User talk:Iknow23

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a

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?

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

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

Chase (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

All those article sections without

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.

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!

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,

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.

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'.

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

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.

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.

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]

Billboard Pop Songs/TiK ToK song

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?—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) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.

⊂ 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.

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

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

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

talk) 01:23, 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

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?

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

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,

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

talk) 00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Linking to "

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

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

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.

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.

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) 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*.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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 (

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

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

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

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]

to add or not to add

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.

"In

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.

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.

(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]

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]

Removal of Pop Songs chart

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)[reply]

Tik Tok

STOP! Its under Digital download, it doesnt have to be under a "single section". According to Ke$sh'a Itunes page the single was deleted and merged to just a regular digital download. Thats what i have under track listing. Its allowed. Please revert your edit. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"According to Ke$sh'a Itunes page the single was deleted and merged to just a regular digital download." < I don't see that it says that. This is a singles article so it needs to be shown as being sold as a single.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how to explain this. The title is "Tracklisting". Tik Tok is a track on the album, its just to show general download since there is no more "Tik Tok Single" page on her itunes, once the album was released it was deleted and only made available by track download from the album, this happened in most countries. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason to do that? Amazon shows in the Album field the 'parent album' when a song is sold as an album track and has a separate listing repeating the song title in the 'album field' showing that it is a single. Can you find Tik Tok at Amazon sold as a single and use that for ref and delete iTunes since they are not selling it as a single (anymore?)—Iknow23 (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying CLK (I know it happened), but its not

WP:V -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

its an iTunes error because '7 Digital US Store' still has the song available for sale, seperate from the album. According to them it was available 25 Aug 2009. See here. Often when iTunes fails, 7 Digital proves more stable -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So CLK, just use 7 Digital as an appropriate ref then.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your refusal to show the country. UK is displayed.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lil if you wanna add the 7digital link please do. And Iknow23, adding US to it is not needed the way it is now. Using that your logic, saying im linking to the US itunes, i could add 53 more refs of where it was released which would be way over kill. I chose US to show generalization of the length of the track. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CLK/IKnow23, I'll leave it to you guys to decide. ;) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A generalization is not needed, just use the infobox length field for that (which shows 3:21 by the way?). The track listing section is being used to show different versions of release that includes various remixes.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, didnt notice that, thanks. Who decided this? Is this not a track? Was it not digitally released? Were going to have to agree to disagree. You may change it to US Digital Download and add the 7Single link if you wish. But please dont remove it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless the US single was just the track by itself as 7 Digital shows... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not being stated as an "US release" but 'in general'. IMO it should be understood that the single has to be released by itself (at least)...how else can it be a single? But oftimes these days various remixes can be included as well as another song. The only way to know that additional material is to list it all out in a Track listing section. I guess my point really is that a list of ONE just by itself is unnecessary as understood.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok per Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Article content "Single track listings...If the song is a single include track listings for the single's different formats." I guess by itself can be thought of as one of the formats?—Iknow23 (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats what i was trying to say :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Couple of new questions... 1. For consistency can't we just say "US Single" as the "UK Single" is also Digital download but we don't specifically say all that? 2. Don't we need to change the US release date in the Release history table per our newly found (verifiable) 7 Digital to Aug 25 2009?—Iknow23 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt notice that there was a different release date. Please do then, also, the heading could be US Single or US Digital download i dont really care either way, choose what you feel is better consistent. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok will do and Thank You :) —Iknow23 (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I just checked Tik Tok (song) and I see that my edit to collapse it into an 'Order of precedence' has not been reverted, yet! I'm sure I did that months ago and someone took it off again. I think the collapsed version might be the best compromise position; the material gets to remain for those trully interested, and for those of us that are not--we don't have to see the large 'chunk of junk' on the page."

