Talk:Justin Timberlake discography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured list Justin Timberlake discography is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
December 1, 2014 Featured list candidate Promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Justin Timberlake (Rated FL-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Justin Timberlake, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Justin Timberlake on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Discographies (Rated FL-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject R&B and Soul Music (Rated FL-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject Pop music (Rated FL-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Lists (Rated FL-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

FutureSex/LoveSounds is 3x platinum[edit]

RIAA's site is very out of date. They very rarely update their searchable database (as I have proven on the discussion page of Talk: Nickelback discography ), and they also rarely update their news articles. For example Futuresex Lovesounds isn't even certified Gold according to RIAA's searchable database, and their are many other examples. Billboard gets their information on certifications directly from the RIAA, otherwise they would be getting sued for putting false RIAA certifications on their site. Billboard has the album as being 3x platinum by the RIAA, so it is 3x platinum. We need to put Billboard as a reliable source for RIAA certifications, because RIAA's site has gotten extremely sloppy at updating certifications. They only seem to do it a couple times a year, and we shouldn't have to wait when Billboard has the most current RIAA certifications on their site. Again I got into a argument about this same thing on Nicelback's All the Right Reasons, so see their discography discussion page if you want further proof that RIAA's site is almost always out of date, and Billboard is an acceptable site for RIAA certificationsWIKI-GUY-16 09:39, April 26 2007 (UTC)

As the person who has kept reversing the edit - I have to agree. RIAA is supposed to be the main reference, but their updates are disgustion. I will not reverse, and accept Billboard as an acceptable reference. 60.234.242.196 18:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I´m from germany! Normally I edit german wikipedia-sites, but I´ve seen that something´s wrong... Justin never had three # 1´s in Germany! The titles "Cry Me A River" and "Senorita" reached # 13 and "Rock Your Body" only # 25. You can watch it up on the german page ... greatings --84.130.3.135 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

C'MON 7 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![edit]

future sex/ love sounds has sold 6.91 (by adding all crtifications you can see that!!!) so stop puting 6.75 million. its 7 million 4 sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

look at that!!!!!!!! 6,96 million IS 7 million C'MON!!! justified hasnt sold EXACTLY 7 million so im puting 7 million to future sex/love sounds to!

--Mysterious Spy 19:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The link provided was a link to Media Traffic's homepage. It doesn't say 6.75 million, 6.96 million, or 7 million. It doesn't mention FutureSex/LoveSounds at all. 17Drew 21:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect chart positions[edit]

I can spot several incorrect chart positions in the "singles" section of this discography. Could someone please correct them. 220.101.48.181 2:04, September 22, 2007 (UTC)

The positions in the "Pop 100" coloumn for "Like i love you", "Cry me a river", "Rock your body" and "Senorita" are all false because the pop 100 was created in 2005 and only a small number of singles released beforehand charted. 220.101.48.181 11:24, October 3, 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.48.108 (talk)

Netherlands[edit]

A source has been provided for these chart positions.

Like I love you #5 Cry me a river #6 Rock your body #6 Sexyback #7 My Love #19 What goes around... #13 etc

Stop changing them to #2, #12 etc. JayJ47 (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Madonna's "Across The Sky"[edit]

This song is not from 2010. It was recorded for her 2008 album, Hard Candy, but didn't make the final cut. The single leaked this year on the internet. Incidentally, there's a Wikipedia page of unreleased Madonna songs that also mentions this. 130.76.32.19 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know how to make a new section, sorry! The article is locked so I can't correct "consists in" - that's very annoying! --81.156.225.83 (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

New Album in 2011?[edit]

Where is the source for this edit? When was this announced?--mikomango (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Justin Timberlake discography[edit]

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

Reference named "riaa":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 17:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 March 2013[edit]

Please change the peak chart position in the US of Pusher love girl in the other charted songs section from - to 64 according to Billboard charts of this week: [1] 178.135.28.110 (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Already added.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Main artist/Featured artist separation[edit]

