User talk:Iknow23

Talk page policy: I prefer to see both sides of a discussion together on one page. If I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise.

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on If That's Your Boyfriend (He Wasn't Last Night), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because If That's Your Boyfriend (He Wasn't Last Night) is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting If That's Your Boyfriend (He Wasn't Last Night), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. HarlandQPitt (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, regarding your edits to the article i do believe they are in WP:good faith but nevertheless they have been reverted. Please take a look at Talk:Battlefield (album) where i have given a general reasoning for my own edits and reasons why my edits should not be reverted. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I noticed you've been contributing to the Fefe Dobson article and I was hoping you would agree to clean up the article, so the said article could reach a good article status. It's simple just try and find sources to her debut album and sophomore unreleased album, by using the Google search. I only cleaned up the early section and didn't have time for the other sections but your HELP would be kindly appreciated.

Thank You! Greene Leigh Online (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Fringe (TV series) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Talk:Kiss & Tell (Selena Gomez & the Scene album)#Track listing to solve the edit problems with the track listings format. Let's put it to vote. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd about that IP user from Florida. It's the second time he/she has deleted sourced material from the article without explanation. I've left the appropriate warnings, so that if it continues one of us (or anyone else following the article) can seek admin action.--VMAsNYC (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Unfortunately, people edit ALL THE TIME without explanation. It is definately disconcerting.

Iknow23 (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. They don't need to have explanations if it is noncontroversial or the thinking is clear ... but pure deletions of sourced material? BTW, do you want me to be the one putting back what you call the confusing material? Without it I fear someone may think Fefe is competing for the award (looks like one magazine already made that mistake!).--VMAsNYC (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as you first conributed it, you are welcome to the honor to restore it. THAT was/is part of my concern also. People reading that Fefe is at a competition may ASSUME that she is also COMPETING in it. Hopefully it can be made clear that she is NOT [as I understand?]
:Iknow23 (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got inspired. Check it out. Does that work??
Iknow23 (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Good enough for government work, I think at this late hour. The oddity is this -- depending on what you read, it is either a Battle of the Bands at which she happens to be singing, or I guess it is her singing, and there happens to be a battle of the bands at the same time! I think what happened was it was always pitched the first way at first (probably because they didn't know who the singers would be), and now LiveNation is leaing the other way no doubt because they expect that Fefe and Cobra S will be better sells than the bands competing. At least that is my take, if you look at all the article in chrono order. Good work on catching the date mistakes -- missed them myself.--VMAsNYC (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you are right. Fefe & Cobra are the "BIG NAMES" and should get a better "draw."

"I guess it is her singing, and there happens to be a battle of the bands at the same" Event. < That's what I'm trying to say.

I said its a CONCERT with...FIRST. Then a "by the way" there is ALSO a competition that will be there too. AND if anyone reading it knows anything about Fefe, or reads the first line that she "is a Canadian singer-songwriter" they may be able to figure out that she wouldn't be a NYC Artist competing. Although people call me Mr. DETAIL I don't think we need to put the detail that the CONTESTANTS will perform interspaced between the "CONCERT" acts. [If I understand]
Iknow23 (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep ... though it looks as though at least some of the members of the competing bands aren't native Americans.--VMAsNYC (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OH! So then they should rename it from: "The Best Breakout New York City Artist Award" to "The Best Breakout Artist Award Given Out in NYC"!!! LOL < couldn't resist a bit of texting lingo here
Iknow23 (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In "Falling Down" you put that it cannot be accessed in there. Yes it can if you have a subscription, so does that count? -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, a "verifiable" reference should be able to be viewed by all. I would recommend to find a different source or link for this information.
Iknow23 (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In aCharts it shows the entry position so that can be used. Oh, and I added its current position, please web archive it. I would do it myself, but I have no idea how to do that. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice if you click [I think] ANYWHERE on the number 97 listing at Billboard it opens a dropdown with ADDITIONAL info! Unfortunately the url does NOT change so can't link directly to the "expanded" view. I'm sure any archive [if allowed-see below] would just show the "regular" number 97 view.
I clicked on the Canadian chart link in the expanded view but can only access chart positions 1-50 [it is 82] so it can't be DIRECTLY viewed there [by me anyway] but that's just me, "Mr. DETAIL" haha checking everything out. It is NOT really necessary because IS IT shown in THAT "expanded" view.
Similarly with the Digital Songs I can only see positions 1-40 [it is 55]
I CAN see it on Heatseekers Songs at position 14, by clicking on the tab [11-20] and AGAIN when I click on the 14 position a dropdown opens with the additional info.
As regards to archive, in my experience NOT all websites allow you to archive them, but that doesn't stop anyone from at least trying. This is the archive site that I have been using webcitation.org archive form. Give it a try and let me know how you make out. It you have any problems, I'll try it then.
If a GOOD ref link can be found, it looks like a lot of ADDITIONAL chart info can be added to the page.
Looks like you could add a column to the Charts for "Debut". The word "Position" as in "Peak Position" probably is unnecessary being generally understood. Especially if debut or other columns are added, probably don't need to see the word "Position" added to each one.
Iknow23 (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not see it. Doing it right now. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- Iknow23 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heatseekers lists the top singles by groups that have never had top 50 single. I can't say that there is a compelling consensus against its inclusion, but not a strong one for it either. It's more or less a marketing tool for the perennial "also-ran" and the occasional new group. I won't take it out again, but I'm willing to bet that it will be removed by multiple editors.—Kww(talk) 01:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. My thinking is that it is a chart by Billboard, a recognized industry leader, so it is "encyclopedic" to include any of their charts where it is shown. It is verifiable.
Iknow23 (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I need to join the discussion if it's resolved lol? Jayy008 (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know that... Well I don't think it's charted on the Top 40 that's why I added it! I will get involved with the question when I get a spare second. Jayy008 (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to restore it. It charted at #91 on the Dutch Top 100. Component charts are allow if it doesn't chart on the main chart which is didn't. Jayy008 (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, yes I definately agree now highly confusing!! As soon as I see it chart on the Top 40 I will personally delete the Top 100 listing! Jayy008 (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joy (Fefe Dobson album) Understood! I think... Greene Leigh Online (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Sophomore vs. second situation, I agree with you this isn't the simple:wikipedia and therefore depending on the subject of the article's origin (it might have been more challenging if Fefe was a British singer), sophomore is preferably suitable in this case. Greene Leigh Online (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't know if this helps, and I'm sure there are mistakes, but I took a stab at it anyway. I assume Latin, Christian, and Jazz songs don't have any impact on the Hot 100. I'm not sure about Dance airplay and sales, but even if they do count into it, it's very neglible. --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• BILLBOARD HOT 100
  • Hot 100 Airplay
    • Mainstream Top 40
    • Adult Contemporary
    • Adult Top 40
    • Rock Songs
      • Alternative
      • Mainstream Rock
      • Active Rock
      • Heritage Rock
      • Triple A
    • Hot Country Songs
    • (Hot Dance Airplay)??? <--- this is a Hot 100 component. - eo (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hot Singles Sales
    • (Hot Dance/Electronic Singles Sales)???
  • Hot Digital Songs
    • Hot Digital Tracks
  • Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs
    • Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay
      • Mainstream R&B/Hip-Hop
      • Adult R&B
      • Rhythmic
    • Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Sales
    • Hot Rap Songs

• Hot Dance Club Songs

• Hot Latin Songs
  • Regional Mexican Airplay
  • Latin Pop Airplay
  • Tropical Airplay
  • Latin Rhythm Airplay

• Christian Songs
  • Hot Christian AC Songs
  • Christian CHR
  • Christian Rock
  • Soft AC/Inspirational
  • Hot Gospel Songs

• Jazz Songs

YES, I like that. Perhaps you should post it at Wikipedia talk:Record charts for discussion and revision? —Iknow23 (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for overwriting your last edits there (got edit conflict and slow database access). I shall stop for now. Please clean up that article if you can. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I happened by and thought I'd do a little cleanup while there :)—Iknow23 (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Naturally (Selena Gomez & the Scene song). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naturally (Selena Gomez & the Scene song). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello. i would like to invite you to the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Leaks to offer your opinion as you are a regular contributor to album and song pages. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the billboard charts, launch the visualizer.--Loverdrive (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please join this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mariah_Carey_discography#Glitter_and_Merry_Christmas

