Talk:Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Dance Club Songs chart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enrique sources[edit]

Beyonce sources[edit]

Katy Perry sources[edit]

J Lo sources[edit]

Gaga sources[edit]


Kristine W sources[edit]

Madonna sources[edit]

Whitney Houston sources[edit]

Informal PR[edit]

A brief PR for you, as requested!

  • I've added an underconstruction tag, which will stop the addition of other less useful tags.
  • I think you may have been a little too detailed in a few places, and that's probably because you are telling us stuff in place that we already know. After we've read the bit on Madonna who we know has most, we go to number two and it tells us
    • "Barbadian singer Rihanna has achieved 22 number one songs on the U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Club Songs chart; she is in second place for artist with the most number one songs; only record holder Madonna has more, with 43.[1]"
I've struck out the bit that isn't needed (and shouldn't have two semi-colons anyway). It's probably bcause this is a work in progress and hasn't had a solid copyedit as a finished piece - that's when the obvious stuff like this gets stripped (along with a lot of overlinking, which always comes up in a new article like this).
  • I think the blurbs may be a little detailed in one or two places: I often find that with subjects like this they can fall intothe problems of WP:Proseline, so stripping out some of the info makes it a lot more readable and tighter. I think you need to pick a few key (and defendable) criteria for inclusion along the lines of first, 10th/20th/30th, most recent, biggest selling, etc and try and cover them. *The dates (and the associated American proliferation of excessive commas) also stilt readability and make it overly detailed: For Beance, ""Telephone", a song by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé, became the singers thirteenth chart topper on February 27, 2010" - "in February 2010" is as exact as we really need in most cases, and will ensure the flow along the prose is much smoother.
  • There will obviously be more to discuss on some than others, but I'd aim for 250-350 words per artist as a very rough rule of thumb. That would give you apage (including lead) of around 3-3,500 words, which sort of feels right (You may think it needs a bit more, but try not to aim up with a 6,000 work opus (Beyoncé has 562 words in her section, so pro rata, you'll get to around 6K)

Hope this helps, and feel free to ping me if you need any more thoughts. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes this all makes sense :)  — ₳aron 09:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna[edit]

Pitbull?[edit]

Discussion: Talk:Hot Dance Club Songs#Pitbull - eo (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checked and copyedited checklist[edit]

  • Madonna
  • Rihanna
  • Beyonce
  • Janet Jackson
  • Mariah Carey  Done
  • Donna Summer
  • J Lo
  • Kristine W
  • Katy Perry
  • Lady Gaga  Done
  • Whitney Houston
  • Enrique Iglesias
  • Kylie Minogue
  • Pitbull

 — Calvin999 15:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Dance Club Songs chart[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 Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Dance Club Songs chart'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 "dance":

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⚡ 15:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding post 11th place onwards[edit]

I've removed this bulk of unnecessary info. Surprised it slipped my net. It's not needed and makes the page way too long and dilutes the purpose of the article in principle: the top ten. Any previous attempts by editors to add in 11th place onward have been removed. The whole point is to show the top 10 (which as it stands, happens to include more than 10 artists but that can't be helped). It's becoming increasingly easier for artists to attain number ones on this chart because of remixes, hence the so many joint positions and volume of artists in double digits.