Why is every song jumbled into one table? Look at every other discography article and the main artist/featured artist singles are separated. Putting them together makes the table very messy... Contactman7 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, I believe he has plenty of singles as a featured artist, therefore a separate table makes it less messy. Decodet (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree. It looks messy and should be reverted right away. --RachelRice (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Please review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There's no need for separating them; they are singles. There's no such thing as a "featured single".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Then why we separate studio albums, compilation albums, extended plays? Aren't they all albums based on what you say? Decodet (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Those are different types of albums... There are only two types of singles: singles and promo singles.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Just looking at this page. It's completely ridiculous to have Justin's featured songs in the same table, it completely ruins the flow of it. Every. single. artist. on wikipedia has it the other way with features in a different table. I don't understand why it couldn't be changed. It makes the page really disgusting to look at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.145.253 (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You are just trying to change all the discographies so they'll be in the way you want it to be? I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but seriously, if every single discography has main artist/featured separated, it clearly means that everybody agrees with that separation. Your edit in Lady Gaga discography, for example, has just been reverted because you haven't discussed with anybody about these edits. Decodet (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
And making main and featured in separate tables isn't the way you want them to be? WP:DISCOGSTYLE does not mention separation of singles what-so-ever; there is no set style for it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
In addition, WP:DISCOGSTYLE also states that: "Every artist is different, and therefore no two discographies will be exactly the same. Therefore, if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the above guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document an artist's body of work, then ignore all the rules and go with what's best for the article." Timberlake has so far released only three studio albums. Most of the singles he is featured in, he also produced, so how is he only a "featured artist" in them? They are all singles, case and point. "(Snoop Dogg featuring Charlie Wilson and Justin Timberlake)", for example, shows the user that it's not his own main single. What other classification is needed? People get so bent out of shape about things not matching exactly how they want them. I have been preparing this article for FLC for several months now, cleaning up the formatting and references. If you've got a problem with the format, please, feel free to discuss why his singles should be separated and not just change it because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that other articles have them separated isn't a reason why this specific article should also be. There's got to be a reason why.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And yes, I made a WP:BOLD edit to Lady Gaga discography (those are allowed, you know?) and was reverted. I didn't continue with the edit, as I'm not a main contributor to the article, so if that's the style that's preferred for that article, I am fine with that. And I thought we agreed on Fergie discography?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. I've started a discussion on WP:DISCOGSTYLE anyway. And I agreed about Fergie discography because she has released only one album. I'd like to see you attempting to do something like that in articles such as Nicki Minaj discography or Lil Wayne, I can't even imagine the mess it'd look like. Anyway. Decodet (talk)
Again, I'm not trying to change the way every discography looks. I'm discussing the usage in this article. "Every artist is different, and therefore no two discographies will be exactly the same." And besides the point, Wayne and Nicki's features are so above and beyond... where they would be unmanageable (they hardly even are now). Whereas Timberlake's is not.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Other articles discography articles aside, I think it's much easier access-wise and looks more organized when all of his singles are in one table. It just doesn't make sense having separate tables for one artist.JMO.Arre 15:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Not only in this article because you've done the same in other discographies as well. Anyway, I invite you to please join the discussion in WP:DISCOGSTYLE and show your point there, that would help to make a proper discussion over there about this matter. Thanks. Decodet (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, having singles that did not chart anywhere and does not even have their own pages is obviously not necessary information. This whole page is an absolute mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.145.253 (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.145.253 (talk)

So?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Even though they have not charted, they are still singles so why would they be removed? Decodet (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Tenth chart?[edit]

On one of my edits to this article I added Belgium (Flanders) as the tenth chart in the singles/albums tables to complete the 10-chart maximum (as mentioned in WP:DISCOGSTYLE), only to be reverted (in good faith) on the basis that Timberlake doesn't have much certifications in the country (three four in all: Justified, FutureSex/LoveSounds, "4 Minutes", and "Give It to Me") – which is understandable (if nothing better can be found then I'd like to restore Belgium, which I believe would be the next best thing—nearly all his releases have charted there). So I'd like to open this section up for any potential suggestions regarding which country to add as the tenth chart. Holiday56 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so here are a few of our options (based on certifications alone; feel free to add any I may have missed or additional countries):
Austria: Justified (Gold), FutureSex/LoveSounds (Gold), "Mirrors' (Gold)
Belgium: Justified (Gold), FutureSex/LoveSounds (2× Platinum), "Give It to Me", "4 Minutes"
Sweden: Justified (Gold), The 20/20 Experience (Gold), "Mirrors" (Platinum), "4 Minutes", "Holy Grail"
France: FutureSex/LoveSounds (Platinum), "Cry Me a River" (Silver)
Italy: "Suit & Tie" (Gold), "Mirrors" (Platinum)
I think that Sweden might be the best option. Most of his singles have charted there (with the exception of his more recent singles), and he has 5 certifications in that country.

— Status (talk · contribs) 07:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree too, Sweden is the right choice according to me. — Tomíca(T2ME) 08:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Looking through the number of chart entries and certifications for all of those options, I think Italy can be crossed out as an option (only 2 certs and 8 chart entries in total there), and perhaps France too (2 certifications and 26 chart entries – Sweden tops it in certs). I think this can more or less be narrowed down to either Belgium (32 chart entries, 4 certifications) and Sweden (26 chart entries, 5 certifications). Austria is still a potential choice but Belgium and Sweden seem like better choices (his Austrian singles peaks for the Justified singles are rather low). Holiday56 (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I definitely still think Sweden is the best. What bothers me about France is that they are flops when it comes to certifications, only 2 certs? Oh, come on. Five is better ofc. I definitely think Sweden is the best option. Austria Justified peaks are pretty low I agree. — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Spotted this conversation and thought that this link might be handy when discussing French certifications: SNEP have updated their website so their certification records are far easier to search (although they're updated so infrequently it's still not the best situation). I Am RufusConversation is a beautiful thing. 16:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Rufus! The UK used to be terrible at certifications as well, but then they put in automatic certifications last summer. I was kind of hoping to see them do the same thing. The UK certifications used to be in the same boat as the France ones. I am leaning towards Sweden based on the information we have now, but in a perfect world, I'd love to see the tenth chart be France. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Didn't know that a search link existed for the SNEP certifications - thanks for bringing that to attention, Rufus. Regarding the tenth chart, I think I'd still lean towards Belgium, just marginally; the only two things that put me off from Sweden's inclusion are that the Justified singles charted higher in Belgium and that none of his singles from 20/20 Experience (parts 1 and 2), save for "Mirrors", have charted there. Holiday56 (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I get where you're coming from. I was originally going to add in Sweden, but was hesitant to because of that reason. My main problem with Belgium is mostly with the two charts. Like, for example, I don't understand the difference between them and which one should be used over the other. I guess maybe that's just ignorance on my part. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)