Your input will be greately appreciated. Thanks Jayy008 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will do but is there not a limit to how many certification you can add to the discography? Just wandering... Jayy008 (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I don't work with Discographies that often so I don't really know. I'd appreciate it if you tell me if you find out.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know where to put it. I know Record Charts is for charts etc and the certifications but where would I put a discography question? Jayy008 (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm. Do you think this might be a good place? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians because on it's project page at WP:MUSICIAN#Contributing thay discuss Discographies (or the lack thereof) by offering a template that includes "needs-discography" —Iknow23 (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DISCOG#Content subsection "Per-release" #6 only states "A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested,..." but that is RECORD CHARTS, I see nothing about a limit on certifications. Therefore, I would recommend for you to ask your question at their Talk page.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user, did you have a good xmas/new year? i was actually wondering if we've reached a consensus about what to do with single chronologies for featured artists? (Beyonce ft Gaga Video Phone and Gaga ft Beyonce Telephone) Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes & Thank You. Hope you had a great xmas / new year also.
I'm unsure if we could truly call it a consensus, but there hasn't been any dispute (edits) for a while now in their infoboxes. Note that they just state: "Lady Gaga chronology" and "Beyoncé chronology". The word "singles" has been removed. In the Project Talk page there was an example of this type of resolution found elsewhere (in at least one other article). I am quite satisfied with it this way and would welcome this to be 'the consensus'. Based upon its acceptance in these two cases + the prior example, I will edit future occurrences that I come across in a similar fashion and will cite these examples of an 'accepted' resolution.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I will accept for example "Lady Gaga singles chronology" ONLY where ALL the infobox items (prior, present and future) are released by her.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mariah Carey discography#Splitting the article Jayy008 (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I please ask why you insist on having an inline citation in the personnel section of the Telephone (song) article? It's not necessary, and there was a hidden note explaining where the information came from. Please see featured articles such as 4 Minutes (Madonna song) and Irreplaceable. –Chase (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", it is my position that Track list and Personnel need to cite references as well. I do not understand that you say these sections are granted an exception? As with other references they should be displayed on the article page and not require one to click edit to read a hidden note.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information is obviously coming from somewhere, no? "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable"? It is. I've explained where I'm getting my information from. Please again see the example articles I have mentioned – they are viewed as some of the best song articles on Wikipedia, so obviously they're doing something right. It would be totally unnecessary to have ^[#] randomly plopped somewhere in the section. –Chase (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is being displayed on the article page as unreferenced material. Other cases of unreferenced material could come from 'somewhere' as well. Just because something is unreferenced does not mean it is just a figment of someone's imagination yet 'we' often delete it as 'unsourced'. How would you tell these TWO types of unreferenced material apart? REAL vs. FAKE?
Why is it wrong to display on the page where it came from? —Iknow23 (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with sourcing the information. The problem is with where the citation would fit in the section. It would be totally unnecessary to have a random ^[#] just lying around with nothing to attach it to. For editors who might wish to remove it as unsourced, there is a hidden note explaining where it comes from – this is exactly the reason the hidden note is there.

May I please ask where you propose to place the citation? –Chase (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would place it where I did before, as I've seen this done in other articles. But I am open to suggestion as my point really is that it should just be there somewhere.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where you originally placed it, it was not attached to anything. There is no proper place to put a citation which is why one is unnecessary. Please see a number of FA-Class articles such as Hollaback Girl, Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song), What You Waiting For?, Irreplaceable, and 4 Minutes (Madonna song). None of these articles—which, again, are viewed as some of the best created by the Wikipedia community—have citations in the personnel section, because they aren't necessary. –Chase (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All those article sections without Wikipedia:Verifiability marked {{unreferenced section|date=January 2010}} accordingly. SunCreator (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it done. Sourcing without a floating ref citation number by just putting it right there.
Source: The Fame Monster (Liner Notes) Interscope Records (2009)
I believe that resolves your objection and satisfies displaying the source.—Iknow23 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't understand what you meant on the talk page, I do now. I don't think it should be allowed because in all respect it is a component chart. If it was the UK, it should be allowed because soundtracks aren't allowed. Although saying that, R&B could be considered a component. I will not object to it being added but because of the problems with component charts before, I think someone would remove it to be honest. Bring it up in a separate discussion. Then there will be a clear consensus on whether the soundtrack chart is allowed when it charts on the main chart. Jayy008 (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you give your views on the following: Billboard Brasil / An Official Brasilian Singles Chart?

Thanks. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continuously keep on rearranging the sections? Haven't I already explained that this is done in accordance to the Gaga articles and GA, where the critical and commercial receptions come before everything. Also I hope you know that one of the criteria of GA is to have the prose flowing as a single content, not having tracklisting or credits in between, which is hardly possible if one reception section is suddently moved at the end. I'm just going to say this in the politest way possible, I really appreaciate what you are doing for the article by reverting the unsourced content, but please stop the re-arrangement. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me that did it that time. I believe you mean Revision as of 12:47, January 28, 2010 Rp662.—Iknow23 (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you removed what I wrote about Blah Blah Blah being a top ten in the US and a top three in Canada. It isn't correct to refer Blah Blah Blah as a top ten hit in North America because there is no "North American Chart," and it only reached the top ten in Canada and the US, which represent only a section of the North American continent. In addition, why did you remove what was written about Blah Blah Blah debuting at #1 on Canadian HDS? That IS where it debuted, and it DID debut with 16,000 copies. If it's relevant and necessary to write the HDS and sales info about BBB in the USA, then it's also relevant to include that information about Canada. Chele9211 02:36 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to Revision as of 19:39, January 26, 2010 by Bradcro. If so the editor is Bradco, not I.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks! Chele9211 17:38 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Should the article not be redirected since it is not a confirmed single yet that is what the page was created for? The sources all speculate a release but this is not necessarily going to happen. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am too lenient? But I am OK with the page existing as a "song" as we do have the 'song' template available because there is some chart info, reviews and about a music video. If it is actually released as a "single" the template can be changed to reflect that.
However, I would not dispute a redirect. —Iknow23 (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's no problem. This is just reminicent of Beyoncé's Broken-Hearted Girl. I don't know if you were involved with the dispute over that too... but its definately worth redirecting i think. I will have a go at it tomorrow. I'm a bit tired at the moment. I just think its too premature right now. There's an annoyingly distrubing trend of pages being created as soon a single charts and considering the likes of BPI and RIAA said in their end of year reports that sales of album tracks (not singles) will increase in 2010 this could cause a problem and headache for us. 01:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't believe I was at Broken-Hearted Girl. Yeah, I'm too tired at the moment to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. I guess that there are 'Release histories' all over with the earliest (or only) listing being "Airplay". I admit to being confused for a bit in thinking that any song that has charted IS a single. But I've learned that that is NOT correct. Using Amazon for example, when it is an Album track, the song is shown as being FROM an album, like THIS. And when released as a single, the 'Album' name is the same as the single (though not a 'Title track') instead of the album it came from LIKE THIS. The FIRST has an Original Release Date: December 9, 2003 and the SECOND has an Original Release Date: September 9, 2003. What matters most is NOT which is first but that they are different.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the confusion is because Album tracks can be bought individually AND CHART even when NOT a single.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The past release date most likely came from http://www.discogs.com/release/2098446, it is also most likely fiction - same with the cover perhaps? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Ok....But if one looks closely enough at the Discogs, it has:

