the first to admit it was with haste. :( how have you been? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]03:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
np, I thought it was just something like that. Yep, I too can make errors from time to time ;) I am generally well and hope you are the same :)—Iknow23 (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im not to bad thanks. Just wondering... how's the single release clarity going at WT:SONGS? I'm gonna stop by and pay it a visit to see what developments have been made. Last I remember Cprice1000 was trying to create an essay based on WP:SYNTHESIS — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endingstart already created a sandbox for the page here. Its not yet notable but in good shape. Feel free to help out. We're just awaiting a chart or a tad more info then it will be considered notable! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
np :) ... I think that there have been a few out there LIVE already. I agree it is too early for that, but just improving what readers can already see.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Radio as release
Per discussions at WP:SONGS, radio is a form of release. You have no consensus to change pages to show a later date of purchase. --ĈÞЯİŒ1ооо03:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Radio is not called 'release' but we have agreed that Radio can create a single. Just don't use the word 'release'. Please contribute: Re reporting of Radio dates in infobox in Singles 'Released' field and chronology sections. The crux of the issue is that we are reporting a NON-release date in a PREFORMATTED field titled "Released:". Radio date is NOT a 'Release' (industry terminology). We are attempting to resolve the reporting of Radio date in infobox HERE. Also feel free to review the considerable material prior to the subsection given in the link. Please contribute to the discussion at the link above so it can all be in one place and thank you.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We may think of it as sorta slang being a 'release' but we are reporting on their industry which refuses to call Radio a release, so we cannot do so. We need to use their terminology of "Radio add date", "Going for adds", "impacting radio", etc.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, some people use the DD-MM-YYYY dating system instead of the typical MM-DD-YYYY system. It's no big deal, and the notice probably was unnecessary. The only exception would be if all the dates were on or before the 12th of any month. Then some people might be confused trying to figure out which system is being used. --Djc wi (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arrrrrgh. Billboard! Now it doesn't even show the Canadian chart there. I knew it was there yesterday when I looked.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha... I still want to phsyically terminate the billboard website. it can't even be manually archived. it makes discographies even more difficult to produce.. gr!!!!!!!!!! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]03:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Motivation
I wrote the article for this song... at the time of creation and soon after... Amazon showed Motivation available for purchase on April 11, 2011 in Germany and France. Its now been changed to May 13, 2011 on the page however I can vouch that the single was available earlier than this. Is it worth trying to source it or should we just leave it at the date now being reported by Amazon? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]02:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There you are, and Here I Am ;) I believe you, but what to do now...Hmmm. If you can find a stable or webcite even an unstable source showing the April 11 -- go for it. Otherwise we can't give a source that shows May 13 to support a text and/or table date of April 11. Which brings me to another problem....when iTunes does the early 'unlock' sales, apparently the ORIGINAL planned sales date still remains. Thus we can't use iTunes to source THESE occurrences. Other stable or webcite sources are needed.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about your comment on iTunes dates (is this a new thing? I've not come across this before). That doesn't make much sense to me because iTunes unlocking allows songs to chart early due to Digital sales think of things like Papi (song) by Jlo. It was eligable to chart several days before its iTunes unlock date (for which there is an archived source to prove it happened). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]02:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here I Am (Kelly Rowland album) is in quiet a bad state... I've checked the sources and a lot are now redirect. Also because I've had less time to watch the article people have slowly been slipping shite into the article. I've begun work earlier today e.g. removing the mass of information from the singles sections, adding a songs section and de-toxifying the introduction. Not sure how to tackle the rest of the article tbh. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]02:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About iTunes, I was thinking about "I'm Into You". Can't use iTunes in the 'Radio dates and release history' table for US & Canada because they show Apr 5. However iTunes is the 'trusted' source for the rest of the world! The archived material like HERE shows "Posted 4/2/2011...You gave it LOVE? Now you get it EARLY!