There has to be a cut off point for notability, and that has been up to joint 10th (as this is what Billboard itself does up to) like any other chart list related to Billboard on Wikipedia and it always has been since I wrote the whole article myself. The bulk addition stays out; it is not to be added back and discussed. If something is removed, it stays out until it has been discussed. Use diffs to make your case in order to preserve stability if so many, as claimed, feel so strongly.  — Calvin999 09:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon to go pass the top-ten, especially when dealing with records. Frankly, in Wikipedia, we have pages like this that go up to the top-twenty and other the top 100. Also to make a statement like "...it always has been since I wrote the whole article myself. The bulk addition stays out; it is not to be added back and discussed. If something is removed, it stays out until it has been discussed." is a strong example of Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Just because you may have started the page (I don't know because I haven't checked the backlog), does not make you the owner [of this page] to which no one else can contributions to the page that you don't agree with. If you have a problem with something on the page of this magnitude, it is highly appropriate to open a discussion here on the talk page. Horizonlove (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also the page is based off of who has at least ten Dance hits. Because there are multiple ties among the singers, the current list (that include 25 singers, ending with Christina Aguilera and Prince) makes sense to have here. Horizonlove (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too many have more than 10 number-one, which makes this page way too long to go past joint tenth place. Eleventh onwards dilutes the content and makes it way, way too long. This is the first article of it's kind, so you're wrong to say many go up to top twenty acts or number-ones (The sub-sections on Hot 100 and Pop milestone articles only list 10 and 7 acts, respectively. There were issues around length before eleventh place and above was added, if you'd actually look through the history. It was never discussed to add so much more unnecessary content like you keep disruptively adding back. I never said it made me the owner, that's you saying that, I'm saying I've been involved since the inception of it and there were already numerous shortenings, like I just said, because of concerns over length and violating guidelines (Again, you'd see this is you went back through the history, and if you look at the Peer Review above, about it being too detailed in places) Likewise, it's implying ownership that you keep adding it back despite it not having been discussed as to whether it should have been added in the first instance. If something is added that is disputed and removed, it stays out, it doesn't stay because there was never a consensus or discussion in favour of adding it in the first instance. No, it doesn't make sense to include 25 singers here, that is absurd. "Also the page is based off of who has at least ten Dance hits." - Erm, no it isn't, it's the top ten artists with the most number ones. Please stop causing disruption for no reason.  — Calvin999 17:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only ones that have 10 number-one dance hits are the singers that were listed, which didn't make the page long. In Wikipedia articles such as List of best-selling singles, the list is longer than this page. Frankly, Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 is way longer than this page. When you shorten it down to your revision, this page is liable to merged with the main page such as this page which has a list of Artist records on Mainstream Top 40. So I would advise that you either merge the page (in its current state; your revision) or revise it back the version that ends with Christina Aguilera and Prince. Horizonlove (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does make it long. This page is already longer than when I first wrote it because more acts have equaled joint tenth over the last 3 years, which caused issues around length once again because too many acts have too many number ones on this chart, no other Billboard has this level of double digit number one songs for acts. You're mistaking lists of bullet points with a written prose article which referring to those examples. This is the problem you are not realising. Those lists, though I think they are too long, are bullet points, they are easy to navigate. This is a prose article, it takes time to read it and navigate it. Mainstream Top 40 again is a bullet point list, it's not going into the details of the records held like this does for each artist. You're confusing the two outcomes of a list and an article. There won't be a merge or addition of bulk content. And quite frankly, you haven't got anyone agreeing with you and pledging their support with justification with a substantial majority to add the bulk addition, so there is no consensus to add it back. That's just how it is.  — Calvin999 17:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm... this is starting to look like an edit war. I'm glad to see discussion, but no more reverting please. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • HorizonLove made a third revert specifically in order to see if he/she would be reverted. That alone is grounds for his revert to be undone, because that's not even article related with regard to 'reason to revert'.  — Calvin999 18:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ad Orientem: It looks like it but it's not. It's a user who thinks because he created the page, he owns it and therefore can decide (without discussion) what can or can't be added to the page. If you have time, just go through the main page's and talk page's backlog and edit summaries and you will see what I mean. Horizonlove (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not interested in the hows, whys or wherefores of this dispute. Unless you are reverting copyright vios or naked vandalism, it's edit warring. Seek consensus here before making anymore changes to the article that are going to be challenged. See WP:BRD and WP:DR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • So what exactly does "I'm only at two reverts. But I'll make another revert and see what happens. LOL" mean then? Don't try and and say you didn't mean it, because you carried out a third revert seconds later. I don't "think" I created, I did create it. Every article was created by someone. No, I don't think I own it. I didn't even write Madonna's section, and I had contributions from some friends. Other editors raised concerns about length, which was expressed in the Peer Review above (did you read that, no). A mass of info was added, I removed it because it's not needed and made the article too long (again) but even more so than before. Considerably, in fact. You asked for discussion, I started one. I explained, you ignored. I explained more, you reverted. If someone contests something, it stays out. If you want it to stay, use diffs to make your case here on the talk. I removed it because there is no consensus to keep it, and it dilutes the nature of the content and makes it too hard to navigate. Instead of finding a consensus, you just keep reverting because you want your own way and won't discuss despite asking me to start a discussion. I mean, come on.  — Calvin999 18:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: That's just a clever disguise to make it sound like something it isn't. To say "Not interested in the hows, whys or wherefores of this dispute..." is clearly not getting the facts and just a maneuver to dub it as a simple "edit war" which is not. Again, I recommend going through the history before making a statement like that. Now you said, "Seek consensus here before making anymore changes to the article that are going to be challenged.", which basically what I said before the whole thing started. Not to sound angry, but you would know that if you went through the history. I said it time and time again. Horizonlove (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horizonlove. I am becoming concerned that you don't understand what edit warring is. It is not dependent on who is right or wrong in a content dispute. This was an edit war because nobody was reverting vandalism or copy-vios. Being "right" does not excuse it. As far as I can tell from the editing history a significant amount of material was added in late January and this was subsequently challenged by Calvin on the 15th of this month. Per BRD that is when everybody should have come here to discuss it. That didn't happen. Instead we have an edit war, with blame to go around. Now would be a good time to discuss the actual merits or lack thereof of the proposed added material, w/o sniping and keeping AGF in mind. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding just a list of #11-25? No paragraphs of their biographies or their favorite colors, just their names next to their ranks...2602:306:CD9B:E9A0:8806:1E2B:EA33:8BC (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)ES[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artists_with_the_most_number-ones_on_the_U.S._Dance_Club_Songs_chart&oldid=1199049746"