Format: CD, Single, Promo

For Promotional Use Only - Not For Sale
So it is NOT a sales release.—Iknow23 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that makes sense. SunCreator (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I shoulda said thanks for the info.—Iknow23 (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Not so sure about the cover. This http://www.lady-gaga.de/releases/detail/product/162301/0/telephone-feat--beyonc--/ seems to be official. At bottom of screen log and '© Universal Music GmbH'. SunCreator (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that they are most likely using the Promotional cover as a placeholder. It will be confirmed when the date arrives if it does not change.—Iknow23 (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please join this discussion Jayy008 (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the edit. Somehow the link was showing greatest gainer as position 2. No idea why that happened. That new Billboard site is so crappy. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was sure that there was just some confusion. Yes, I hate how Billboard is so inconsistent within itself, one example being you can see a song on a chart but when you search DIRECTLY for the song it says something like "This song has never charted." Augh, frustrating to the max.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I know. The whole website is now full of contradictions. One such example is "We Belong Together". Billboard says it never charted, however got the accolade for being the song of the decade. I seriously hate teh new site and its browsing options. So many old and archived news items are not available anymore, including reviews, live performances, new releases etc. By the way, do you want me to develop the "Video Phone" article like I did for the Gaga ones? At present the article is quite stub-class IMO and needs a revamp. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are unfortunately 'stuck' with Billboard. If there was an alternative, I'd suggest putting it on WP:BADCHARTS as being unreliable! HA! Yes, that'd be great to improve "Video Phone". I agree with your assessment of it's current condition.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Atlest they could have left that old sites as it is or the billbaord.com, but alas. Also, I'll add the Video Phone article to User:Legolas2186/Sandbox3. I will need your help though in developipng it, since your more expertised in the Beyonce articles like User:Efe. See if you can find any source explaining the background of the song and add it in User:Legolas2186/reviews. Hah! Secretly I can't wait for the day Billboard reverts back to the original website, seeing the amount of negative feedback it got for the site. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Some time ago, I sent Billboard an email giving them the specific url to their current chart displaying a song and/or album and the specific url to their search results page for the SAME song and/or album that showed the dreaded "This song [or album] has never charted]. I never got a reply and re-checked the results for a period and I never saw it corrected. As for developing articles, that's not really my strong point. I do a lot of FACTCHECKING in Peak charts and some bit of restating, page cleanup, and actually removing more material as 'unsourced' than adding new material. Overzealous fans inflate peaks and sales, which is of course unacceptable. I do get involved, even starting at times, some discussions on the Project pages as you have seen. I strive for consistency.—Iknow23 (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okies no problem. I can make any article GA quality in minutes (lol, my reputation in Wikipedia), hence Video Phone will be developed in no time once I start. He he. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Wikipedia is very fortunate to have you :)—Iknow23 (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-P --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

haha. But I was serious.—Iknow23 (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too buddy, me too. He he. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have developed quite a bit of bit. Feel free to look at it in the above mentioned sandbox and give it a copy-edit if you like. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did! I looked at some of it, so far and had a few suggestions. But you probably already noticed that. ;)—Iknow23 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add this to the lead of Telephone (song) it's not in the chart performance or Charts and certifcations section. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't The Netherlands the official name for the area shown by the Dutch chart?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see. Thanks. SunCreator (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :)—Iknow23 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you oppose how the consensus has been developed? Its just that it appeared that user's had different opinions and there appeared to be seperate ideas about the infobox vs the release history. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how they can be separated? We need to be consistent within the article. Indeed, many many infoboxes have the link '(see Release history)' in them.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is only us that are discussion this particular point lets bring it here until we've resolved it together. The reason why I propose it is because airplay actually affects it's chart position posibly bigger than buying it in some cases, so it should count as an official release. In places like the UK, Australia, airplay doesn't need to be known in release history or infobox, just in the prose. Jayy008 (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'm off now when you reply I will reply to you Thursday afternoon (GMT time) Jayy008 (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A single doesn't have to chart. An album track (song, not single) can chart due to Digital downloads as an album track. So, if an album track charts we should call it a single? Charting (or not) does not apply here.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that last post Iknow23. SunCreator (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned that at all, you're replying using something I didn't say to make your argument valid. I don't think the rule should be cancelled like you said on the discussion because it's only the U.S. that needs special treatment. Putting "Airplay" for the UK would be pointless because Airplay doesn't contribute to chart position, the airplay chart isn't available to the public, need I go on? In the United States a song can reach #1 on just Airplay alone, there is no need to change things we all know are singles just because they didn't get a digital release, that is bias. The U.S. can release things however they want for their singles, it's nothing to do with us. If a song is released for separate download in the U.S. then that should be the release date obviously but if it isn't then it should be the only thing it's released to that affects it's chart position as a whole. If this goes ahead and it would only affect the U.S. then alot of pages will have to be moved and removed from discographys, creating false information claiming things aren't singles because they were not released to buy will make Wikipedia invalid for information. Please don't reply about charting from album again, I would much rather you reply to what I am saying. You have to see my point? Please reply on my talk-page Jayy008 (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are still saying the same thing.
I say that charting (or not) does not make it a single. It can still chart as a song or Album track.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done an example of what a page would look like with these changes, basically saying it was never released when it was because of Wikipedia's new guidlines. H.A.T.E.U. Jayy008 (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the label confirms it's a single, so it is. Simple as that. Jayy008 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

No, they have failed to complete the 'singles' process if it is only available as an Album track (song). A 'single' MUST be available INDEPENDENTLY from the album (except historically for Greece, etc.) US labels have historically set a separate digital download date for a single. I do not think we should reward their laziness. Wikipedia does NOT always put things as ORIGINALLY stated. Like we don't use "TiK ToK", but we do mention it. Similarly, we can say that the label said it is a single, even if we do not.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But my point is, it's not for us to decide. It's up to the label what they call a single! Why can't airplay be a reliable format for a country that uses airplay as it's main ingredient for charting? I agree with you on one point, it's lazy and stupid, but it's nothing to do with us, it's their problem. For an Encyclopedia claiming a song wasn't a single just because it only recieved radio format would seem to not give correct information. Jayy008 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agsin it doesn't matter about charting. I could agree to it being called a "Radio date" but NOT a Release date as historically 'Release' means it is available for purchase. In this case, we are considering singles, so it would have to be available for purchase as a single and not just as an Album track. It is counterintuitive to say it has been released as a single if it cannot be obtained as a single. If someone tells me it is avail as a single but I go to buy it and it ONLY is avail as an Album track, I'd tell them, 'No, I couldn't get it as a single. I could only get it as an Album track.'—Iknow23 (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio release would suffice. Not Radio date, radio release. Maybe calling for example H.A.T.E.U. calling it third and single single off Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel released as a radio single only? That seems fair. Aslo in the release history box call the banner "Radio release history" Jayy008 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we've seen that it is problematic to call Radio "a release". Could call it "Rado date" or "Radio add" Remember these?:

I have witnessed reluctance in naming Radio dates as 'release'. Examples:

• Video Phone (song) "It was sent to U.S. radio on September 22, 2009."
• Telephone (song) "It officially impacted U.S. radio on January 26, 2010."

The word "Release" is not used.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where no INDIVIDUAL digital download separate from the album or CD single, do NOT use a section title of "Release history". Call it instead, "Radio date" or "Radio adds".—Iknow23 (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree a section (==) Radio Adds. Make sure it's written OFFICIALY impacted mainstream radio on blah blah as the *third single* so readers know it's still a single in the eyes of the label. That would suggest that it will only have a radio date and give you all the info you need. I only mean that for songs that have no digital/physical stand-alone release. Jayy008 (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GOOD. But I'd still want something like 'The label calls it a single' and not just us, because I do not. This would ALL be accurate then. It is really Radio adds, and it does officially impact radio (if the stations play it) and it is the label calling it a 'single'.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The label would REALLY have to say it is a single, we are not to infer that just from it having Radio add date(s).—Iknow23 (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I meant for H.A.T.E.U. sorry. If a song is released to radio but hasn't been confirmed as a single, I don't think it should have it's own page (unless it's charted high) let alone have a release history. Jayy008 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TRUE. Charting is relevant to being notable in having an article. Even if 'confirmed as a single' does NOT automatically qualify it for a wiki article.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed I have made a few changes to H.A.T.E.U. but it can be removed from the infobox quite easily and just have "Radio Adds" at the bottom. I think the problem is completely resolved now. FINALLY! lol Jayy008 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSE. But like discussed above, I'd still like it noted that it is the label that is calling it a 'single' with a reliable reference upon the first prose appearance of the word "single" EVEN in the article Lead. Example in this case the ref would be placed DIRECTLY after: "US-only single." The ref (or you) may have a better way to say it then 'The label calls it a single' (that was to clearly make my point above), so I am open to suggestion as to alternate ways of saying basically the same thing.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with just saying "US-only single" or "radio-only single" with a source either official website, label or third official party. Jayy008 (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've said "It's up to the label what they call a single!". I've agreed to go along with that, but want it specifically in the prose (without having to check the references) that it is the label calling it that, not us wikipedians. I think this will also be helpful to other editors that are not willing to accept this. We could just point them RIGHT to the prose (and ref) that the label 'says so'. I still believe these are 'incomplete or quasi-singles' but am willing to say that the label calls them a 'single' if they do so. As all the confusion we and others have had, I think we should ONLY accept them calling it a single from:

• Record label
• Official website

Any 'third' party may be subject to the same confusion that we all have experienced.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for "label or official website" what I don't agree with is saying on the page "Label calls it a single, we here on Wikipedia don't" It has a certain negative feel to it like we're at war on what to call a single, it will look sloppy like we can't make up sufficient guidlines. Jayy008 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I don't mean to really say in the article, "Label calls it a single, we here on Wikipedia don't"!. In a way what you said is true that there are edit wars on 'what to call a single'. In truth it is NOT us making a guideline on what is a single. We are just reporting it as "It's up to the label what they call a single!" So our only guideline, if you will, is to be guided by what the label says.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, yes, simply! I would have no objection to something like this "According to ".... Records" the song was sent to mainstream radio as the official third single in may." OR something? Jayy008 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"According to" sounds fine to me :) I had said above 'you) may have a better way to say it':)—Iknow23 (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then the immediate reference citation to also show they call it a 'single' not just that they sent it to Radio on DATE.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, agree, agree! all problems resolved lol Jayy008 (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yay. Now the hard part...trying to explain this to others! You can start it, I don't think I'm up to it for a bit :P—Iknow23 (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, don't put it on me lol, I've had enough of release dates, what constitutes a single etc to last a life time these past couple of days! Also Billboard Pop songs on the Billboard charts for inclusion is now allowed - for some reason! I can't remember the page, but it's there. So if I add it back will you not revert? Jayy008 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, me too. And it's not over yet, this is just the 'radio only singles' Singles out to radio first, then their own separate (from album) digital release dates and/or CD singles are different.
As to Billboard Pop Songs, I hadn't heard that, so if you can find that please point it out to me.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You happy with the updated version? I couldnot find anything else regarding the inspiration behind the song. Beysus didnot talk about it in any interview? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give you a reply now. I want to review briefly numerous articles before I set about really getting into this one. I just didn't want you to think that you were being ignored.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, no propblem. I appreciate whatever you are doing on the Telephone and Video Phone articles by reverting the chart vandalisms :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm just speeding though 'em and catching all that garbage. Hard to find time to read an entire article :( Glad you understand :) —Iknow23 (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that even if you need an account to view the info, it was allowed to be used on Wikipedia. Like the Magazine references? Jayy008 (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about Print items, but didn't on Online sources until I saw at WP:Access to sources "some online sources may require payment". But in the cases of 'subscription required' or 'payment required', I think we should NOT list it as an url link because MOST won't be able to see it. When I see a link I EXPECT that I can go view it, don't you? I would just list it similar to the Print items, NO Direct url to it. Just give the article title, publication, website name, etc. which can have wikilinks to wiki articles on the publication name or website name. I hope that is clear?—Iknow23 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear, you mean put a ref but a written ref that you can't click? Just write which Music Week issue etc. Jayy008 (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. :)—Iknow23 (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will, thanks! Jayy008 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done it, will you take a look? Blah Blah Blah (song)

I reformatted it to look more like a standard citation with link to Music Week wiki article. Just NO url. Does that look good to you?—Iknow23 (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks for your help! Jayy008 (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it :)—Iknow23 (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't know where it is! All I know it's on a page which lists ALL billboard charts and tells you if they're allowed or not? I will do it quickly now, if you find any others let me know and I will do them in a few days when I'm back on. Jayy008 (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're all done! I may have done one more, alot earlier if I find one I will change it but I've done all the ones I can see. Thanks for your pointing it out! Jayy008 (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where you thinking of Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 6#Component charts, scroll down to:
'The following charts are deemed appropriate for use on wikipedia according to guidelines at WP:record charts' (by Lil-unique1).
If so, I see that no one disputed it.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If true the redirect from Pop Songs to Top 40 Mainstream is incorrect, right. Shouldn't ONLY the Top 40 Mainstream redirect to Pop Songs?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noooo, it's bugging me now, I can't find the page! When I find it, I'll let you know and I won't add it back until then. Jayy008 (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consume this Cheezburgr so that you may continue to edit with a belly full of yummy

⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 06:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yum! Sorry, excuse me for talking with my mouth full! ;)—Iknow23 (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Regarding this edit, just to let you know the thinking behind the extra column is that there will be times to describe extra information - Digital downloads in particular often have multiple versions, main single version, radio edit, live version or remixes. Anyway, leaving it off for now, will see if the column gets required in the future. SunCreator (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I guess I am more used to the way that this section is usually displayed. Just a thought about Remixes though: Sometimes there can be quite many, so I wouldn't put them all in the Release information section, just the Notable ones like "Video Phone (Extended remix)" for example as it has a featured artist, it also charts and is generally known (recognized). As to all the Club remixes, etc. I would like to just see them in their own section, Remixes. For completeness the Remixes section would show them all, don't leave out the ones that are in the Release information section though. How does this sound?—Iknow23 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are not a lot of 'Other details' we could use a Notes, like this

Region	Date	Format
United States	January 19, 2010 [1]	Mainstream airplay
	February 1, 2010A[2]	Digital download

Notes

• A ^ "Naturally (Disco Fries Remix)"

by the way, that noted item is at iTunes.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. I'm thinking that remixes won't get listed as they rarely, if ever, effect a release date, and also listing them all would be overkill - see Bad_Romance#Track_listing. I'm happy to keep it simple. SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, overkill. LOL, It makes one yearn for the 'old days' where there was just ONE version of a single, PERIOD!—Iknow23 (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We seemed to have lost the airplay now as it appears there is no WP:RS for them. SunCreator (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate SO MUCH when links go stale.:( So much that I usually try to archive at Webcite every new one that I cite! —Iknow23 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to a stale link but rather WesleyDodds's explanation. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Radio add' date is VERY important to my new notion of when a 'song' becomes a 'single'. It doesn't matter if Radio really plays it on that date or if the song charts. I know that I have yet to write my dissertation ;) —Iknow23 (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important as it may be, I can not see that editors are going to like a release date where there is apparently no WP:RS for it. Maybe you have some solution to that I am not aware. I look forward to your dissertation. SunCreator (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there has to be proper sourcing of 'Radio add' dates. If this is not usually possible, then I shall be in great difficulty.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this source useable? SunCreator (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. Nobody else has been able to find one. Do you have any other(s)?
There is a problem like any item discussing the future in that it can change. But I presume that the info is correct at the time of posting. Is there such a thing as a site that reports the Radio adds AFTER they have occurred? That would be best of course as the past cannot be changed.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a wiki article titled Going for adds with Radio adds and Radio add dates redirecting to it, should be created explaining this music industry term? When these things are then discussed in articles, they can be wikilinked to it.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add date [1] [2] seemed the only wording with a reference. So Add date or Add date (Radio) perhaps. SunCreator (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like Add date (Radio) best. It is a better description than just Add date. Could you do it :) —Iknow23 (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impacts radio should also redirect to Add date (Radio)—Iknow23 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see a recent post I made: User_talk:Bradcro#Labels. I also invite you to take a look at a page I've largely created / expanded, List of Universal Music Group labels. Imperatore (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it. I looked at Template:Infobox single and placed an instructional comment so others won't make the same mistake. :) —Iknow23 (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your invincible tag. Hundreds of album/singles pages have done fine without similar hidden tags. I do recognize though that Gaga is a hot commodity now and there's heightened consciousness about her work and the companies associated with it. I suppose it can stay for now to avoid further conflicts in the near future as the single is current, but ultimately tags like this should be removed. Imperatore (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in assuming video play is including in the Billboard airplay figures? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

