Talk:All I Want for Christmas Is You

Why remove the MANY Billboard charts on which this song has appeared over the years?

I noticed that someone has been removing some of the Billboard charts on which All I Want For Christmas Is You appears. Please put them back for more accurate depiction of the phenomenal impact this song has on our times. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.105.50 (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what happened is someone removed the Billboard charts' peaks of AIWFCIY for EACH year (i.e. if the song has had a higher peak in 2005 than 2006 on the same chart, the reference to the 2006 chart peak was omitted altogether), which is unfair given that this is a Christmas song that has the potential to reappear on the charts during Christmas time. For this reason, yearly peaks, instead of general ones, should be mentioned. Anyhow, here are some of the charts' peaks that have been removed: In 2006, U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Singles Recurrents (1), U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Airplay Recurrents (3), U.S. Billboard Adult Contemporary Recurrents (10), U.S. Billboard Hot Digital Songs (7), U.S. Billboard Hot Ringtones (15). In 2007, U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Singles Recurrents (1), U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Recurrent Airplay (6), U.S. Billboard Hot Holiday Songs (2), U.S. Billboard Hot Digital Songs (10), U.S. Billboard Hot Digital Tracks (10),

U.S. Billboard Hot Adult Contemporary Recurrents (7) and U.S. Billboard Hot Holiday Songs (2) are the only charts left for 2007 and 2006 respectively (clearly diminishing the strong presence of AIWFCIY on the charts in these years) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.105.50 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for repeating this, but it is absolutely justified to include YEARLY peaks for a CHRISTMAS song. Who is removing those and re-altering the charts section?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.105.50 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION: don't you think the fact that the song entered the UK chart at #8 in 2007 (a yearly peak) deserves to be mentioned in the charts section?! Indeed, the song has peaked at #2 in 1994, but for the sake of absolute clarity we shouldn't omit the fact that the song has re-entered the charts, after 13 years of its release, at a relatively high number. Please DO undo that mistake/omission -which is made in other charts as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.105.50 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please pay attention to the matter I've been shedding light on for the last week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.105.50 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

1.2 million sales as a ringtone

Someone should add that AIWFCIY is now certified platinum with sales of 1.2 million :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.105.50 (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Three/Four videos

What's this thing about there being "three (technically four) videos" for AIWFCIY? The article doesn't exactly make explicit what the alleged fourth one is supposed to be. --Jayunderscorezero (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Home Video

I was tempted to put quotes around "home video" here. That is the look we are supposed to get, but it is clear that studio cameras were used. I decided because I don't think anyone would read this and think that Mariah got to party with St. Nick.Autkm (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

New Dance Mixes!

Saw these mentioned on here, the other day, so I went looking for them, and found them on Amazon!  ;) I've included the link, below, and added the tracklistings to the page!  :)

http://www.amazon.com/Want-Christmas-Mariahs-Dance-Mixes/dp/B002WXUB16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.13.29 (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Charts

This article has 2 "Chart performance" sections. Shouldn't those be combined? Also, the end of the first chart performance section says its chart position "so far". That should be updated to whatever peak position it achieved last winter.

Do we have to have chart performance for every single year? You realize songs only have one peak, don't you? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is necessary. This is an unusual case. Most songs don't re-chart every year. This song, being a holiday classic, peaks every year, so yes its important.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There may be a better way of formatting for this case - considering this may happen year after year. The 'belgium back catalog' should not be included here. It's not the official singles chart and would be like listing Billboard's recurrent chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Check out the "by year" table format. It really consolidates the info and places emphasis on its annual performance on various charts without losing the sources. Modify if necessary, revert if disliked - but I think it presents the info better than a full list for each year. However, single chart runs over December and January should not be considered separate. For example, a song that peaks at #3 in the last week of December and falls to #10 in the first week of January, it doesn't mean it has two peak positions. Separate peaks should be distinct chart appearances. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I could get some additional opinions on this. Here's how I had it for anyone interested. The "traditional format" is for songs that typically have one chart run and one peak per chart. This encapsulates its chart runs year by year, more like an artist's discography page. The chart section as is will just became a mess if it's anticipated to chart in multiple countries in 2011 and 2012 and so on. It looks bad enough as it is. This is a better summary. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Year	Country
	AUS	AUT	DEN	EU	FIN	GER	IRL	ITA	JPN	NLD	NOR	NZ	SCT	SPN	SWE	SWI	UK	US	US AC	US Air	US Hol
1994	2	11					14		4	2	2		4		17	18	2
1995	15																8		6	12
2000																		83
2007	32		6	9				8				2			8		4
2008			4					17	16			3			12		12				1
2009			12		12		18	4			6		20	13	10		19
2010	22		11				16		6	24	3		25		19	45	18				1

• I oppose this change. The current one is more organized. Also, if that problem arises, I think we can worry about in 2011 or 2012--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)