Jump to content

Talk:Maroon 5 discography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listMaroon 5 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2007Featured list candidateNot promoted
May 26, 2008Featured list candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list

Non-album songs

[edit]

There are a LOT of song lyrics which credit Maroon 5 as the performing artist from several lyrical sites that don't appear in any of their albums and singles, nor in any other album appearances. Should these songs be included in this article in a new section of "Unreleased songs"? I've added a list here of all songs which I'm not aware of any appearances in albums/singles.

The source is here: [1]

  • "A Lovely Day"
  • "Angel in Blue Jeans"
  • "As Things Collide"
  • "Control Myself"
  • "Hold On"
  • "If I Fell in Love with You"
  • "If You Only Knew"
  • "Miss You, Love You"
  • "My Ocean Blue"
  • "Simple Kind of Lovely"
  • "Take What You Want"
  • "That's Not Enough"

And more from another: [2]

  • "Captain Splendid"
  • "Future Kid"
  • "Loving the Small Time"
  • "Myself"
  • "Never Saga"
  • "Oliver"
  • "Pantry Queen"
  • "Sleepy Windbreaker"
  • "Soap Disco"
  • "To Her, with Love"

And still more:

  • "Come Talk with Me"
  • "Everyday Goodbyes"
  • "Funky"
  • "Good at Being Gone"
  • "It's U"
  • "The Fog"
  • "The Great Getaway"
  • "The Kid with the Velvet Eyes"

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. RaNdOm26 14:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can find out more information, I wouldn't include them. Those lyrics sites aren't the most reliable. I've encountered incorrect lyrics on several sites... who's to say they don't sometimes get the band wrong, too? Also, "Simple Kind of Lovely" is a cover they perform at some of their concerts because it's one of Adam's favorite songs. LaraLove 13:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the original artist of "Simple Kind of Lovely", Lara? RaNdOm26 13:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sit corrected. It's not a cover. Research indicates that it was a song performed when they were Kara's Flowers. I'll have to look deeper into it. It was, according to one site (reliability under question), released on Songs About Jane re-release. LaraLove 21:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever what kind of website it is, they've got it wrong, I think; the only new track on the re-release was "Ragdoll" — the rest of the tracks were remixes. RaNdOm26 13:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the site that lists it under Songs About Jane. Other sites list them under "Unknown" and such. This is why I hate lyrics sites. If you can't trust them to get the lyrics right—their core purpose—how can you trust them to get anything else right!? LaraLove 14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. RaNdOm26 14:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. Something else we agree on. :) LaraLove 14:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit

[edit]

I'm not sure that the title sentence should call them pop-rock. I think it should match the article and use the most general genre (rock), but I'm not sure. LaraLove 12:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write that part of the introduction, I was unsure if I should scrap off the genre bit in the beginning, but I think it's better without the word 'pop'. RaNdOm26 12:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording in the title sentence as well from "comprehensive list" to "discography" because the featured lists I saw worded it as discography. However, in looking through more, I have found that there are a few that read "comprehensive list". Personally, I like the way it reads now as "discography", but if you like it better the other way, by all means, revert my change.
Otherwise, it looks pretty good. I think there are some issues with prose, but I can work on that later. If I can get the prose improved, we could go for featured, maybe. LaraLove 13:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit myself that article writing is not my strongest attribute. By the way, I wanted to leave it as discography before, but then got influenced by how the other FLs prose read, so then switched it to that. Same thing with the "As of September 2007" bit. ...And I would love to have the list featured. :-) RaNdOm26 13:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the best with prose myself. But I'm good at ripping off other articles in how they word things. :) I've been wanting to work to get something to featured. And I'm in need of a break from my regular "duties" here, so this may be a good outlet. LaraLove 21:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also willing to work, hopefully, for my first featured material. Anyway, hope you can work on the prose...soon... RaNdOm26 13:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Points in the singles table

[edit]