huh, never thought that. I don't know. But my 'gut instinct' says, "No." If so, any 'single' without a video would be penalized as it doesn't have one to 'air'.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the answer is no then w-linking US Airplay is somewhat misleading, as that implies music channels airing the video. SunCreator (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to "Mainstream airplay" - like you have above is perhaps the way to do it. SunCreator (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Airplay wiki seems awkward. It is all about radio, except for one sentence stuck in there, "The term is also used in the same way regarding music video channels, to state how often a music video is being played." Almost like THAT sentence belongs possibly in a separate Video play article or at least in a separate section listing in this article titled, 'Video play'. When it comes to video I think it is more common to just say that it was 'viewed' or 'aired' or as you used for a future tense 'Video to air'. Yes, I think the "Mainstream airplay" may be better.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would class Video historically along with TV broadcasting, as in the new show is scheduled to have it's premiere airing on February 15, 2010.
In other words, 'Airplay' is more for Radio and 'Air' is more for TV and subsequent visual formats.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go alone with that. In the UK we use air or aired as TV and Playlist as Radio, the word Airplay is not something I notice come up. The Airplay article possibly wants looking at. As a long term thing I believe videos will to included in the release somehow because already in the UK releasing a video often has more impact in sales then Radio 1 playlisting. SunCreator (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a song receives Airplay because it is on the Radio station's Playlist. I think the Release information section could get unwieldly if alternating between Audio product and VIDEO ONLY product with Country names appearing multiple times? If necessary, I would prefer the Music video section to have it's own separate Release table. —Iknow23 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some editing at the Airplay article. I added the terms 'spins' and 'playlist' and deleted the Video mention. By the way, I recognize that Radio and Video both use the terms 'playlist' and 'Rotation' as in "The video received heavy rotation on MTV, so it is definitely on its playlist."
Do you have further improvements for the Airplay article?—Iknow23 (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment. I was going to remove airplay as a UK term, but after doing some research it seems that term is used. SunCreator (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing "Right Round" from the Ke$ha chronology? I've always been under the impression that ALL singles have to be included whehter you are the lead artist or not. For example Lil Wayne. It created a better flow of songs. Jayy008 (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, YES. But this is peculiar in that she is NOT actually credited as a 'featured artist' or credited at all, as far as I've heard. Since it is true that her voice is in it, (and sourced?), it can be mentioned in the article text as something she did though.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a strange one. Her name is give but not 'featured' see here where a featured artist says feat. or ft. SunCreator (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! See here makes it look more like a duo (even a more substantial credit than feat.) Anyway, I read the "Right Round" wiki not too long ago, and as I recall, it is stated [better be with ref] that Kesha is DELIBERATELY not credited per the record label.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another difference (example):
The "Right Round" infobox does not show featuring Kesha but "Telephone" infobox shows 'Single by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé' —Iknow23 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed discussion on Talk:Right_Round#Kesha. SunCreator (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, That's probably what I saw before. Particularly this:

...Billboard themselves confirmed that Atlantic Records told them not to list Kesha as a featured artist. Chase wc⁹¹ 09:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

—Iknow23 (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! Citing my reference back to me. *smiles*. SunCreator (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

haha. It shows that I'm paying attention to what you said. I really looked at your ref. :) —Iknow23 (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even more surprising ;) See #1 SunCreator (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'I guess they didn't get the memo' that Billboard did? —Iknow23 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a BBC link again 'ft', BBC source music info from The OCC so not to surprising really. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. And again citing your ref :D at Talk:Right_Round#Kesha there are ARIA and European countries with feat. or ft. as well. I accept the agreed upon crediting arrangement by the record companies, producers, etc.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that but I didn't sense an agreed apon on the talk, but maybe would have to read the edit summaries to get a better idea. SunCreator (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, erm, thanks? Lol I'm so confused now. From that I'm guessing it's just Ke$ha's "Right Round" that is a NO. But things like Cheryl Cole on "Heartbreaker" is alloweD? Jayy008 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbreaker (will.i.am song) is totally different. The infobox shows "Single by will.i.am featuring Cheryl Cole" and it IS on her album too! so she had better be mentioned. THAT article is not correct however. Should not put as "from the album Songs About Girls and 3 Words" as that is 2 albums not one. Infobox does not state, 'from the albums...'. There should be 2 infoboxes in the article, One as "Single by will.i.am featuring Cheryl Cole" "from the album Songs About Girls" and a second infobox as SONG, not single ... let's see now, this is complicated ... I would show as "Cheryl Cole featuring on Single by will.i.am" "from the album 3 Words". The 'single' cover would not be used. As a 'song' infobox, her chrono would show tlhe PRIOR & SUBSEQUENT album tracks. Since she now has her own infobox, her chrono in will.i.am's should be removed.

Why not her single? It's not said to be HER single. Look at 3 Words. It's not in the "Singles from 3 Words" because will.i.am was the one that released it as a 'single', right?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's highly confusing. I didn't mean anything about the album I thought all song were included in the Chronology even if they're just featured singles. The fact that Heartbreaker is on her album doesn't make a difference, I think it's a bonus track anyway. So a Chronology you only feature songs if they're the lead artist? Jayy008 (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with Kesha is that she is NOT OFFICIALLY a featured artist even though her voice is on it, per the record label. Remember how we eventually (:D) agreed that a song is a single if the record company says so. Well same here. If the record company says she is NOT to be credited as a 'featured artist' then we do NOT. They might have credited her as contributing some vocals, but not as 'featured'. As regards to Cheryl Cole, since Heartbreaker (will.i.am song) is a song on her album (not a single), it qualifies for its own 'song' infobox as her album should not be combined with will.i.am's in the infobox. Of course, by all means leave it as "Single by will.i.am featuring Cheryl Cole" in will.i.am's infobox, though. I just don't think it is proper to have TWO albums listed in ONE infobox. They are not made for that kind of use, are they??
This will also give Cheryl Cole a greater presence in the article (having her own infobox), since I guess that you are a fan. So you might like this. It is by coincidence though, I did not 'hatch' this plan with a 'motive'. I just believe it is the proper way to display the material.—Iknow23 (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought of it like that but if the song did not appear on her album like for example all of the songs that Keri Hilson is featured on then is it inc? And yes I think everybody in the UK is a Cheryl Tweedy fan lol. Jayy008 (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure that I understand you? But, I'll try :) If the song does not appear on the 'other' artist's album, the other artist should not (could not actually) have their own separate infobox in the article. PLEASE NOTE: When I say infobox, I mean an ENTIRE infobox, not just a added chrono to the ONE infobox.
Re: Keri Hilson See "Hey Now (Mean Muggin)" As she is shown in the infobox, "Single by Xzibit featuring Keri Hilson", she 'qualifies' for her chrono to be there. However as not all (not any actually) of the items listed there are HER singles, I just edited it to 'Delete word singles from Keri Hilson chrono header as items are NOT her singles'. But they are something she is part of. Like "Beyoncé chronology" (not "Beyoncé singles chronology") is shown at "Telephone (song)" because the infobox says she featured, "Single by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé".—Iknow23 (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I also see that the featured artist Navbox gets placed on these type of articles as well, so I just added Keri Hilson's Navbox to "Help (song)" as it wasn't there.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I mean is "extra singles chronology" no extra infobox. Just the singles chronology. Like Lil Wayne's chronology would feature Turnin' Me On? Because that was Keri Hilson featuring him and it only appeared on her album. That's all I'm trying to find out. Jayy008 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like Beyoncé and Lady Gaga above. When the infobox says, "Single by Artist 1 featuring Artist 2", then Artist 2 has their chrono listed but WITHOUT the word 'singles' displayed because not all the items in their chrono can be said to be their single. At least the current one (article you are looking at) Artist 2 is 'featured' but they did not release it as a single (not their single).
EXCEPTION: If Artist 1's 'single' also appears on Artist 2's album, then Artist 2 gets a 'song' infobox on the same article page. Since Artist 2 has their own infobox now, I would remove their chrono from the Artist 1 infobox.
Yes. At "Turnin' Me On" Lil Wayne's chronology is there showing "Turnin' Me On" but without the word singles, as it is not his single. He is featured.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got It. Thanks Jayy008 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbreaker (will.i.am song) shows it in infobox as a 'single' from 3 Words? But isn't it just a 'song' from 3 Words AND ONLY a 'single' from Songs About Girls?
Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Singles Item 2, "For songs that appear on more than one album, list the song as a single only for the album where the single was released as part of the marketing and promotion of that album." Thus, shouldn't there be a separate 'song' infobox for the 3 Words use of the song as an album track?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a different subject, does this article pass WP:N and/or WP:RS? Could it be linked from The Fame Monster as the next album? SunCreator (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. Artists have a worldwide chrono as wiki does not just pertain to only one country. Just my personal preference, if it is limited to one country (or region) I would like to see it presented as such.