I removed the collapse originally, i actually didnt notice you added it back. It removed due to a GA passing concern. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the 'heads up'. Some of us are hoping that one day the reverse may be true :)—Iknow23 (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally hate the stupid succession box, there an unsourced, unneeded mess. You can keep them in the drop box if you want, i dont really care. If someone else removed it though i would just leave it. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yepper, sounds like a plan :) I wouldn't get into a war over it. Hopefully some standards can be set. I apologize for not remembering off the top of my head, but have you contributed to the discussion on this?—Iknow23 (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the succession box? No i havnt, i could really care less either way lol. Im leaning more towards removing them, im waiting for more people to weigh in then ill voice my opinion. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Its been discussed a number of times but nothing was ever resolved. :( —Iknow23 (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jrs1200

Blocked as a sock.—Kww(talk) 03:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. They were getting rather annoying with all the excessive infobox pictures and other material.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dance in the Dark

Hi Iknow23, Dance in the Dark and Alejandro were serviced as iTunes promo singles for The Fame Monster on November 9, 2009 in several European countries. These were not official singles, they were promotional. (This is done all the time on iTunes for upcoming albums.) I'm sure you know, and I know, that Dance in the Dark was not a single in 2009. The first release as a full, official single should be used, and that would at the moment be radio. When it is serviced as a CD single, the infobox release date can be changed to reflect that. –

Chase (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Chase. I hope my recent edits improve the accuracy of the article. I believe it conforms to what you said above.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks correct. –

Chase (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok. Cool :)—Iknow23 (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio adds

I think this was the main reason why the Singles vs. Non-Singles argument went stale. See, in the US, CD singles rarely exist. So if an album is already released, and all songs are available, and a song is released as a single? How could you tell it is a single from a regular album track? Just like Say Aah and thousands of other singles, a radio add dates is the only way you can identify a single. Labels aren't going to send songs for adds not intended to be singles. With CD singles being basically extinct and a full album already available for download, if you can understand my point, this is the only way to identify US-only singles after albums are release. Candyo32 01:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand. That is why I am not saying it must be infobox SONG. But I do think it should be pointed out that it is NOT 'historically' a single...but a single of this 'new wonderous age' of Radio only Single. It is greater accuracy to say so, and should be distinguished separately from the 'historical singles'. Oh, btw...in the US (where I am) they wouldn't have to release a CD single. They can have a 'single' download date which is different from the album. —Iknow23 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I live in the US too, and the only time a single is re-released for download is for a remix. What's the point of re-releasing a song. For example, on iTunes even when an album comes out, when it begins to fall on iTunes a lead single is eventually phased out, and the album version is being the one worked. As a specific example, Songz's "Bottoms Up"' original single version is no where to be found within the iTunes top 100 or in a search, in favor of the Passion, Pain & Pleasure version. Candyo32 01:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of 're-releasing' a song is for clarity. For singles after the album release...They are first available as part of its album (Album track release). When released 'separately' from the album it is clear it must be a single. Phased out-We don't want them to do that! It'll leave us with dead 'single' links and problems with verifiability. Why oh why do they have to do that :(—Iknow23 (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know! It happens all the time now. smh. Anyway, I still have never seen a single re-released for 'clarity' as the album version is always the one that pushes on iTunes. Candyo32 01:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I guess my point really is that anything unusual or not standard should be indicated. If I see a release date noted for a 'single' (to me anyway) it means the song has a different SALES date from it being an album track. If this is untrue, I'd like to see an indication (link) to go to the section explaning that.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. In the 'old days' singles HAD to be re-released PHYSICALLY. That was the greatest clarity. The problem today is that we can 'cherry pick' singles or songs out of an album digitally. And now to my disgust, even when released as a Digital Single, that will expire after a time. :x smh—Iknow23 (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not a big deal or set in stone, but it is the preferred usage, and will more than likely be asked to be changed whenever the article goes up for GA (i.e. Ready (Trey Songz album), The Fame, Like a Virgin, Invincible (Michael Jackson album), and so on. It's also kind of blocky, choppy & drawn out to have a single paragraph for each single. Single paragraphs would also stretch out the page and our goal is to be concise as possible. Candyo32 04:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's the lowdown: LOL

A FULL, OFFICIAL, REGULAR SINGLE gets a digital download date, accompanied by a radio date. Using using Gucci's upcoming The Appeal: Georgia's Most Wanted, his only official single from the album is "Gucci Time" f/Swizz Beatz, which gets a download, radio date, and the music video treatment. Artists will usually promote their album only via performing official singles.