Because of the fan LIKES on Jennifer's Facebook Profile her new single "I'm Into You ft. Lil' Wayne" is now unlocked for sale on iTunes" BUT it does not show it was available on Apr 1. They can post about it a day or MORE later and still say it is 'now unlocked for sale' without saying when THAT first occurred. Arghh. But in the article we show "Originally due for release on April 5, 2011, the song was unlocked and released on April 1, 2011,". I believe it but it is actually unsourced for Apr 1. Best that can be gotten from the archived source is Apr 2.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About comprehensive article writing...I don't really do that. I was planning to tell you this on your Talk, but you probably already know most of this. Others have said that I 'nit-pick' which I can't really disagree with. What I do disagree with is their perception that I have an ulterior motive in mind to 'undermine' their work. Quite the contrary, I admire and appreciate their hard work and efforts in creating the articles 'from scratch'. That is the hard work. I attempt to make numerous small formatting, etc. corrections to improve the articles and to be vigilant that sources support the material claimed. Everyone is welcome to contribute in the manner that they wish. This is my way to contribute. Or to put it another way...others are working on the 'big picture' and I am 'sweating out the small stuff'.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no you got my last message wrong lol... i wasn't asking for you to help re-writing the article lol I just wondered if you had any suggestions lol!! With regards to el Lopez... the wording of the archived source says... "available now" which is also what fans on her mailing list recieved in an email ("because you showed likes for LOVE? "I'm Into You" is now available for purchase"). Thus one can surmise that the date that message was posted is the date the song was unlocked. The other alternative would be to use the general purchase date (i.e. the date when the single was available at all retailers?) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]13:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, OK. I prolly misunderstood your message bc I already had that stuff bout my wiki participation in mind to tell u. Hmmm. I was already thinking a bit about what you just brought up. Just like we don't use iTunes charts, should a SPECIAL PROMOTIONAL early-release date by ONE retailer be properly recognized as THE release date? OR should "the general purchase date (i.e. the date when the single was available at all retailers?)" be used for wiki? I was planning to bring up the part I said earlier about the problem with early-release date sourcing at WT:SONG, but now you bring up the larger issue of 'is that date even proper to use'? Could you start the discussion there? I know that some are tired of seeing discussions there started by me. I think it really needs to go there because this issue affects many articles and certainly goes beyond just the two of us.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iknow,
Just wanted to inform you that Amazon updates its UK and Irish websites at the same time ... hence singles in the UK appear with the Irish download date (which is usually 2 days before on the Friday, whereas UK singles are released on a Sunday). Amazon always does this and always has a green/blue box in the left hand corner stating the actual release date. For "Right There" is says "This album will be available on 5 Jun 2011" or "This song will be available on 5 Jun 2011" depending on if you click the individual tracks or the entire single. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]02:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I'm extremely tired from revision and personal life. But I too did not realise Amazon UK used British english (if that's what you're alluding too). And i meant upper right hand corner. my hand musta slipped to the wrong keys lol. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]02:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Yes, you got it! my attempt at humour ;) By the way the archive links for the radio material do not work. :( The original links work (for the time being) at this is still for a future date.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah webcite is temporarily down (one of the servers). Emails to my inbox say the archiving is successful. Around 60% of previously archived linked do not work atm. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]02:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the history of Robinlovemusic(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) adding badly-sourced items to Trina and related articles—and the long history of warnings on her user talk page—is it time to file a WP:AN/I report to see if an independent administrator thinks she should be blocked? I'm probably a little too close to the situation to block her myself, but I'd have no qualms filing or seconding a report. (Watching your talk page for a reply.) —C.Fred (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely. I've never been involved in this process before, though. I have noticed (peaked) at their user talk page and have noticed the numerous warnings. I must say you have much patience. I have never seen anyone else add material and INCLUDE a cn tag on it. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." so if you don't have a good source, then don't add it. Anything and everything can be said WITHOUT verification. Example: Every man, woman and child has purchased five of each of Trina's albums in the year of their release. (cn). Sorry, I had to rant a little. Since I am unfamiliar with the process, it will probably be better if you file the report. I will be happy to second it, and hope you can give me a quick hint how to do so. I don't relish trying to sort though all the technical details of the procedure.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am contacting directly you because you have edited Wikipedia talk:Record charts more than once in the last two weeks. The following templates are at issue at The Beatles:
Hi Iknow...
How are you? Just wondering... you're quite good at spotting spelling mistakes, MOS errors etc. could you have a look at Rose Colored Glasses (Kelly Rowland song) and On the Floor for me? Both have been copy edited (though the former was practically rewritten from scratch, and it would be really good to get someone else opinions on the articles, particularly considering that I want to take the latter to GA and eventually FA. cheers. :) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]22:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lil-unique...
Hope you are well. I am good now. My comp was down for almost a week...OMG!!! I updated drivers then my keyboard wouldn't work anymore. I couldn't log-on with my password...mumble, mumble, swear, swear After trying SEVERAL things, I bought a new keyboard to try out. Turns out my OLD keyboard is PS2, and the NEW one (which works) is USB. So the driver updated beyond my OLD equipment capacity, but I was NOT warned of that! pout lip
Anyway, you have probably noticed my 'visit' to "Rose Colored Glasses" :D ... Late now, so havta get onto "On the Floor" later because I don't want to pass out and be 'on the floor'. haha.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao, oh i know the feeling. suddenly i feel a lot more cautious about computers, seen that in the last three weeks i've had quite a few trojans, which i've had to manually combat. bah! Cheers for taking a look so far. I'm paying close attention to whenever you're name pops up in my watchlist and I'm picking up quite a few useful tips which is good. Hopefully i'm improving. I'mquite good at expanding articles but mild dyslexia sometimes holds back my grammar and spelling grr! But yeah i'm excited about "On the Floor", its doing incredibly well - beyond belief. As is "Motivation" (excuse the pun) but it hasn't made me motivated to buy the album, rather the opposite. But I guess Rowland's core fans in the US love it... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]00:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that you also had some comp difficulties lately. I had already turned my comp off last night before I realized that I wanted to 'take my hat off to you' (as the saying goes ;) I don't really wear a hat!) to compliment you on "RCG". I was tired but had pushed myself wanting to complete it and then just was 'all used up' to think about saying more. But I can now...I must say it is very well developed with many sources... BRAVO on finding all that. (My way of saying the same thing you did about you being 'quite good at expanding articles'.) I also enjoy the Ester Dean mentions! Please don't feel bad at all or try to 'sweat the small stuff', as I said earlier you are one of many that are doing the HARD WORK! I don't mind looking through for the small improvements. But as you are seeing some of what I do...I have learned MUCH of it from seeing the edit summaries of others. One that I recall clearly learning that way is about WP:MOS#Numbers.
