User talk:I7114080/Archive 2
- 1 Orphaned non-free media (File:Stupid-Boy.jpg)
- 2 Discography format
- 3 Splitting discographies
- 4 Montgomery Gentry discography
- 5 Canadian #1's
- 6 LeAnn Rimes
- 7 Kings of Leon discography
- 8 Australian country charts
- 9 Reply
- 10 Kings of Leon discography peer review
- 11 Carrie Underwood discography
- 12 2000 in country music
- 13 Certs
- 14 BP discography
- 15 Kelly Clarkson Discography
- 16 Gaga discography
- 17 Song Charts
- 18 Bubbling Under
- 19 Gaga discography
- 20 BS
- 21 LeAnn Rimes discography
- 22 Miley Cyrus discography
- 23 Kris Allen
- 24 Charts
- 25 pop 100
- 26 Canadian peaks
- 27 Taylor Swift discography
- 28 Bon Jovi
- 29 Miley Cyrus discography
- 30 Kelly Clarkson discography
- 31 Brad Paisley
- 32 CAN albums
- 33 George Strait discography
- 34 Canadian Albums
- 35 Australian charts
Orphaned non-free media (File:Stupid-Boy.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Stupid-Boy.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to address the issue we seem to be having on discography formats. I know you don't seem to like the discographies having bolded album titles, but this is, however the correct format. I have noticed in the past you have tried color-coded discographies and things of that sort as well; I like that you have creative ideas, but they need to remain consistent on every page. So therefore, the titles need to be bolded. I will continue to revert them back to bold because this is the correct way. CloversMallRat (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am going by what I was told, and that is that discography titles are suppose to be bolded. She also told me to solve the dilemma by telling you about it, since you clearly won't stop removing the bold. I'm going to see if she will try talking to you, because you aren't going to listen to me. CloversMallRat (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would also like to add that while that page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style doesn't speak of bold, the samples given have bolded titles. They are therefore intended to have bolded titles. And no, I didn't just go and change them to bold either - they've been that way, you can look over it yourself. I guess that pretty much clarifies that. CloversMallRat (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is vital to bold every album. Please see featured Wikipedia article discographies such as Diamond Rio discography for reference. I understand your anger and frustration, but please follow the manditory rules that are on this website or you do not belong here. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I completely agree. You have to follow what the guidelines are, this website would be horribly unorganized if everybody just did whatever they themselves though looked ok. CloversMallRat (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would not do it yet. I don't really like the idea of the way the Reba McEntire singles table is split to be honest. I think it's rather confusing. There all in the same section, including the guest singles and other charted songs. Regular discographies just have 1 singles table and I think that's the way to do it to be honest. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Montgomery Gentry discography
The Canadian #1's for December 30, 2005 and January 6, 2006 aren't missing. R&R used to "freeze" their charts for two weeks at the end of the year prior to 2006.
It was definitely a single. Billboard's chart listing says "digital", which means it was shipped to radio as a digital single. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is a CD single of it out there, and this article verifies that it was indeed sent to radio as a single. The Bubbling Under peak was most likely the result of downloads. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- The Bubbling Under peak is downloads only. The country singles peak is all official. I had made a mistake on her discography and thought that there was a bigger gap between its entry and re-entry. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Kings of Leon discography
Hi, i would look to commend and thank you for your contribution to the page, but i have reverted it. I feel a bit bad about doing this, because it is obvious you put a fair wack of time and effort into it. The thing is, this page was an inch away from going for FLC (i recommend you check out the links i'm posting here), i'd spent a fair while working on it today, doing what is expected to reach Featured List status. Anyway, your edits have basically undone all of the work. A few things which were not very helpful; FL's require citations/references to be in-line, the Discog guidelines also specifically state that this is preferred (on top of the fact every single currently Featured discography has this present). You have removed certifications, which is a big no-no! As i can see someone above me on your talk page has told you that album names should be bold on a discography page. MOS:DATE states we can either use: eg. 7 December 2008 or December 7, 2008. Changing this was irrelevant. The EPs had references to verify their existence basically, this was requested in a FLC i am currently undertaking for the Midnight Oil discography. I recommend that you do go through the list of Featured discographies and work out their style and stick to it, because i would hate to see this happening to you again. I know myself a lot of time and effort goes into making major edits like you did, if you could just stick to the correct methods then your contributions would be well appreciated. I hope this has helped. Thank you and sorry. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 09:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, you want to play it that way. I'll lay it out simply for you;
- MOS states that numbers 9 or below should be written, so #8 → NUMBER EIGHT
- A statement that i wrote such as improving on their previous chart performance in both the United States and abroad has to have evidence following it, to back up the claim. You can't just remove that and state it is a clean up, it isn't, it's removing sourced material which is aiming at gaining the article notability.