A PROMO SINGLE - gets a digital download date but is NOT accompanied by a radio date and usually does not have a video (but they do in some cases). Most promo singles are released onto iTunes as a part of a "Countdown to..._________" promotion for the album. So other than "Gucci Time" all the other Gucci singles (I believe it is about three or four already) released are promo only. I would like to at the The State article may not be up to par so those singles listed as promo may not really be singles at all. You know how obsessive fans get.

About the "radio single" thing. A radio single is almost in every single case, going to be an official single that has a digital download dates. Promos are not, they only have a digital download date. What i've been trying to explain to you is that nowadays a radio single is the official single. A label is not going to release a song to radio not intended to be a regular single. I still don't understand your need to split the two into a whole section. In my opinion, either way you look at it, a radio add date is a form of release. Promo singles aren't going to get radio add dates, so either its a single or a promo single. Only two types.

Another thing to remember is that official/regular singles are to promote not only the album but the single itself, while promo singles are just to promote the album.

Hope this explains. Candyo32 00:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I have ABSOLUTELY no confusion over this... "In partnership with iTunes, several of the tracks from the new album will be released as part of their “Complete My Album” single release program in the weeks leading up to the album’s release date." from http://mvremix.com/urban_blogs/2010/09/13/gucci-mane-to-release-follow-up-album-the-appeal-georgia’s-most-wanted-september-28th-announces-itunes-singles-release-national-promo-tour/ Here, I will applaud iTunes deleting these as 'singles' soon. IMO this is a 'pre-sale preview of part of the album' and definately not 'TRUE' singles in any sense of the word. DO you consider these to be 'promo singles' or do they require a lil more than just this?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to see a bit about the radio. A single will generally have a Radio add date (advertisement) to generate interest to go purchase it upon sales release. If the record company is not wanting people to purchase it (in however fashion they can...Digital single, album track, physical format...) they are NOT going to 'send' it to radio. Its really all about the industry terminology. They say 'Radio add' or 'impact radio' instead of 'Radio release' or 'released to radio'.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the iTunes promo things are promo singles. But about the radio thing again of course it can't be "released" to radio as they can play them anytime they want to. But they are still given an official add date. Can't this be compared to digital releases also? A typical songs is leaked before released, and could be available prior to the date for weeks at a time and downloaded and everything. This is just how a radio station can play before an add date, no? Candyo32 02:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand that fully...but digital releases are for sales. Radio play is not a sale, but can definitely generate interest so that there will be sales. My GUESS, is that the record companies like to tell radio a date when they REALLY want them to 'push' the song. I forgot the industry term and company that does this—but there is a tracking of 'radio spins', so instead of just having spins at random and languishing, they set a time they want them all to play it. Generates greater numbers...looks good to all who review that info.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historically 'Release' means available for purchase.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that radio play not being a sale would supercede. However, radio is key in the Hot 100. Highest charting songs typically have dual digital and radio effects, as they go hand in hand for the most successful songs. Without radio play (particularly urban R&B songs nowadays) songs would not reach their heights. As for your last reply, I would assume "release" would just mean available period. Candyo32 03:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "...it can't be "released" to radio..." but you want to call a Radio add date = Radio release. It seems like the industry is taking great pains to avoid DIRECTLY calling Radio 'a release' so how can we? We are to follow their lead (in references) and not consider it to be something that they refuse to say themselves.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think we've totally switched topics. Lol. Anyway, I'm not saying it should be titled "radio release," I just don't see the need to distinguish it separately from physical or digital releases. I just think since radio has so much weight, how could it be considered an "advertisement" and helps songs chart. For example, Monica's "Love All Over Me" 23 mil audience on radio has helped it chart at #58 on the Hot 100, without appearing on the digiatl songs chart, or for that fact even in the iTunes Top 200. So it's not always the case that airplay stimulates sales. Candyo32 03:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Radio is beneficial for charting. But a song can be a single without charting. In such case though there will prolly not be a wiki article for it. Ahhhh...there's our key difference...you say, "I would assume 'release' would just mean available period." So availble to listen vs. available to purchase. A 'release party' is a celebration that the production work is now over and it is available for consumers to purchase so they can receive monies for their efforts :)—Iknow23 (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyway, I'm not saying it should be titled "radio release," I just don't see the need to distinguish it separately from physical or digital releases." < Ah, there IS my problem...If they are comingled in a 'Release history' table then Radio IS being called a release.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion request