I had a chance to do a greater bit of driving today and enjoyed listening TWICE to that fan mixtape that included "RCG" and "Motivation" and the other songs on it. And yes, I do love "Motivation", but didn't know it was because I am in the US! (ha) And yes, "On the Floor" is great too! I hear it often on the radio and "Motivation" too.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Joy
I didn't say anything about Joy being Fefe's 3rd album. It is her 2nd, considering that Sunday Love remains unreleased. The reason why I made the edit "following her unreleased album Sunday Love", was so other other people would not get confused. But you da boss. :) QuasyBoy01:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I found "third studio album to be recorded following her unreleased album Sunday Love" to be confusing. When I read it, it says to me (anyway) that Joy is the third album after Sunday Love.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, this was the edit that I made: [10]. As you can see I never said anything about Joy being the third album. Logically, I would never say that Joy was the third album, if Sunday Love (her intended second album) was unreleased. QuasyBoy03:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have explained my confusion over that text better.
It says to me (anyway) that Joy is the third album after Sunday Love.
Hmm, I still don't understand how my edit contradicts. Joy is her third album to recorded as it is said in the article, mentioning Sunday Love in the header (as I did) doesn't even effect the flow, to me anyway, just saying. QuasyBoy04:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would understand it this way...Joy is the studio album that was recorded following her unreleased album Sunday Love", not the third one after Sunday Love. Oh well, we each just read it differently. I was just afraid that if I misunderstood it, that other's might as well.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, The way you understand it with that text is almost identical to text I added, LOL. I guess we can agree to disagree, or in this we agreed with each other all along, but just read this differently. :P QuasyBoy04:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you put it that way, I guess undoing my edit was justified, plus info on Sunday Love being unreleased is featured later in the article which reiterates the edit I made. :) QuasyBoy04:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool...Yes and thank you...I did do it for a reason (at least perceived by me). And I know that you were adding material perceived by you.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Albums for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hola
Hope your well?
Just wondering if you could take a look at Here I Am (Kelly Rowland album)? Over the last month or so I've copy edited it and expanded considerably (around 20,000kb bigger than before). However its always good to get another pair of eyes to look over things, particularly yourself as you're amazing at picking up all those tiny little mistakes one can make when editing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]16:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine, thank you...just busy. Haven't been here a lot lately. Hope you are GREAT too! Yes...I have been meaning to get to Here I Am for a new look. I def haven't forgotten...just busy. Hope to be able to get there soon! Btw, thanks for the compliment. What u do here is quite outstanding also!—Iknow23 (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! =)
It's so hard to type out everything to explain in the little box on the edit page. Anyway, I think the Sunday Love singles should be noted on the discography page as they were official releases which were expected to chart and just because they didn't, it doesn't mean they should be written out of the artist's wikipedia information. I believe the reason people don't acknowledge "Watch Me Move" and "I Want You" is because neither Fefe nor her label expected them to chart and they were released with only the intention of promoting interest in the album and served more as teasers than anything (being more along the lines of PROMO singles instead of official singles. If we're taking stuff off the discography page, we might as well remove Sunday Love as well since it wasn't even released, but I think both it and the singles should be included as many people are looking for information on them still and anywhere they can fit and be spotted helps the page be more informative. Hope that all makes sense, I had a long night and just woke up, lol. By the way, are you a member over at FefeRocks? I remember someone posting they were gonna fix up the wikipedia page after that long, tedious battle to save the Sunday Love article from being deleted completely. LoveLaced (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Hard"
An article that you have been involved in editing, Hard (song) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. --Efe (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP Songs in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Songs for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please help sir
Respected sir,I want to inform you that User:IndianBio is harassing me and doing personal attacks to me.he reverts my edits from article In My City.I want to say I'm responsible for this article,I had done maximum edit,I had added references,sections.That user only did little bit correction and he didn't contributed single word,he never did added reference except 1 which he did after I said.He don't know about Songs Wikiproject and he edits song article.I told him there is no need to add reference in single infobox(AS YOU SAID IN CORRECTION TO THIS ARTICLE'S EDIT HISTORY)but he didn't listen to me.There I did everything to me ,I contributed maximum to the article and he calls me fancruft,I added everything within tefrence.please block this user.(Pks1142 (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, I have noticed the warring. I agree that the user seems to not be familiar with Music article editing. There is even confusion amongst those that are familiar with them in things such as; premiere is not the same as release, 'sometimes' a US radio date 'creates' a single (after MUCH discussion and consensus at WT:SONG but it is STILL not called 'Release'. It's really 'sent to radio' 'impacting radio', etc but NOT 'released' to Radio because the industry does NOT call it that. [In such case I just put (radio) after the 'release date' in the infobox to clarify this situation and make sure that Radio dates are NOT called 'release' in the article text.] ... Sorry back to the situation at hand ... I see that you have succeeded in obtaining article protection. This is good as I do not have authority to do that or to block users. I am not an administrator, just someone experienced in editing (mostly copyediting for MOS and checking for sources and reviewing some of them to make sure that they support the material claimed). My recommendation is that you both take specific issues to the article talk page where others can participate. Then changes can be made to the article by consensus as concise comments grouped together by issue at the Talk page makes it easier to determine consensus than counting/looking through Edit summary + the record will remain clearly visible there as well. The edit summary will go on to prior pages before long. ... I have tried to help on the article and have become a bit disgusted myself. However, I still have it on My watchlist and will participate occasionally, including the Talk page. I hope this helps at bit. —Iknow23 (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not trying to get into the war between the two of you. I have just been trying to correct the article to the best of my ability and have seen like whole sections just copied and pasted from old page versions, deleting even the many small spacing between sentences edits that I have made and my careful rewrites due to cases where the sources claimed do not support the material.—Iknow23 (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas! I hope you're enjoying the festive season?