Untitled

By the way, I'd recommend a renaming of that article. The Remix is too generic. Maybe The Remix (Lady Gaga album)? —Iknow23 (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Japan in brackets looks good. Not sure why you would rename, if the article name is free then using it seem fine to me. SunCreator (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought that some may search without the 'The' and if they put 'Remix Lady Gaga' or 'Remix album' they may find it easier? Remix is a general term.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add the length of the tracks using &ndash. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. You already did. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep :) I been crusin' on this one. Makes me think of when someone says, "Don't get me started." LOL—Iknow23 (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, can you check the 'French, Greek, Italian & Mexican download EP' tracklist section. I need to go to bed! 5:19 AM here! Appreciate it :)—Iknow23 (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure. Have a nice day or night :P --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankssss zZZZZ—Iknow23 (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be sourced? She has only said the abbreviation on her shows. I will add a YouTube link to her saying it or will you remove it? Jayy008 (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Is it mentioned anywhere in the album booklet, or magazine interviews, etc.? YouTube should only be used if from an official source, not a fan video or fansite video of her performance. If it can't be appropriately sourced it should be removed until it can be. Remember "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."—Iknow23 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible? SunCreator (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with you IKnow23. That's like saying we have source "P!nk" and "Ke$ha" and "TiK ToK" because of their names. Which we don't have to do because everybody knows what they're called. I just checked my album booklet and it doesn't say anything in there however, here is a source from her official website, in her bio when describing H.A.T.E.U, I have added it to the page. Jayy008 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have accepted SunCreator's offering because of "Source: Press of Atlantic City - Scott Cronick" but would have suggested to look to see if it could be found at its original source instead of using the Mariah Carey Connection quotation of it. But that is now moot due to Jayy's OFFICIAL sourcing, the Best reference. :) As regards to "Ke$ha", that is a different case as it appears with the "$" in her album and single covers and also in articles or reviews quoted at Animal (Kesha album) and "Blah Blah Blah (song)". Plus look at the References section at both of those AND "Tik Tok (song)" to see many outside of wiki articles showing the "$". "Having A Typical Emotional Upset" however, does not have a prevalent showing so it needed to be sourced. It is definitely better now. :) Also, I'm sure that you discovered that I found a source for Radio add date ;) —Iknow23 (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree it looks better now ha. Oh goodness, I spend ages looking for a radio add date. I'm glad you found it!! Btw I also replied above. Jayy008 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Component Chart:

The Hot 100 is calculated from three component charts:

Airplay: Hot 100 Airplay Sales: Hot Digital Songs and Hot 100 Singles Sales In turn, the Hot 100 Airplay is comprised on the various airplay-only charts, including but not limited to Top 40 Mainstream, Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks, Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks, Hot Country Songs, Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks, Alternative Songs, and theRhythmic Airplay Chart.

When tabulating sales, the raw amount is left unaltered for tabulation of the sales charts by themselves. However, when points are being tabulated for the Hot 100, sales in both sales components are multiplied by two before being added.

Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs) is comprised of airplay-only charts, which includes Pop Songs, but Pop Songs isn't 1 of the 3 component charts of the Hot 100. By your logic, no song should have Adult Contemporary, Country, or Rock listed either, which is stupid

Nowyouseeme (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Songs being a component of Hot 100 Airplay, is a 'sub'-component of Hot 100. So by putting it again it is getting DOUBLE credit for its share (by itself and as part of Hot 100). The other genre charts, Rock, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, Hot Dance Club Songs, etc are NOT part of the Hot 100 so can be shown even when the Hot 100 is. (Not a duplication)—Iknow23 (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Radio Songs

Per Billboard (as of October 2005):

"988 stations, comprised of top 40, adult contemporary, R&B/hip-hop, country, rock, gospel, Latin and Christian formats, are electronically monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This data is used to compile The Billboard Hot 100."

According to this Rock and R&B/Hip-Hop are part of Hot 100 Airplay, so following your way, Hot Dance Club Songs is about that only other billboard chart that could be shown on a song page besdies Hot 100, and that sounds right to you?

Nowyouseeme (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay. But there is also Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs. This is NOT just all up to me. There have been many discussions and consensus reached at Wikipedia talk:Record charts. You should take this there.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this. The problem was that the Hungarian archive moved to a different location. I updated the template to point at the new location, and now the reference points to the archive page again. Hopefully that will solve your problems.—Kww(talk) 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I was going to get around to ask about it. I've been bad. Haven't really learned the singlechart template. I just reviewed it now trying to find a parameter to leave a NOTE in the ref display but find it displays in the table. Help, please!—Iknow23 (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I want to show the specific list is because the 'Rádiós Top 40 játszási lista' was used before as it appears there also. My thinking is that the 'Single (track) Top 10 lista' should be used where possible.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me think about a good way to specify which one to use.—Kww(talk) 03:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This IP, 188.129.253.214 continues the Chart vandalism at "Fight for This Love".
I recommend that "Editors' Choice rádiós játszási lista" be listed at Badcharts and a note in Goodcharts left to mention to NOT use this chart. THAT must be the chart that 188.129.253.214 is using as it shows "18" that they are always editing it to. "Editor's Choice" does NOT seem like a proper chart to me. It sounds more like a critical rating than a real chart. What do you think?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put my explanation on the Record Charts talk page. Candyo32 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not disputing it. I truly don't know. We'll see what others say and whatever turns out will be fine with me. :)—Iknow23 (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to a Wikipage on record charts which shows the component charts of the Hot 100. Hot 100 Airplay is one so I guess that's the answer to it :) Jayy008 (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply. I've made a change and struckout my argument before. Sorry you was trying to tell me and I wasn't listening. I was drifting and got confused. Jayy008 (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to explain best I can now, in one final argument. Jayy008 (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Kesha is on both versions, she only gets an extra verse on the Part II. Fixer23 (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that and correcting the Artist paramenter in the infobox to 'Taio Cruz featuring Kesha'. I was just about to do it ;)

However please DELETE the 'Taio Cruz (US) chronology' and just use ONE chrono for worldwide. We can't start putting up chronos for each country. This will become too unwieldly.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thanks! Fixer23 (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, what happened to the Artist paramenter in the infobox showing 'Taio Cruz featuring Kesha'?
Shouldn't ONLY one album title be in the Singles infobox. Kesha has not released it as a single. She should have a 'song' infobox in this article showing the album track (Part II) from Animal as such.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got the 'Taio Cruz featuring Kesha' back but removed from the chrono so it just shows 'Taio Cruz singles'. What about Kesha having a 'song' infobox because a version of the song appears as an album track on her album, Animal?—Iknow23 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iknow23. As I predicted in our conversation Wikipedia talk:Record charts page over the past few days I've met some resistance from an over zealous editor IllaZilla on the Crash Love page. I used the statement you offered: "Per WP:CHARTS "component charts should not be used in the tables, unless [it] fails to enter the main chart", though he's stating that the "component chart" definition isn't valid for genre charts. He's gone so far as to threaten to report me on my talk page. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you misunderstood what I had said at the Record charts talk page. I said that Genre charts are allowed even when charting on the 'main' overall charts (Billboard 200 or Hot 100). But ANY 'component' chart of a chart that does appear in the Chart table is NOT allowed. Let me use singles for an example as I am more familiar with it:

Hot 100 - (charts on), so show in Chart Table (Main overall chart)

Pop 100 - (charts on), so show in Chart Table (Main GENRE chart)

Pop 100 Airplay - (charts on), do NOT show in chart table (component of Pop 100, that appears above)

Note: Pop 100 Airplay is allowed if it does not chart in the Pop 100. But MOST may not bother to put it, even though allowed.
—Iknow23 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-opened discussion, Nielson doesn't include club data Jayy008 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Inkow, I'm having trouble understanding the problem you see. All of the albums I placed it with are there, if you don't see them then I didn't change the page in the sourcing, which I can fix. Secondly the only thing I did was round them off by 1000 or so, if you'd like we can write the exact number, it doesn't bother me. Tell me which albums you didn't see in the source, I'll resource them.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That I know, anything that didn't take you to the exact page was just a mistake, where I forgot to change the web address. Hmmm, Iv'e consulted another editor, because I don't see why it's not. Thanks--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To what edit on the page are you referring. The last edit I made since today was adding this source, which does state The Remixes sold 199,000 copies, and that happens to be exactly the figure I wrote.--PeterGriffin Talk • Cont.