In the singles table, what exactly do these point values mean? Currently, all of them are unsourced. Why do some singles have point values and the others don't? Do we even need them to be in the table at all? RaNdOm26 09:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I was told by Pie85 that these points mean the CD and download sales of each of the singles, taken from the UWC. I guess this is informative and should definitely be kept. :)
Another note, the song "Take What You Want" stated it was produced in 2000, which pre-dates the band's formation (2001), so I removed it from the list. RaNdOm26 13:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FLC

[edit]

Are you sure it's ready? I haven't done a final copy-edit. Lara❤Love 13:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, please copyedit. Where have you been??? RaNdOm26 13:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been here. I just have a lot going on. I have a talk page, ya know. ;) I didn't realize you had this on the fast track. Lara❤Love 14:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fast track? It's been five days! You know, you can do a lot of work and stuff within five days! ...Thank you for the editing; it was very nice. :) RaNdOm26 16:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a lot of editing in five days. Just not on this article. ;) I didn't consider the fact that it's a list, therefore basically only a lead to copy-edit. I'm used to working on artilces for these things, which takes weeks. Lara❤Love 16:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion with the colors. I did some studying to try to figure ways to improve it, found what I needed and then realized you'd removed all of it when I went to tweak it. So I'll just let you go with this one on however you want to do it. I decided to focus my attention on Fall Out Boy discography and I've now nominated it at FLC. Good luck. Lara❤Love 07:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You kept the infobox with a color key that you're not using. It makes no sense. Very confusing. Lara❤Love 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. I understand what you mean. I simply changed them to the same colour scheme with the tables. I just don't like the list to have too many different colours. RaNdOm26 12:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singles chart positions

[edit]

Someone has fucked up most of the peak chart positions under Maroon 5's singles page. Would somebody put the correct positions there? <---Thanks---> --Crocodileman (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Your edit to change the positions in the United World Chart is wrong. Please clarify what is exactly wrong, and also please don't replace the numbers with the wrong info. RaNdOm26 (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Pure Imagination" on Change is Now CD

[edit]

Should their cover of "Pure Imagination" on Change is Now: Renewing America's Promise be added? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Stutter" ought to be added to the main singles list

[edit]

"Stutter" (#84, week ending 9 October) has now charted higher on the Hot 100 than did "Give a Little More" (peaked at #86), and ought to be listed on the main singles list. Billboard no longer requires a song to have a sales component in order to be listed on the Hot 100 - - use of the word "single" is purely a semantic issue that really has no bearing on a song's relative popularity or its ability to climb the Hot 100. –David 04:37, 5 October 2010

It's already in the article: scroll down a bit! And you are wrong; sales is one of the components to the Billboard Hot 100. Actually, the song wasn't even released to radio, so the only thing that made it chart was sales. Yvesnimmo (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NO, I'M NOT WRONG! READ BILLBOARD! I did scroll down a bit! Don't utilize this space to attempt to make a fool out of somebody who disagrees with you! I know just as well as anybody who has been reading Billboard for twenty or more years (yes, believe it!), and who has followed the periodic adjustments to chart methodologies, that sales is a component to the Hot 100. I did not say that sales is not a component - - I merely stated the FACT that a sales component is no longer a prerequisite to placing on the chart. It is, indeed, true that Billboard no longer requires that a "single" be available at retail in order to chart on the Hot 100. But for all you narrow-minded folks out there who can only handle one bit of sensory input at a time: if a single is available in some type of retail format, the points for retail sales will be combined with airplay points to arrive at total chart points (and, therefore, an over-all ranking on the Hot 100). Without a retail component, a song will still chart on the Hot 100 if its airplay is strong enough. Knock it off already with your paltry attempts at one-upmanship! Do you monitor the Wikipedia Maroon 5 discography 24/7? Get a life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.41.98 (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, WP:AGF and WP:CIV. Secondly, WP:YOUREWRONG. Thirdly, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this discussion: WP:FORUM. Yvesnimmo (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You must take some time to dive far deeper than mere charts and chart positions. It is time for you to bother to familiarize yourself with information on actual Billboard chart methodologies (what a concept, huh?). You can do it! You're so close! You're almost there! By the way: the classic retort of those who have had their moronic behavior pointed out to them is to accuse the party who did so of hostility or lack of civility. I have issued no accusations against you, nor have I doubted your good-faith efforts. I merely illuminated where you misunderstood my commentary... and you most certainly did misunderstand my commentary. "Stutter" belongs among the rest of Maroon 5's charted "singles," sales component or not. My point could not be any more clear, nor less murky. I applaud your pluck, nonetheless. I have nothing more to add to this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.41.98 (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Stutter" is not being promoted as Maroon 5's third single, and is not being given a physical release or a radio add date. Unless you can provide a reliable, verifiable source claiming so, it will not be added to the regular singles section simply because it is not a regular single, but a song that happened to receive high digital sales. Yvesnimmo (talk) 05:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chart position