I come to you as I remember you gave some good insight previously to the whole radio adds versus radio release issue. I dunno if this is happening in the States, but the in the UK its becoming increasingly popular for songs to be released as a single, with a single cover, music video and specific date but not actually be released separately from the album. The term commonly used is "Impact Day", and its happened a lot with Universal Music/Sony Music. Best examples I can fathom are "Beneath Your Beautiful" by Labrinth and "Wet" by Nicole Scherzinger. Should we start using this term more commonly? Its the same thing with "Stay" by Rihanna which is being released on Jan 7 but has no separate single so to speak. I've seen in some articles people list the date given as the radio airplay date but this isnt correct either because songs are playlisted in the UK nearly always before they're released. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]14:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to I'm Out may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
UNTRUE that it is Target only with the bonus tracks, thus I restored article to say, "Deluxe edition". iTunes in UK has them also per ref added. Also they released Side Effects of You on April 19, 2013.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They were Target exclusives in the US, i get you are from the UK but the artist in question is from the US so i don't know what country we should go by. Koala15 (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon UK says the album was released on April 23, so i hope we are not wrong becuase itunes sometimes uses the wrong release dates. Koala15 (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I am from the US but Wikipedia is www (online) meaning Worldwide. So ALL countries/regions should be listed with sources. Like hasn't her album been released in MORE countries than just US & UK?? The article now reads like it has NOT! Ok...So I get it...the bonus tracks are ONLY avail here in the US from Target (which must be what they mean when they say "exclusive"). But most top artists have International (outside of our US) releases that often have International bonus tracks not even avail in US, except by Import. ALL known editions of albums are listed on Wikipedia as long as can be reliably sourced. Sometimes CD releases have a different date from the digital download date from the SAME country. ALL formats need to be sourced individually; CD, digital and any others. Look at this for example Magna Carta... Holy Grail#Release history. Please give link to the Amazon UK that you have mentioned. Is it CD or digital as Amazon does both. When iTunes is source we automatically know it is download. At the example you will see that Amazon is actually sometimes used for both with "Format: Audio CD" or "Format: MP3 Download" added to the ref citations. Where PROOF exists that iTunes is wrong, we can't use them then because we are propagating false info. I hope this is helpful.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use that at all because it says "Import". It is not actually released there. It is just shipped in from somewhere else.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is PROOF that iTunes is wrong? You or I can't just say that. It needs independent reliable source to say it. iTunes could have started selling it on April 22, maybe some people bought it from them that day? I can't say that they did or they didn't, how can you?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Itunes makes alot of mistakes with release dates so i don't think it would be right to seperate physical release and digital download i remember the day and it was not released on a monday. Koala15 (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know that UK usually releases on a Friday and then US the following Tuesday. Hey...look at the Amazon dropdown for "MP3 Music, 13 Songs, 2013" and visit each link. One says April 19 and the other says April 23!@##$# The SAME source contradicts itself!!!—Iknow23 (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)the UK always releases albums on a Sunday or Monday so that albums get a full week of release before charting (charts published on a Sunday). Its Ireland that releases on a Friday (chart published on a Friday). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]22:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hope you been well. I been off for some months. Just started getting somewhat more active again. Thanks. I know I can count on you for great UK info. I did remember the 7digital source and had planned to check it out.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok. I happened to notice a flurry of activity on your page and thought I would drop by. I'm semi-active again. I was busy finishing my bachelors degree in at a UK university. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]20:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did notice you were active (at least sometimes) while I was away from posting. Hey, I'm a bit rusty on the ref formatting and was trying to find an article that had 7digital used as ref that I could use for a guide but didn't find one. I thought that maybe you could readily point me to one? and thanks in advance.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stars Dance
I see you're a fan of Selena too eh? Never thought'd there be a day when I actually liked one of her albums. Guess she proved me wrong lol. Anyways, thanks for all your help making Stars Dance a really good article! Cheers. (CA)Giacobbe (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed that you saw some of my new activity prior to my coming here to respond. Yep...some just to need to 'slow down' on calling "Slow Down" a single. pun intended—Iknow23 (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slow Down
Don't worry about the source for now, I'm trying to gather more info while I'm expanding the article and showing that it has an individual release. Citation will be found soon! Thanks! ChicagoWiz15:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can see here that "Slow Down" has individual release at the price of $1.29 on iTunes while all the other songs are "album only" releases. Check it out: 1ChicagoWiz16:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