Oh, sure, I think it makes more sense that way, but when I was editing Celine Dion articles a certain editor kept fussing about how They for sure sold more by now, so let's round it...lol..However I agree with you, when quoting a source it must be precise.--PeterGriffin Talk • Cont.

Well besides for the source, we seem to have found a consensus, however if you want to we can just not have it until we have a concrete source. I already went ahead and removed then from any other article I recall seeing or placing them in.--PeterGriffin Talk • Cont.

Hey Iknow, I'd appreciate it if you'd voice your opinion here. Thanks--PeterGriffin Talk • Cont. 21:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Iknow, I want to know what you think about this source, even though I'm pretty sure I know the answer. I find this source even less reliable than Ticketspecialists.--PeterGriffin Talk • Cont. 18:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you join the discussion here [3], please. This user puts this source [4] claiming that it proves that The Ballads (Mariah Carey album) was certified gold in the UK. However there is no mention like that in it. The socend thing is about Infodisc.fr. It is a good source for certifications, as it has copied all of them from SNEP. But sales, as we can read on the website, are just estimations made by the Infodisc team. However this user is adding exact sales numbers from Infodisc to Mariah Carey articles. Max24 (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please "voice" your opinion in form of agree or disagree please Jayy008 (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i noticed you've commented on the billboard component charts issue at WP:record charts on the talk page. I have left a more detailed response, i was wondering if you could take a look and comment etc. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there's been a few more developments since yesterday just wondered if you could give your opinion on what you think.Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad all problems are solved now. Jayy008 (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per consensus at WP:record charts there is a new guide to using Billboard Charts available at Billboard charts guide. Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) (formerly known just as Pop Songs) is no longer deemed a component chart - there is no evidence to support this motion.Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm actually i wasnt aware that the number of charts had been removed. i do remember being involved a discussion about it about 10 months ago when it was decided that 20 was the limit but there must have been another consensus since then to remove the the limit. I do mind personally. Also by default i've always automatically counted multiple charts from once country as one charting region i.e. pop songs, dance club play and hot 100 = one U.S. chart. that had relevance when the chart limit was in place.

Yes implementing WP:USCHARTS was difficult but i am still reviewing the policy and adding to it as per request/suggestions. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lil-Unique told me it with the reasons of what I put in my edit summary, so if you need a better explanation ask him. I left Billboard Hot 100 as Billboard Hot 100 because that's the exact name of the chart? Jayy008 (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the length discussion we had that formed the WP:USCHARTS page it was said that only the official names should be used. Billboard is only the chart provider and so the only chart which should be called Billboard is the Billboard Hot 100. All others should be used with their given name at WP:USCHARTS as these are taken from the physical copy of billboard and billboard.biz. I will change record charts now. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was indeed an error. It is in fact Mainstream R&B/Hip-Hop which is a component of both Hot Rap Songs and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs. Hope that clears things up? Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okies i agree. I've changed record charts back so that you it shows that all US charts should have Billboard in front of them. It will be easier than getting KWW to change the chart macro and also the number of articles that use Billboard already its hardly worth implementing the removal of it. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fixer23
I'm wondering about Kesha discography. There is a section titled "As featured artist" and another section titled "Other appearances" with the description "These songs have not appeared on a studio album by Kesha." Wouldn't that description also fit "Right Round" (Flo Rida featuring Kesha) as it is not on Kesha's album?? Also doesn't "Dirty Picture" feature Kesha but it isn't in the "As featured artist" section. I guess I'm just all confused over those two sections.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Brought over here for completeness of discussion.—Iknow23 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I modeled my edits after featured list, Lily Allen discography. They did not have duplicates when a song was used as a single. In this case, the Taio Cruz song should be under featured artist in the Singles section because it is a single that features Kesha, but it hasn't charted yet so I guess we can do the change when it does? :) Fixer23 (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this at Lily Allen discography either. Section title says "As featured artist" so it should be comprehensive and include them all whether they chart or not. One can always add like at Lily Allen discography the
"—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released.
—Iknow23 (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the distinction is there because As featured artists is a subsection in the Singles section. That's why it can only have songs that have been released as singles. Fixer23 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use your account then. :P Even though you use edit summaries, if you use your actual wiki account, you'll be taken more seriously with your edits. QuasyBoy 21:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• K, and Thank You again. —Iknow23 (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Prob. QuasyBoy 21:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where in particular, music album articles? QuasyBoy 21:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, You can do yourself, But I don't mind helping my buddy. :) QuasyBoy 3:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I know (no pun intended) but I got a bit stale on the ref formatting. Just did a bunch of date formatting and updating Joy release info on the 'others' pages (other songwriters that are credited, ADD guitar credit on Orianthi's page with links back to Fefe Dobson and the album Joy, etc.) So LOL, its not like I've been doing nothing. Oh, and added "Ghost" video link in infobox on its single page.
Thank You for any help that you can provide :) —Iknow23 (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HeHe, I did it for ya. Also Claude Kelly only co-wrote "Stuttering", he didn't produce. J. R. Rotem did the producing. Kelly's Twitter account says so here [5] QuasyBoy 3:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank You...And great that you corrected "Stuttering". By the way, do you know any source to ref for "Ghost" credits (songwriting and producing?) —Iknow23 (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just added "Stuttering" to J. R. Rotem page per your info :) —Iknow23 (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here a source: [6] Kara DioGuardi co-wrote and Kevin Rudolf produced. :) QuasyBoy 4:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank You yet ONCE AGAIN for more fine info :) Too late for me to put it to use right now, but I know where to come to find the link again. LOL. —Iknow23 (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime :) QuasyBoy 4:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Darn! Was just bout to log out, when noticed that the BestFan links will disappear after the event, like just happened with "August 28, 2010 — SUMMERFEST! Sudbury, Ontario, Canada". Another ref will need to be found. THIS states she scheduled to be there as posted prior to event, but not the best to use because of all the extraneous contest info. Not apropro for Wiki :(—Iknow23 (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the link for first concert disappeared, that's why I removed it. Gonna need a permanent link for that concert info. :( QuasyBoy 5:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll get to it if I get a chance, my time on Wikipedia is limited nowadays. Btw, actually a Infobox song template is to be used since it is not an Official Gomez single, only a promo single. Candyo32 18:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But I would still use Infobox single. I guess that I don't understand what a promo single is?? I believe that ALL singles are a promo for something. Just because a single is from a Soundtrack that has other artists as well, does that mean it is NOT a Selena Gomez and the Scene single? They are the performers of it. Does a single HAVE TO BE from an album ENTIRELY by the artist? iTunes doesn't treat it that way as they credit it as a single by Selena Gomez and the Scene. Is there a discussion on any Project pages about this kind of situation that you can point me to? I am certainly willing to review those and LEARN from there as well.