[edit]

Never Gonna Leave This Bed is No. 110 in the USA SOURCE--79.216.168.84 (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"My Blue Ocean" live album

[edit]

There's a live album "My Blue Ocean" that was released sometime before 2006 (MusicBrainz knows about it and the first edit was early in that year) with covers of NIN's Closer and AC/DC's Highway to Hell. I haven't been able to uncover where it was released and sold, though. --Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Maroon 5 discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maroon 5 discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Summer

[edit]

"This Summer" is cditd as a single on the Wikipedia page for "V" and "This Summer." DatBoy101 (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maroon 5 discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maroon 5 discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'What Lovers Do' ARIA 2x platinum

[edit]

The page lists the single 'What Lovers Do' as being 2x platinum from ARIA. But the linked reference was invalid, and I couldn't find any source for the claim with some light googling, so I removed the reference and put in a citation need. That edit was reverted, introducing a Cite error: The named reference ARIA was invoked but never defined. If nobody has a source for the claim, I'm gonna put the citation needed back up -Cake~talk 22:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list needs reassessment

[edit]

Hello, everyone.

I've been looking at this list. I love Maroon 5's music (in fact, I'm a fan) and I wish this would still be a featured list, but it's not possible anymore. I have almost expert experience around featured lists, but maybe I don't have permission to put it up for reassessment because of policies that suddenly escape me, that's why I tell the reasons for it.

  • It is a list validated in 2008. The criteria at that time have some very notable differences relatively, so the list tends to lose its status due to the improved criteria, since users trust on the status of a list to make contributions in good faith, but they become fatal and counterproductive. A status does not give you the right to add information as you please (as in the case of Harry Styles, where users add new music videos without referencing, thus tilting the list to a critical danger), but to be an expert and maintain it as much as possible, something that has not been fulfilled in this list.
  • Four long paragraphs. Well done, but they are of very noticeable different sizes. In addition, I doubt a little about the structure that they comply with, it is not excellent in sight. Also, about the most recent albums, the paragraph is the shortest of all; concise, but leaves a lot to be expected. That is why I doubt the excellence of the summary, precisely because of that paragraph.
  • A single and a promotional single without referencing and another with an article, but referenced. I don't know how much the latter affects the article, but I do know that if a single has an article, it is not necessary to reference it. But the problem is with the first two, since if a single doesn't have an article, then referencing it to verify its existence as a single. There are two singles without article referenced in the table, but I doubt their verifiability, especially the one that verifies "One Light (Remix)".
  • Recent addition to the band's discography as Kara's Flowers. The information may be important, but its addition ruins the spectacle of the tables at least in my opinion. Also, some of it is unreferenced; an example is Stagg Street Recordings, Kara's Flowers' only EP, which is totally unreferenced. Likewise, the user who inserted this also added the maximum positions of the EPs, but not from recognized charts and the type that are used in discographies, but from iTunes, so it affects the quality a lot; the table's section is horrible talking about the structure.

These are my reasons. However, this is subject to everyone's opinion, so you can answer what you think, what other defects it has which I have not noticed and if you agree with the FLR that I propose. I'm also pointing out that this list is abandoned, so chances are I'll never get an answer, but I'll keep an eye on it anyway. Thank you. 186.30.44.46 (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maroon_5_discography&oldid=1206414055"