THANKS! Using it with Credit to You where appropriate across Wikipedia. Please help if I have forgotten any. Thanks again.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but No. I thought that you were replying to my request at your Talk. It is the WebCite archive that I had asked you for. At least now we have proof that iTunes sold it prior to the album's release. Upon the US release the pre-order page disappeared as I had feared. It is still a "promotional single" as it was only directly sold from the album pre-order and not its own "single" page which would have shown an exact date of "single" release. But all may change in the future, perhaps quite soon even. If Hollywood Records officially asks Radio to play "Slow Down" and industry sources show an exact date that this is requested to commence upon, it is quite likely that "Slow Down" will be considered a "single" like at "I'm Out". However the term 'released' is not to be used..."sent to radio" "serviced to radio" are some appropriate ways to put it. And the modifier (radio) is added to the infobox 'Released' field and the section title is "Radio history" and NOT "Release history". ALL this is because the music industry goes to great pains to avoid calling Radio a release. Since the industry puts 'that much pressure on not calling radio a release", and we at Wikipedia are reporting on their industry, we cannot call it a 'release' when they do not. Historically "release" only meant the day of commencement of sales of the physical product. However, we have come to a consensus to allow certain cases of radio basis songs to be called 'singles' like "I'm Out". There have been a number of discussions at WT:SONG regarding this & apologize if I am getting too far off your original question...but I am looking ahead as to if Hollywood Records officially asks Radio to play "Slow Down"...—Iknow23 (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! I will do! I figured that eventually, the song would be released to something! So I'm gonna go to the WebCitation site and get that done for you! ChicagoWiz15:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, off I would like to formally thank you for the various edits to Hip hop albums, I appreciate any well-rounded editor improving the articles, or making sure all information is correct. However, in the Baltimoresoundstage source if you scroll down it says "As he maintains that Stay Trippy mantra, Juicy J embarks on his next solo project. The album will arrive in 2013 via Dr. Luke's Kemosabe Records in conjunction with Sony/Columbia. It's going to be pretty much like my last mixtape, Blue Dream & Lean. Me being ratchet, he promises... Collaborations include The Weeknd, Chris Brown, Yelawolf, Bei Maejor, Trey Songz, along with Taylor Gang affiliates Lola Monroe, Chevy Woods, and of course Wiz Khalifa." I was not at all refering to the MissInfo source, and I do not think any of the material is being cited to that specific sentence. STATicmessage me!03:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I had COMPLETELY misunderstood you. I thought that you meant scroll down through the Stay Trippy article to find the text. I did look and didn't find it there. I'll fix it if you haven't already. Peace.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling you were misunderstanding me, and the section is kind of buried near the bottom of the source. But, I have not yet as I did not want to seem as if I was edit warring. But yeah, I am not the kind of editor that is just going to add/change material, without making sure it is correct and verifiable. Hell, most of my time on Wikipedia is spent reverting unsourced/factually incorrect information. STATicmessage me!04:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I misunderstood that source because their "Add a comment..." section placement made me think it was already at the bottom of the page. Never had tried to scroll down it till after you specifically told me above. I appreciate your efforts also as you take it upon yourself to fix many of the citation needed tags that I place. Whoever the editor was that originally added the material is the one that is supposed to source it. I am usually hesitant to delete even unsourced material because it is the product of someone's effort (does not apply to vandalism, of course) and try to give them (or anyone else who volunteers) a chance to source it with the citation needed tags. I'm not saying that unsourced material is untrue or unbelievable, just that it is not sourced at the point of its inclusion in Wikipedia. Of course (like today) I can be wrong sometimes. Peace.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stay Trippy
Instead of adding the tag why not fix it yourself? These countries obviously released it as a digital download so ill change the release history to reflect that. Koala15 (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Whoever the editor was that originally added CD to the release history is the one that is supposed to source it; as in "Cite your sources: <ref></ref>". If they fail to do so, they are lazy. I could have just deleted it also, and would have if still remained unsourced for a couple of days. I am usually hesitant to delete even unsourced material because it is the product of someone's effort (does not apply to vandalism, of course) and try to give them (or anyone else who volunteers) a chance to source it with the citation needed or refimp etc tags. I'm not saying that unsourced material is untrue or unbelievable, just that it is not sourced at the point of its inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm not trying to make the article look bad, instead I want to be courteous in giving a chance for the material to be sourced. Such tags are not to be removed unless resolved. 1) by sourcing the material; or 2) removing the unsourced material.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Some editors at Talk:Crime of the Century (album) appear to believe that this source (which uses the phrase "progressive music") verifies "progressive rock" as a genre in the article's infobox and that such an addition is not original research. Could you please comment at the discussion? One of the parties involved continues to warn me with blocks for edit warring. Dan56 (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually...
