Talk:Shania Twain discography

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

	Canada: Music Low‑importance
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.

Country Music Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Country MusicTemplate:WikiProject Country MusicCountry Music articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Lists Low‑importance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Just curious...why were only charting singles included? If the discography is intended to be comprehensive, why wouldn't all singles be included?

Because there are too many singles like "It's Alright" and "The Heart Is Blind" which technically were singles, but didn't chart, and there is no point in listing them. Which means "You Lay a Whole Lot of Love on Me" which failed to chart, should also be left off... --

Thankyoubaby 19:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

it's a discography of releases, not a songography. Mister sparky (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the person who removed 6 hours of work that I did for the discography! Really nice! Electric Storm89 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:The_Beatles_discography#Poll_on_the_use_of_fair-use_images_on_this_page_and_the_interpretation_of_policy which is acting as a test case in this matter. Jooler 09:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added alot of information to the page, and tidied it, so maybe those banners can be removed now?? --

1 for The Woman in me, 2 for Come on over and 1 for Up! --79.216.218.19 (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be okay and give the discography layout an updated look?--68.84.94.69 (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, it does need an update. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian country peaks were added, and I think they should not be added because the chart is defunct and therefore there is no point in using it. The respective song articles, which there is one for all the songs charted, should have it. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is noting here to discuss. She is a Canadian country singer. End of story. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 00:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean there is nothing to discuss? This needs to be discussed before it turns into an edit war. That may be your opinion, but it isn't everyone's. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I just said in the edit summary before this edit: you should have discussed removing the chart in the first place. That is by-far the most important piece of information in this woman's discography. So, you can't come and turn this around on other editors for doing wrong, when it was you who did wrong the first time by not discussing the removal of such a huge portion of source material. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 00:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be so uncooperative. Instead of reverting, you maybe should hear what I and other editors have to say. Don't you think? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The peaks are notable, but the are not the most important piece of information as you claim. For starters, she is not just a country artist, she has had tremendous pop success. Furthermore, Twain did not begin her career in Canada; she was born in Canada, but her career was made in the United States and she then found success in Canada. The chart is completely defunct and half of her releases do not chart on it, and thus they are not to be included in her discography page. Each release should include those peaks because since she is Canadian after all, they are relevant. But here, they are not necessary. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her Top Singles peaks alone don't come close to representing her Canadian chart history. She is a Canadian country music artist first and just because the chart is defunct doesn't make these peaks any less valid, especially because they can be so easily sourced. If she found success in the United States first as you claim, why was her first #1 single in Canada? Why were most of her #1 singles in Canada? Yes she had pop and international success, but why does that make her chart history in her home country and primary genre any less important? Not only do her Canadian country peaks belong, they are essential and no Shania Twain discography could be considered complete without them. Eric444 (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree with Eric more. Just because she had pop success, doesn't mean that her home country's genre peaks be written off the map. I find this preposterous and can't believe that this is even an issue. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 01:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen her record label? It's called Mercury Nashville. Last time I checked Nashville was in the US, and she did commence in the US, where she moved to start a music career, where she got signed, she first reached success. She may have gotten her first number one country single Canada, but that means nothing. She's big in Canada because that's her home country and that's why main chart suffices. Because the country singles chart is defunct, and half of her releases are left with a dash on the field, it should be left out. The albums' and singles' can specify it. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you whatsoever. RPM magazine ceased publication in 2000. That's why the singles are split up. It gets rid of the Canadian peaks post-2000 that don't exist. There are no dashes for further releases after 2000 for the country chart, as there are no peaks provided after 2000. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 02:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. If for some reason Billboard went under, would you remove all of her American peaks? I didn't just slap her Canadian country peaks back on after you deleted them without discussing it, I took the time to source all of them. Every country music artist that charted on the RPM Country Tracks chart has their Canadian peaks listed in their discography, and I don't think there is any artist whose Canadian country chart history is more important to their discography than Shania Twain. Because Canada is her home country is only more reason that her genre peaks should be included. Are we striving to be complete or not? Eric444 (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The RPM peaks are plainly verifiable, and the chart's defunct nature is irrelevant. Do you think we should delete peaks for Cash Box just because it's also defunct? I see no reason whatsoever to remove anything that can be easily verified, defunct or not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. I have notified three users that have done several discography pages and hopefully they will weigh in soon. Anyways, CAN Country is one thing but CAN A/C should more than definitely not be here. Please remove it. Eric, I do see you took your time and definitely value that you didn't just revert my edit or add them without references. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with adding CAN country is that there should only be 10 charts and the singles should be by decade, not the way it is now. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not remove the NOR column, which only has one peak, versus 21 Canadian country peaks? As far as splitting the singles by decade,