- Specific countries can not be generalised into several countries, they need to be specified.
- I know the lead was not perfect, it was a work in progress, you've come along and chopped it up like you would a carrot, not like you would someone elses hard work. And you call me rude?????????????????
- CITATIONS MUST BE CITED WITHIN THE TABLE. Can i explain this any simpler? Do not remove them.
- YOU have also removed MULTIPLE necessary and compulsory citations.
- Certifications HAVE to have citations.
- Certifications HAVE to be in the same tables as the albums or singles. I don't agree with this, but it's the guidelines/policies we must follow.
- Again, dates do not matter (November 1, 2005 or 1 November 2005), why bother?
- Formats are always requested to be added when going under a FLC. Why remove them?
- Labels were RCA in the US and Hand Me Down abroad = we use the home country's release. Do not just copy the information from another wikipedia page, it has been researched.
- Notes at the bottom of tables are required to be small.
- I explained, the references were purposely added for the EPs because they are required to verify the release. Do not remove them.
- I like what you've done with the music video table.
- You are more than welcome to add to what was done, making actual improvements, but you have butchered this list.
- I will be returning in 24 hours to revert it if you haven't already done it by then, again - i'm not telling you to piss off, i'm just saying what you have done so far - has destroyed it.
- Don't turn this on me for being rude or whatever, you have removed a LOT of material that is relevant, citations and all, it has gone downhill. I will also return in 24 hours with an apology, most likely. Good day.
Okay, i've given you 10 days to work out what you're doing wrong, you have not improved - now it is time for this to stop. Your reverts will now be tagged as vandalism and reverted. If you continue, i will look into further actions, such as admin intervention. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 06:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've replied on my talk page to save copying it all out in here again. Cheers. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 07:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Australian country charts
Just letting you know, I've begun a discussion at Talk:2009 in country music about whether or not we should include the Australian country charts. I can't find a bit of information on the company that publishes the charts, so I don't think they're notable. Other users, so far, seem to be agreeing. Since you're the one who added the Australian positions, I thought you might want to know about the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
1. We shouldn't use Hot Digital Songs, Top 40 Mainstream, Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks, and other similar charts. since those are component charts — in other words, their positions factor into a larger chart. Hot Digital is used to determine Hot 100, for example, so Hot Digital Songs positions shouldn't be used unless that's the only chart the song entered. For instance, we can say that Mark Wills' version of "What Hurts the Most" peaked at #51 on Hot Digital Songs, since that's the only chart it entered. This subpage has a list of which Billboard charts are acceptable and which aren't. 2. There doesn't seem to be a consensus yet. When we did Carrie Underwood discography, the certifications were in their own table, but they stayed in the albums table for Diamond Rio discogrpahy which is also FL. I don't think there's a set criterion yet. 3. It seems to be acceptable according to the talk on WP:CHARTS, since it accurately displays which charts it's reporting, unlike top40charts.com . However, Acharts.us does report some non-notable charts like United World Chart, so it should be used with caution. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- AC is notable because it's the "main" chart for the AC format, like Mainstream Rock Tracks is the "main" chart for Rock. Hot Adult Top 40 and Mainstream Top 40 are secondary charts; in other words, their positions are used to determine Hot AC, like Hot Digital Songs is used to determine Hot 100. If a song charted on Adult Top 40 but not Hot AC Tracks, then yes, you can include the Adult Top 40 peak. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Kings of Leon discography peer review
I just posted to the peer review request that was made. If I understand correctly, you and Kiac have a dispute over content. Peer reviews are not the manner in which to resolve these. You should make a request for a third opinion, which is how a dispute between two editors is typically resolved. I've posted this message to Kiac's talkspace as well. Thanks. hornoir (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Please stop adding the Adult Top 40 back on the Carrie's single chart. It's not allowed, and doesn't need to be there. "Some Hearts" charted on the Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks, so therefore, it's not needed. Only added the chart when it's the only place a single has charted. In this case, don't! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- The Adult Contemporary chart plays everything, not just pop songs. The Adult Top 40, however, I have no idea what the difference is between the AC and itself. But, the Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks is not permited. And, no, I don't think they should be removed, there notable charts. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well if you go here, it'll tell you why we can't use this chart. I personally think the Top 40 chart is ridiculous because it doesn't help boost a songs chart movement. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