I have absolutely no problems with anyone so please don't speak about me to other users. It would be greatly appreciated as I've done absolutely nothing wrong and have no bitter feelings towards ANYONE. Thank you. Have a nice day! Manuel Mexico (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I started a new section on the article's talk page regarding the album title in tracklist headlines, as my edit to that part of the article had been reverted in the past, too ;) I would appreciate your support to that proposition. — Mayast (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you added a tag to this section of the "Come & Get It" page, claiming insufficient citations, which I fully understand; however, I have recently added several sources (some of them are far from great, I admit, but which I believe support many of the simple claims that are being made), and therefore I wonder if that tag could be removed at this point. Perhaps "citation needed" could be added instead in a couple of places, although to be honest, the performances that I failed to find semi-decent sources for lack notability, in my opinion. The section needs to be improved, obviously, but please check it out and see what you think. Also, if you could link my name (whatever that is called, as I did after "Hello" with your name), that would be greatly appreciated, so that I receive a notification of your reply. Thanks in advance, and have a nice day. Dontreader (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of standardized user welcome and warning templates, and you can see lists at WP:WT and WP:WARN. For example, the message I posted at Jaylon2233's talk page would be easily produced by {{subst:Welcomeunsourced|Worth It (Fifth Harmony song)}}
. However you don't need to memorize the various template names and formatting choices. Instead, if you enable Twinkle in your preferences menu, it will produce a drop-down menu for you to pick from.
Welcome and warning messages may be issued by any editor (not just admins). A couple of points to keep in mind: (1) assume good faith as far as reasonable, and don't bite the newcomers, and (2) giving "experienced" editors templated warnings is sometimes considered rude. So use discretion, and if needed, just type out a tailored message in your own words.
The usual venue for asking for page-protection is the Request for Page Protection noticeboard (again, if you enable Twinkle it has a drop down item for filing such requests) although asking an individual admin, as you did, is perfectly fine too. You can read wikipedia's protection policy to get an idea if pending changes-/semi-/full-protection is likely to be granted in given circumstances.
@Abecedare: Thank you for your time and courtesy to answer my questions. I have found and enabled Twinkle. I'll try it out the next time that I want to do one of the actions it supports. Thank you for the "points to keep in mind". I believe the Welcome message will be quite helpful to assume good faith & don't bite. I consistently cite WP policies when editing. 1) To explain why I'm altering someone else's work & contributions, not just on a whim, and 2) to familiarize others of the policies so they may hopefully keep them in mind in their future edits. But all that is to naught if edit-summaries, Talk pages, 'hidden' instructional comments are not recognized. (That's what I mean about the Welcome message being so helpful as you of course pointed out.) I'll also read the protection policy for a better understanding. Thanks again!—Iknow23 (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, You mean the "Thank You"? Click on "View history" tab. Example (your next edit) shows in edit summary "top: Per album page, Lay It All on Me (song) is the next single. it features sheeran) (undo | thank)" If I click the "thank", that's what does it :)—Iknow23 (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hey bro
Need Calling All Lovers Wikipedia page fixed on a production credit "Dashawn "Happie" White should be credited as a co-producer on " MUST BE GOOD TO YOU" please advise from Colin at streamline for credit check .. Also his name should be added to produc... —107.130.122.229 05:28, October 8, 2015
Hi. You are active at WP:CHART, I just wanted to know that does Indian songs are not qualified to have article? Because no Indian chart is mentioned on WP:CHART. By number of films, India has world's largest film industry (more than 1000 films each year in various languages) and each film usually has 5-7 songs. Obviously one can't make article on each song, then what should be criteria? --Human3015TALK18:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iknow23, I'm actually completely baffled why you are continuously removing the sales from the certification table. The table has the capability to show both sales and certification and it should not be removed just because one country has yet to certify a release. That assumption is very very incorrect on your part. I would appreciate you get a consensus in the talk page as multiple editors (IPs included) disagree with your assertion. I have reverted your edit. —Indian:BIO[ ChitChat ]11:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I believe that I saw it used at the song's article and just re-used a source already at Wikipedia. Didn't even stop to think about it being a blog. My bad.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BlackSUMMERS'night
It doesn't matter if the review by PopMatters is dated a day earlier. It verifies the release date. If we were to really beg the question and indulge, then how do we know the iTunes release date is verifying its release date everywhere, not just on iTunes? Also, third-party sources are always preferred (the retailer selling the item that's the topic of the article would not be considered a third-party source), and this is one less citation in that paragraph for information that can be verified by an existing citation (WP:CITECLUTTER). Dan56 (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summary on Travis Scott discography