Could you give your opinon here? Thanks in advance. Candyo32 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkin Park discography

I have deleted the link you [added] to Linkin Park discography article because the articled you linked was already linked not long away from there. See

WP:REPEATLINK

.
Hey, since you are native english speaker, maybe you can help with the

Lead of that article.--Neo139 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your contributions to Linkin Park discography. I have re-deleted the link to

WP:DISCOGSTYLE. If you are not agree with this you can discuss in WP:DISCOGSTYLE#Talk. Also I recommend you check out the style of featured list of artist discographies --Neo139 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey man, I have added LP discography for peer review. Keep an eye on here Wikipedia:Peer_review/Linkin_Park_discography/archive1 that we can make this one a featured list :). Btw, last Thursday I saw LP live \m/ --Neo139 (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll see how that process works. I never was involved in a FL or GA before, just some AfD's. And some of the MoS pages, of course ;) Luckly you to see em LIVE :)—Iknow23 (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Linkin Park

Hey there, I noticed that you and User:Neo139 have done extensive work on the Linkin Park discography page. Today another editor has switched some countries around without any discussion and wanted to call your attention to this. I was hoping that he would use the article's Talk Page to bring together a consensus on his desired changes, but he chose not to.[8] Perhaps you two could work with him to discuss the replacement of JPN with CAN? - eo (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi eo. Regarding the changes of countries in Discogs, I believe that you may want to contribute at Limit of 10 charts. But which charts? Consensus needed.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing references without checking content

RE: this edit. If you had checked the link, you would know that irishcharts.com is a placedholder site that doesn't actually have any charts.—Kww(talk) 14:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True

Yerrr, that's probably for the best, to be honest xDD Well hope i didn't come across too weird, i am a nice person, honest ;DD Have a nice start to the week. :) AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou :) and hahaha x'DD Yes very true, that's if i don't get blocked though... I once got blocked for calling "yves" an airhead :PP AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha xDD ok bye :)AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something new for you: Weekly charts

I am quite bemused by your reversion at Tik Tok (song). Never seen it done that way anywhere else seems an insufficient basis to remove something that must make sense to you, and isn't proscribed by any guideline.

Looking at the Charts, certifications and precession section, we see that there is a subsection labeled Chart precession, which is logical (it contains all those great succession boxes), and a subsection labeled Certifications, which is also logical (it contains the Certs table). It would be logical to expect the rest of that section to contain charts, which it does. And doing it your way, we even have a subsection labeled Charts (containing the weekly charts). But then, outside of the Charts subsection, we've got some other things, leftovers. What are they? Well, they're year-end charts and decade-end charts, in subsections labeled Year-end charts and Decade-end charts, respectively. But hey! They're charts, too, and therefore ought to logically be under the Charts subsection. Unfortunately, that's not how it is after your reversion.

In outline form, the three options look like:

Using "Weekly charts"	Using "Charts", logically	Using "Charts" as now
I. Article	I. Article	I. Article
A. Writing and inspiration	A. Writing and inspiration	A. Writing and inspiration
...	...	...
J. Charts, certifications and precession	J. Charts, certifications and precession	J. Charts, certifications and precession
1. Weekly charts	1. Charts	1. Charts
	a. Weekly charts
	b. Year-end charts
	c. Decade-end charts
2. Year-end charts		2. Year-end charts
3. Decade-end charts		3. Decade-end charts
4. Certifications	2. Certifications	4. Certifications
5. Chart precession	3. Chart precession	5. Chart precession
K. Release history	K. Release history	K. Release history