2000 in country music
I added them back because most other "years in country music" articles include them and because there was no consensus to remove them. Notability is different for albums and singles and many low-peaking albums have articles. Eric444 (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's only 22 albums that peaked below #50 and 9 of them have articles. I don't see the harm in including them, especially so that the ones with articles can be linked from their release year. Eric444 (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Considering that 96 albums are listed right now, I don't think adding 22 more is going to hurt anyone. It's possible that the albums without articles may one day have one, since they're by notable artists like John Berry, Lee Greenwood, Roy Orbison and Freddy Fender. Eric444 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- For instance, I think all of John Berry's studio albums should have articles. Two of them peaked below #50, but I don't think that's any reason not to create an article for them. In 2005, Collin Raye's Twenty Years and Change album peaked at #73, while Cory Morrow's Nothing Left to Hide peaked at #42. Does that make Collin Raye's album the less notable one? Is Patsy Cline's Gold (which peaked at #43 in 2005) more likely to have an article than Kathy Mattea's Right Out of Nowhere (which peaked at #73 the same year)? Eric444 (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to yell at you or get you upset, I just don't think you like change. I'm sorry but this is how we want the certifications formatted. Having two separate areas for the certifications just isn't working. It's making the album tables much longer in length than they should be, and we have noticed that this is the way other Pop disocgraphies are doing it. I understand your concerns, but it's gonna stay this way. I'm not rule crazy either, I'm just stating things so people don't ask me, where the hell did you get this idea from or anything stupid like that. So please, stop reverting Reba's page. I haven't looked at her disocgraphy yet, but I'm sure you reverted my edits again. I'm asking you kindly to please stop reverting it.
- He already told you exactly what I'm going to. Two certifications seperate isn't cutting it anymore. Just because you don't like it, DOES NOT give you the right to keep reverting it. Everywhere else is like this now, so stop before you get yourself in trouble. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Kelly Clarkson Discography
Before Your Love was a single, in fact, the first single 3 weeks before A Moment Like This went on radio (The video was first as well). It should not be removed from the list, as the list is for ALL SINGLES, not just charted singles. Alankc (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If charts aren't out yet, then puytting chart info on songs is Crystal-Ball under Wikipedia guidelines and should be added to article once the charts are out and information can be cited. Also, Adding songs that weren't in the top 100 will get you alot of slack from other editors, even though there are top 200 charts out there, most only consider the top 100 notable (I don't personally agree with that one, but that's how it is on here). Alankc (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop messing around with the Gaga discography. We are promoting it for FL. Basically your edits, though in good faith, is reverting references and adding links which donot correspond to the peaks in concern, like when you used Allmusic for US peak, though there is a perfectly good discography page for the artist in the Billboard website. Please i request you to stop this and assume faith in others edits. --Legolas (talktome) 03:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about the other ref (acharts). I didnot notice it at first, but lets use Billboard as of now. There are too many countries listed under the Singles section and will be removed after a consensus is reached at the talk page. Untill then jsut revert back to the Billboard link. --Legolas (talktome) 04:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Songs that don't actually make the charts dont belong on pages under chart rankings ( WP:CHARTS ). Footnotes are good enough for them as the tables are for CHARTED songs. For someone who's been using Wikipedia for a couple of years, you should know this, but looking at your talk page history, you've never actually read all the Wikip[edia guidelines, or talk pages on pages you edit. You also dont seem to check edits when you revert.. there may jsut be other edits to fix tables and align information properly that you undo as well. Alankc (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
In spite of you wish to believe, there is no 118 on a top 100 chart. songs that 'bubble under' did not chart, and do not get listed as charted.. stop changing charts on discography's adding non-charting songs to actual charts as per Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Hot_100.2FBubbling_Under Alankc (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- you're right about it being an extension of the chart, but it's NOT THE ACTUAL CHART! a top 100 schart only goes to 100, not to 118.. what part of this do you not understand?