Another point is for consistency. At Selena Gomez & the Scene#Discography it shows LLTNT after "Round & Round". LLTNT needs to also be shown then as the Next single in the R&R infobox....OR LLTNT needs to be DELETED from the 'singles' listing at Selena Gomez & the Scene#Discography. We can't have it both ways, right? Help me please understand! —Iknow23 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idk if we are looking at the same page or not, but on Selena Gomez & the Scene#Discography and Selena Gomez & the Scene discography, only AYWR is listed as the succeeding single. I think you are confusing what I meant, I didn't meant to say songs not by an artist entirely or soundtrack songs are not singles. Soundtrack singles can be official singles, such as "Get Up" or "Club Can't Handle Me", but LLTNT is not, it was not sent to radio, which is really the key in determining actual official singles for the artist/groups, and another factor is if it got any single treatment, which this didn't. LLTNT was just a simple promo single, as was Never Say Never, for example. Also keeping with consistency, most promo singles such as "Never Let You Go" and "Beautiful, Dirty, Rich" use infobox song. can't direct you do a specific point on a Wiki page that explains this, but I have gathered this information by participating and correcting several of my GA's.Candyo32 00:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fairly recent version that I was referring to. It had been changed later. I see that "Beautiful, Dirty, Rich" explicitly states 'Promotional single' in it's infobox. So if I understand what you are saying...a song MUST be sent to radio (doesn't matter if radio plays it or not?) to be called a single. If it is released separately (different SALES release date) from the Artist's album or A Soundtrack 'compilation' of various artists, it doesn't AUTOMATICALLY count as a single?? I call that 'single treatment'.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops well I guess all articles aren't going to be the same as You're Not Sorry is a promo single but uses a single infobox. Im kind of confused at your last statement, but what is the typical single treatment is digital release, radio add date, and music video. And since several promo singles or even non-singles in general can have music videos, and that all songs will eventually be released via download due to an album release, this means that radio add dates are the factor. If you still need explanation, I will try my best to enlighten, but also if so, see these discussions on the "What is a single?" debate, here and here. Candyo32 01:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the digital age when only 'physical releases' were available, didn't they have radio add dates prior to the release (sales) date in order to generate demand for the audio product? No one then ever considered the radio add date as the "Release date". Release parties meant the public can NOW purchase it and artist's/label's celebration of now starting to make money from it! The radio add date is a "promotional date", so I guess one could call them 'promo singles' at that point, but when available for sale INDEPENDENTLY from its 'parent' Album, Soundtrack Compilation etc. it becomes a 'full-fledged' single. 'Promo singles' are sent out by the label for Radio adds, critic reviews, etc. all WITHIN the industry prior to sales release. When John or Jane Q. Public can buy them, they are now 'Actual singles'. Why can't we continue this way?...Correct, singles don't have to have a corresponding video, but they often do.

So if the criterion is changed to 'radio add date' is what creates the song as a 'single' ALL the articles showing a different 'sales release date' need to be changed!? —Iknow23 (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even more confusing? ... I would call a single (available for purchase) from an upcoming album that is later dropped from the album (not actually on it) a 'promo ONLY single' for that album.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woahh, wait a minute, I think we are thinking way too much through this now. I'm not saying the radio add date is a release date. But typically the artist and label only send songs to radio that they want to be singles. And the radio date usually coincides or comes after the digital download date. I thought this was about singles and promo singles not about sales release dates Lol. And responding to your last comment, the album hasn't been released so the song isn't available already for download meaning the first download date and add date correspond for the official single. So let me make this clear this is NOT about making the radio add date the release date. Like I said labels only send singles to radio so I don't know where you are getting this promotional singles and radio and all of this that is confusing me. Simpler terms a full-fledged single has a download date (if prior to album release), and after album release has a solid radio add date. Promotional singles are just to promote the album or whatever work and do not get single treatment (i.e. radio add date, music video, etc.). One more thing, I didn't mean for it to come across as the radio add date making the single, but it is the so called game-changing factor. In the digital age, songs are already going to be available on iTunes since the album has been released. So what other way are you able to distinguish a single from a regular song? --- the radio add date. Candyo32 03:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, sorry...I had just came back from revisiting the "' What is a single?' debate". I agree "typically the artist and label only send songs to radio that they want to be singles." I would even go beyond "typically" to say "almost always". At THAT point (in my mind anyway) I call em 'promotional singles' if they are not available for purchase independently (different sales release dates) of their 'parent' project. That is, intended to be future singles (released independently) if they achieve Radio success. If they do not receive Radio success, they probably won't go ahead and do the independent release. So just because they have a Radio add date does NOT make it a 'full-fledged' single in my book. If it has the independent release (sales) date (even if NEVER sent to radio), I call it a single. If it doesn't have the independent sales date (even if it was sent to radio) I would think of it as a 'failed single' or 'almost single' but it recedes back to the status of just being an 'album track' or 'song' only...not a single. Hmmm, you say that in "Simpler terms a full-fledged single has a download date (if prior to album release), and after album release has a solid radio add date." Well the 'prior' could also have a solid radio add date. As for the 'after' it probably will also (because it makes sense for them to want radio to play it) but it remains a 'promotional single' until/unless it is 'released for purchase' by itself independent of the 'parent'...thus will have a release date AFTER that of the parent. There can be singles prior to and after the parent release. So my acid test as to whether a song is a 'single' or just an 'album track' is: Does it have a 'release date' (purchase) that is different from the parent project? PERIOD. I think this is the simpliest way as well. —Iknow23 (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Promotional singles are just to promote the album or whatever work"
Actually all singles promote their 'parent' work do they not? Please click on the link at the word 'single' in the abbreviated infobox single example below.

"Iknow23"
Song

"In music, a single or record single is a type of release, typically a short recording of one or more separate tracks. This can be released for sale to the public in a variety of different formats. In most cases, the single is a song that is released separately from an album, but it can still appear on an album. Often, these are the most popular songs from albums that are released separately for promotional uses, and in other cases a recording released as a single does not appear on an album." —Iknow23 (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Like I said labels only send singles to radio" I would make that 'labels only send songs to radio that are intended to be singles and in most cases will be'. But to be a single is to have a different sales date from the parent project.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand on the song being a promo single with a song Infobox. Same applies to all the same heavy promo single Justin Bieber has released 1, 2, 3, and more. Just simple promo singles. Just because it was released on iTunes does not make it an official, and every song released to iTunes is noted as a "single" doesn't apply to Wikipedia. Candyo32 00:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. thank you for providing article links/diffs (most people forget) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't know if I ever told you that I've been given the nickname of "Mr. Detail", ha. And even more 'detail' about that :D, is that this was done in person by ppl I know, and not just someone online.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you've noticed but the article has just been granted two weeks protection. =) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "protecting until album released". Well after release any variance from the truth (known then) will be PURE VANDALISM. The time for speculation shall have expired. ;)—Iknow23 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please participate in the discussion pertaining to how holiday albums should be formatted? The discussion is held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Holiday albums. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I answered to your comment. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I just haven't got a chance to get back to you. I'm working on it. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 05:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm sorry I never got back to you. I've been so busy with school starting and whatnot. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 22:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I am responding to the Talk at Joy now :) —Iknow23 (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fefe Dobson (UK album).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idk if we are looking at the same page or not, but WP:USCHART says, "If a song has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the charts to the right →" and one of the charts to the right is Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs). Candyo32 22:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right...sorry for my error. Thanks for pointing that out.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. A jsyk, it may take a 24 hr period but Billboard will usually update the peaks on the individual song listings. Candyo32 22:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok & Thanks again.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinon [7] <-here? Lol. Thanks in advance. Candyo32 05:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found it to be resolved already, when I went to look at it. I didn't even need to read the comments there, so I'm prolly repeating what you and others said there. If I had gotten there in time, I would definitely say KEEP. High charting position and Platinum cert definitely is NOTABLE!!! As you know me though, I don't agree to the part about Radio dates being = to Release dates. Hope you are having a GREAT day! :)—Iknow23 (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Q for you...Do you prefer the video link to be at the bottom of the infobox like at "Ghost" or in an External links section like at "Round & Round"?—Iknow23 (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply! I tend to forgot to when I post on other people's pages. Lol. I prefer for video links to be in the external links section because it elongates the infobox and makes adds unnecessary information. Candyo32 00:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I thought that I had remembered you liking them that way. I prefer em in the infobox myself, but that's just my personal preference. I hope that I don't ever change an article that you are watching because its not that much of a 'biggie' to me. :)—Iknow23 (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not a really big deal to me, even though I prefer it. I only change them on articles I plan on nominating, and once it was in the infobox and the reviewer recommended that it be taken out, which is the main reason why I do now :) Candyo32 00:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. And thank you for that information. It might prove useful to me someday if I ever get into doing that.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)