I'm sorry if this comes off as pedantic, but you wrote the edit summary "Extra ref now unnecessary" on Travis Scott discography before...did you copy this from me? I write that all the time when I remove extra sources when the main source has updated, and I get wary of when people I've had interactions with (as you thanked me earlier) then copy my edit summaries, because sometimes I'm afraid that people will see and suspect sockpuppetry or some other kind of connection. This might be unusual and this isn't aimed at you as I know you've been around longer, but in the past year I've had at least 10 fairly recent editors I have interacted with (usually warned about not updating data properly) then try to copy my style of editing and use my edit summaries word-for-word and I'm really at a loss as to why they do. Now that I left that exact summary on Travis Scott discography too, people are going to see that two different editors used the same summary within a short space of time and they might wonder. If you've used this edit summary before, then I'm sorry for the paragraph, but when I've come across you before I've never seen it. Ss11219:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize that I copied someone exactly. I guess that I remembered seeing someone using something similar (I thought), and that it summed it up greatly. I shall avoid such use in the future. As to others (and myself, LOL) copying you, I believe they may have learned from you a great way to do things. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, even though unwanted! —Iknow23 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Iknow23. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Test edit? I don't think so! I am an experienced editor + I gave an explanation for my edit. Just because you disagree with someone does not automatically make the other person “disruptive” to Wikipedia but perhaps just “disruptive” to you. Possibly you deserve a warning for inappropriate use of a warning template? If you would have held off on your “warning”, you could have observed that at least two other editors supported my position in this matter. So you have reverted three editors to put your claim forward. You did not prove a consensus for your position as it turned out that you are editing against multiple editors, and I did NOT edit contrary to any consensus known to me.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your tag on Despacito was incorrect and has been removed. It is not "failed verification" if you are misunderstanding. Last week's Hot 100 did not credit Bieber nor the remix, therefore, the original's sales are combined with those of the remix as the linked article also states "rockets 48-9 following the arrival of its Bieber-assisted remix". It does not say "the remix has charted as a new entry". The original is still selling alongside the remix, and Billboardhave clearly combined the sales if only from this week on Bieber is being credited but yet the song is acknowledged as having moved up the chart. The original did not disappear off the chart following the arrival of its remix, nor was the original removed from iTunes or streaming services when it was remixed—it is also still selling. Therefore, its history is being combined with that of the remix, and that continuation of the song's charting has been made clear in the article, so any proposed claims of "that is WP:OR" are simply false. To also link to Luis Fonsi's chart history page in your comment and state "it still says 44"... yes, that is because Billboard's chart history pages have not updated yet. It would be incorrect to halt the entry in that section when Billboard is clearly combining the two.
So it is not "failed verification", that is you not understanding that Billboard has stated as much that they have combined the versions of the song—as, I repeat, the source states "rockets 48-9" when last week Bieber was not credited. (Note: Also, if you reply, no need to ping me, as your talk page has been watchlisted.)Ss11203:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's see what shows after Billboard updates. If they indeed are combining the two, for clarity that needs to be stated in footnote to each B100 chart reporting table. Otherwise it appears that the original version is charting at "9" on its own AND at "9" on its own for the remix version as that is what the article is showing.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude, but I have removed your message from my talk page, as I think it should be posted to Talk:Despacito and I don't like extended discussions where other users are invited being held at my talk page when the article talk is more appropriate. It affects more than just three users. As for what you said, I don't agree with the Hot 100 changes, otherwise I would have made them. Both versions' sales are being combined towards the one and Billboard has combined the chart histories. That's why I sent you that message above, to specify because you apparently disagreed. So if you wish to have that changed, I think consensus should be reached on the talk page to avoid getting into some "I agree, I don't agree" changes on the article. I will do the Latin Songs change you requested, but that's all I agree with. Ss11210:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
np. You are the King of Chart Updating (compliment), so I thought to send it to you. [btw, in respect, that is why I previously did the "failed verification". If it was anyone else, I would have just changed the chart position.] The more that I got into my message on your Talk, the thought did creep into my mind about it being on the article Talk page. And as you will see, I have a new "take" on this matter.—Iknow23 (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drinkin' Problem
Country Airplay is not a component chart of Hot Country Songs, and there is a long standing precedent that both charts are to be included in song articles (compare Two Black Cadillacs, a GA-class article which uses both charts). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)04:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that WP:USCHARTS does not fully incorporate the changes at the Billboard article HERE. According to the first two paragraphs, Rap, Country, R&B/Hip-Hop, Latin and Rock songs charts were previously ONLY airplay charts. They have ALSO added digital download sales and streaming data. "Radio charts for each of the aforementioned rankings will be spun off and live in Billboard's print and/or online properties, each keeping its history from its first date utilizing BDS data: Rap Airplay (1989), Country Airplay (1990), R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay (1992), Latin Airplay (1994) and Rock Airplay (2009)." The Radio charts are spun off (as in being renamed with the inclusion of the word "Airplay") even though the word Airplay was not used when originally charting (prior to the change) to reflect that only Airplay data was used back then. Going forward the "Airplay" charts will appropriately ONLy reflect "Airplay" data.
So since Hot Country Songs (since the change) includes Airplay, Digital Download Sales and streaming...this means that Country Airplay, Country Digital Songs (if the chart exists) and Country Streaming Songs (if the chart exists) are ALL component charts of Hot Country Songs. Same as Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs), Digital Songs and Streaming Songs are components of the Billboard Hot 100.