This is why people create a seperate list for bubbling under, because a song that bubles under DID NOT CHART. did you pass math in school? 118 does not fall within 1-100. If you have a problem with the common sense of this, take it up with a wiki administrator You ignore all discussions and consensus os the situation, which prompte3d the creation of the bubbling under list, you don't follow wikipedia guidelines, get a grip already Alankc (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Alan, the link you provided is clearly not a consensus. You simply can't enforce something when you have no backing (?). I understand your frustration. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop reverting changes to add tables without any citation. Basically what you are doing is simply adding unsourced content and removing citation tags. This is not acceptable in Wikipedia and will be considered vandalism. I request you again to not do such edits. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
|The Original Barnstar|
|Hey there, for your excellent work in keeping List of Canadian number-one albums of 2009 updated week after week, I give you this barnstar; keep up the excellent work, it's been a valuable resource for me. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)|
LeAnn Rimes discography
Please quit removing the Pop 100 peaks. You're basing it only on your own opinion that "they're not important" when really, they're no less important than any other chart peak. If you think they should be removed, take it to the talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see no reason to remove the Pop 100. Sure, she only had a couple low peaks on it, but many artists have only a couple low Hot/Pop 100 peaks. For instance, Jeff Carson had a #97 and a couple of #101s. John Wesley Ryles had a #83 and never touched the Hot 100 again. Michael Peterson had an #86 and a #101. Does that mean we should remove their Hot 100 peaks just because "they aren't important"? I don't think so. Furthermore, what you're doing is deliberately removing sourced information, which is not good. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been asked to look at the rather slow edit war that you're involved with at LeAnn Rimes discography, so first up, I need to know if there's consensus to remove the Pop 100 list, which appears to be a good reliable source of data, whether this discography is unique in containing data from the Pop 100 list, or whether you're removing the list on purely aesthetic grounds. If you could please explain your edits here before making any further edits to the article, as I don't want to have to go down the route of page protection and/or blocking users here, and I'm sure once you explain your position, agreement can be made with TenPoundHammer on the way forward. Yours, Nick (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the "please, at least 40" edit summary, instead of something ignorant. But, the thing is, 40 is too big for a column that only has like 2 or 3 letters it its display name. So, I compromised the 25 to 30. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Where did the Canadian chart positions stuff come from? Haha! I wasn't even talking about that silly! :] EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't. Billboard will still be archived on their website, and Mediabase doesn't have an archive. We should stop listing the charts for Canada then if R&R is to cease publication, unless Billboard picks up that chart. Also, I'm trusting some friends with Billboard subscriptions to help me out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Like I said, Mediabase doesn't have an archive so we can't verify the chart positions once they're gone, and the only place to find the full chart is in USA Today. Also, it would maintain a level of consistency since all other articles use Billboard and only Billboard. The Billboard website will still be up, and you never know — they may change their site to make the full country chart available, and they may take over the R&R Canadian charts. Let's wait until next week to see what happens. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Just because the chart no longer exists doesn't mean that the positions shouldn't be in discographies anymore. They're just as verifiable as any other position, and the fact that the chart is gone is immaterial. You wouldn't delete RPM positions just because RPM is gone, would you? And why is it only Pop 100 positions? You never have a problem with Hot 100 or Hot AC in country discographies. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Some people aren't as dedicated to seeking out all the Hot 100/Bubbling Under positions, that's the only reason I can think of as to why some articles don't make it. Even the lowest of peaks should always be included. You wouldn't omit the one single in someone's career that spent one week at #59 on the country charts, would you? Or the fact that only one single in an artist's career made the Hot 100 (see John Wesley Ryles, Confederate Railroad, Little Texas discography, etc.)? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Taylor Swift discography
Okay, seriously...you either need to learn how to read and stop re-adding and re-adding and re-adding those flippin' charts. Just because you in general think the Top 40 Mainstream belongs, doesn't mean so. For the third time, User:Explicit/Billboard inclusion says NO for Top 40 Mainstream, and yet, for some reason, you still keep adding them! Also, WP:Record charts says a maximum of 10 national charts, not 13 or 14. Please learn how to read. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Why do you keep removing the peak for the Jennifer Nettles version? It did get to #107 on the Hot 100, separately from the just-Bon Jovi version. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Miley Cyrus discography
Please do not revert my hours of work without scrutinizing whether or not my provided sources are helpful to the article or not. As for the charts, we are to keep official album/singles charts only. It's futile to have country as well as other unnecessary charts within the article. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have to warn you that if you keep reverting my edits without pointing out mistakes within my edits, you will soon be reported.--Harout72 (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kelly Clarkson discography
Please stop changing the tsables. Already Gone does not need to be lsited twice, it's under singles as the release date is next week and the proper templates are in it's article. You also keep removing #70 from the pop chart, it ranked at #70 early in the year when the album was released. Alankc (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
My best guess is because "The World" reached #1 on R&R before they merged with Billboard in August 2006 and began using Neilsen/BDS data to complile their chart. Eric444 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Since we've been using the Jam! Canoe charts for years, it's probably best to keep using their chart, especially since the Canadian Update only lists the top 25 albums. Eric444 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)