WP:DISCOGSTYLE states that "if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the above guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document an artist's body of work, then ignore all the rules and go with what's best for the article." Eric444 (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

See that's the problem. Deleting the NOR column doesn't seem fair because Come on Over was certified 6 times platinum over there and is one of the best-selling albums in the country. And Up did really well too. As for the latter, it's not a big concern since I do think the article has to be molded to artist. Also, please don't just remove the NOR column as it's still not discussed yet. Also, can you guys please wait until the editors I have notified comment? Thank you. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what about the A/C peaks? Please remove those. That is just too much and isn't needed at all. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was only talking about removing NOR from the 1993-2000 singles. If that lone peak is so important, you can put it in a footnote. If something has to give from the studio albums table, it should probably be IRL since none of her albums were certified there and the peaks are among the lowest.

WP:DISCOGSTYLE says that "There is no set inclusion criteria for which charts should and shouldn't be included, but a good rule of thumb is to go by the relative success of the artist on that chart," so I continue to believe that the Canadian charts are the most important and everything else is secondary. Eric444 (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

That would be a mess. If a chart is included once, it has to be included throughout. The reason for that in Ireland is that the official charts were made after most singles had the opportunity to chart and the certifications as well. Anyways, I would agree to removing that chart, and replacing it with CAN country, but then there would only be nine charts for the latter half (not fully utilizing the potential of the page) and dashes on albums after 2000. You see why this is such a problem? Also, you seem be evading the whole AC thing. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 04:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I do not think the Canadian country peaks should be added. Aside from the fact that it is a defunct chart, it is a component chart, which is used by less popular artists. Twain has received enough widespread success, that only major countries should be listed.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The Canadian country should be kept as Shania is a country artist. Yes she's crossed over to pop, but she's more focused on the country genre. In my opinion, the AC chart isn't necessary and can be removed but both country charts should stay. Just because the chart is defunct, doesn't mean it's now useless. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The AC chart should be removed. Per WP:DISCOGSTYLE/DISCOGRAPHY, "A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested", so one more chart should be removed from the table (1993-2000). As for the country chart, I don't know. Maybe a note, saying that the chart is no longer published and so another chart is included, should be added?
  talk) 07:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You people are missing the point. Shania is a Canadian country music artist. I don't understand why you all think that just because the chart is no longer published, and the fact that she had some pop success, automatically the Canadian country peaks need to be wiped out. For the zillionth time, RPM ceased publication in 2000, that's why the singles are split the way they are. There are no Canadian peaks past that listed in the discography. Therefore, the peaks are fine and the most legit information in her discography. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 13:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My whole point is that yes they are relevant and important, but there just isn't room for them in her discography page. It is so complicated to add a column that's not going to be used for much of the article. The only place where it gets used properly is her first set of singles. And if a country is removed so that Canadian country can be added, it leaves the discography incomplete and not meeting its full potential. Ergo, it is way simpler to include all these peaks in each of the releases, as it was before. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 17:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say there's no room for them, when they've been here the entire time until you came along and decided to get rid of them? EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 20:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? The page was absolutely horrible before I revamped it. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 20:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks horrible now. I thought it was just fine before. I already know you and I are not going to get along when it comes to this. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 22:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not criticize his hard work? The page actually looks much better now. You like the crap it was before because all the work you've done is a bunch of stubs, so that's what your familiar with. Here, we try and maintain higher level work, like FL and GA. You should read up on it, I see all the pages you've created are start class.