I should have added some appropriate language to the Notes at USCHARTS to call attention to the changes at Hot Country Songs because the Billboard linked article is linked as "launched the R&B Songs chart", not showing any relevance to Hot Country Songs. This is not controversial as it is sourced directly to Billboard, so I do not need to submit it for consensus. I shall be adding appropriate changes to the tables and Notes at WP:USCHARTS as currently only the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Albums are fully noted. I will courteously allow some delay in order to give you an opportunity to reply should you wish to do so.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the consensus has been to treat Country Songs/Country Airplay as separate charts ever since the charts were first split. This decision was made because Billboard still treats Country Airplay as its own chart and not a component chart (it's listed first in Country Update), and the industry overall acknowledges milestones on it far more readily than they do on Hot 100 Airplay. Listing both Songs and Airplay has been accepted without question in GA class articles like Two Black Cadillacs. Please do not unilaterally try to change a precedent that has stood for five years. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)03:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it just slipped by all these years with no one pointing it out?
Where is the link to your consensus? How can a consensus exist contrary to Billboard themselves? "The makeovers will enable these charts to match the methodology applied to Billboard's signature all-genre songs ranking, the Billboard Hot 100." So to repeat,
So since Hot Country Songs (since the change) includes Airplay, Digital Download Sales and streaming...this means that Country Airplay, Country Digital Songs and Country Streaming Songs are ALL component charts of Hot Country Songs. Same as Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs), Digital Songs and Streaming Songs are components of the Billboard Hot 100.
I am not "unilaterally" trying to change anything. I am trying to make it consistent with the Hot 100 (as Billboard did), unless you want to get a consensus to do away entirely with the component chart restrictions and have possibily 20 US charts in the chart tables?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Thanks to your link, I see that Country Digital Songs Sales and Country Streaming Songs do indeed exist. All as predicted by the Billboard article that I have quoted. If you are going to be consistent within the genre, you should list these in chart tables also.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supplying me with the relevant discussion. Reading it all, I'd say your position was supported by twice as many editors as those against. In order to be consistent ALL the (then) NEWLY created (in name) AIRPLAY genre charts need to be allowed from the date of their creation. To prevent the possibility of someone else disputing adding these component charts, I shall link to your consensus for explanation. Something along the lines of "Component charts are generally not allowed when there is charting in higher level charts with the exception of ... [per consensus]." Do you support continuing to disallow the other component charts (Digital and Streaming) when Main or Airplay chart position is obtained?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I misspoke. If a song has NOT charted on Hot Country Songs ... Country Digital Songs and Country Streaming Songs ARE to be allowed even if charted on Country Airplay as they are not component charts of Airplay. It's just that the ONLY allowable component chart to appear when charting on Hot Country Songs is Country Airplay per your consensus.—Iknow23 (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Iknow23. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Orphaned non-free image File:Don’t Let It Go to Your Head (Fefe Dobson single).jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Don’t Let It Go to Your Head (Fefe Dobson single).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Don’t Let It Go to Your Head (Jordin Sparks cover).jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Don’t Let It Go to Your Head (Jordin Sparks cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Uh...regarding this edit. Are you unaware that Billboard changed their issue dates? They now date charts four or five days in advance from the actual date that it is. So, yes, the April 6-dated chart was published on April 2. Same with today. It's April 9 (in Australia, at least), and it's dated April 16. Ss11223:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shea Butter Baby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Title track (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
I believe I previously told you, your instructional edit summaries and "courtesy notices" are not going to be read the majority of the people you're intending them for. As I just said in my edit summary on Call You Mine, you overuse notes on articles (users will just disregard these if they want to change what you've done, as they do and have done countless times), and instructional edit summaries, where IP or less adept editors (i.e. not editors who would check the history) are primarily responsible for the things you're "correcting". I also think your repeated edits to pages (especially discographies) are excessive and unnecessary. For example, why can't you fix "violations" of WP:USCHARTS that others have added throughout an article's history? It's unlikely those responsible are going to come back and fix them, so it's past the point of the burden being on them. Also, it's very unlikely anybody is going to be editing these random singers' articles at the precise times you are, so why don't you just go through in one edit and make all the "corrections" you want? Do you want to overload the history with your edits and your quotes of Wikipedia guidelines or policies? Because otherwise it seems like you do.
I don't believe most users need to be instructed by you (and, not that I speak for them, but I doubt they feel they need to be either), so your belief that you need to "instruct" comes off patronising and condescending. Please tone down this attitude of you "teaching" others. True, most editors, myself included, have and do correct others in edit summaries, including citing appropriate guidelines, but you are doing it to excess. You can make a bunch of corrections without needing to quote exact guidelines—just cite the guideline. Regarding Call You Mine, I created that article, and I personally can't recall a single thing you've cited in an edit summary I haven't known. However, regarding your edits there (and, I've just noticed, on Last Hurrah (song)), I'm not sure you're aware commas follow full dates. So when you added the year after May 25, you should have added a comma per MOS:DATE. I don't want to have an argument with you, so you can reply/rant back to me, but I don't wish to be pinged if you do so. Thanks. Ss11216:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}