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<Remove personal attack> Comment – If Can Country is a defunct chart now, and is not replaceable by its Billboard one, then remove. And EDC, another personal attack, I will drag you to ANI., — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Shania Twain's discography could exist without the Canadian country peaks is simply unfathomable. Whether the RPM chart has been discontinued or not is irrelevant. By that same token, all of her Canadian peaks pre-2000 should be removed because the RPM Top Singles chart and the Canadian Singles Chart are not the same thing. The fact of the matter is that these peaks are valid, they are sourced and there is no justification for removing them, especially becuase Twain is a country music artist from Canada!! Canadian country peaks from RPM have been added to almost 1,000 discographies - those of every country music artist who charted on the Canadian country chart - without a single objection. I will concede that the AC peaks are expendable because all of Twain's singles that charted on the AC chart also charted on the main chart, but for an artist who supposedly transcends genres, only six of Twain's twenty-one singles that charted on the Canadian RPM country chart also charted on the RPM Top Singles chart, necessitating the Canadian country column to paint a full picture of her career. If your argument is that we can't find room for them, then her Wikipedia discography is a joke and it shouldn't exist. You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. I can appreciate the improvements you've made in sourcing her discography, but in doing so you can't delete the most important column of all. Eric444 (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you, first of all, for crediting me with something. Then, I believe those aren't the same things because the main-genre chart continued with other providers throughout, and is now take care of by Billboard. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 17:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like these are biased opinions from a slanted source; they're simple, numerical data whose inclusion will never compromise anything. If it's easily verifiable to a neutral source, it should stay. Bar none. The peaks are easily verifiable to an archive; therefore, they should stay. End of discussion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the Canadian peaks are sourced then I think they should definitely be included. It is, after all, her home country and primary genre chart. I only saw the peaks pre-2000 that have been deemed verifiable, which should be allowed, even if the chart no longer can be verified in the same way. CloversMallRat (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the same points that have been noted before, and there still seems to be absolutely no consensus. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 02:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • No consensus, my ass. Endale, Eric444, Caldorwards4, Novice7, CloversMallRat and I have all given valid reasons for keeping the positions based in policy, whereas Legolas and Nathan have given only
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons that don't have anything but their own whims backing them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Looks like a consensus to me. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 04:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously? You just think it is a consensus because it is the point you are arguing for. Novice7 has not specifically said he supports or disagrees with the use of Canadian charts. And myself, Legolas, and Nathan argue it should not. And they were valid points. You just think they weren't because you argue for the other side. Also, more of the country editors have participated in the discussion. Eric and Endale, and I invited three users. It totals 5 for your side, and 4 from my side. That doesn't seem like a fair discussion. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well of course there is going to be more country music editors here voicing their opinion because this is a country music topic. As of right now, the consensus is to keep them. As you clearly said, there is 5 for keep and 4 for remove. That is a consensus whether you want to admit it or not. I don't understand why you want to keep this argument going. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 00:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that on Spotify there's a 2011 album called Bite My Lip http://open.spotify.com/album/1f4dezzoLolAmdvyLpLnOX but I see no mention of it here. Does anyone know anything about it? yorkshiresky (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225031458/http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS to http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Shania%20Twain&format=Video%20longform&go=Search&perPage=50
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.musikindustrie.de/gold_platin_datenbank/?action=suche&strTitel=&strInterpret=Shania%20Twain&strTtArt=&strAwards=checked
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070422182241/http://www.ifpi.no/sok/index_trofe.htm to http://www.ifpi.no/sok/index_trofe.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]