I hope you can see that the current way is just not logical, as J.1. in the third column is "Charts", suggesting that it's all the charts, but we've got some other charts outside that (J.2. and J.3.). We should pick one of the first two forms, and the one using "Weekly charts" is the simpler of the two. Even if you've never seen it before, it could be something new you'd be willing to adopt in those cases where an article has more than one kind of charts table with a subheading of its own. You're open to improvements, right? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to improvement, yes :) ... However, the notability is not that they are 'Weekly charts' but 'Peak charts'. It just so happens that I guess each comes out weekly. So I propose calling them 'Peak charts'. Do you like?—Iknow23 (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for considering my words. I prefer "weekly" to "peak" because of the yearly and decadely parallels, but I'd accept "Peak", too. However, L-l-CLK-l-l appears to disagree. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that L-l-CLK-l-l disagrees for across articles consistency, which is a bit of my first thought that bemused you. At least I brought a smile to your face then. I shall not persue this further, but of course you are welcome to try to convince the 'others'. —Iknow23 (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments on the matter, tho i see your points i disagree unfortunately. The way i currently have it written in Tik Tok is:

• 10.1 Charts (Having it as weekly is not logical, if you think about it, weekly means week by week, Charts or Charting peak would made more sense (dont change it to that it was just an idea lol) )
• 10.2 Certifications
• 10.3 Year-end charts
• 10.4 Decade-end charts
• 10.5 Chart precession

This is how it is written at it is wide set wiki consensus, if its not broken, there is no need to fix it. I like it this way, normally im all for change but in this case i dont like it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CK, thanks for answering. My point is that it is broken (though hardly likely to cause catastrophic failure of Wikipedia...) and so should be fixed in some way.

I don't see why "Having it as weekly is not logical"; my logic is strewn across the top of this thread. I agree with you completely that "weekly means week by week", and that's how these charts are published, without exception. They are all weekly charts, which is why Yahoo! Chart Watch comes out weekly (titled "Week ending..."), and the countdown shows are weekly, and (in Europe, at least) many of the charts are labeled with the Week number rather than some calendar date.

Looking now at your 10.1–10.5 list, I see it differs from my third column above only in the order. I tend to prefer the order I showed above for logical reasons, but I often use your ordering for space/layout reasons. So no argument on the ordering. But look again at your list: why aren't your 10.4 and 10.5 under 10.1? (I know they're below, but I mean "subordinate to".) Should the other two kinds of charts logically fall under the heading of Charts (your 10.1)? It's like saying

• Cakes, celebrations, and people who have celebrated
  • 10.1 Cakes
  • 10.2 Celebrations
  • 10.3 Graduation cakes
  • 10.4 Wedding cakes
  • 10.5 People who celebrated events with cakes

Laid out like this, it seems that the graduation cakes and wedding cakes would be part of the "Cakes" category at 10.1, but oddly, they've got their own label. What's under "Cakes" then, we wonder? Well, if we change the label at 10.1 to "Birthday cakes", similar to what I'm suggesting with "Weekly charts", all would be clear. And logical.

Please take another look. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just had another thought. I was noticing the 'misalignment' of "Certifications" being intersperced with the 'Position' charts, whether they be Peak (or weekly), Yearly (or annual), or Decade. Why not just have the ONE subsection header "Charts" and put the other info into the CHART header (and HA, yes, I've seen 'em this way). The 'Peak' chart shows a 'Peak' column so it is obvious what that one is. The others would look like this...

Year-end chart (2009)	Position

and

Decade-end chart (2000–2009)	Position

—Iknow23 (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This way each of the MAIN section offerings, 'Charts, certifications and precession' would be entitled to just one subheading.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::To correlate with the prior presentations, I should show it like this.
Charts, certifications and precession

• 10.1 Charts

Chart (2009–2010)	Peak position

Year-end chart (2009)	Position

Decade-end chart (2000–2009)	Position

• 10.2 Certifications
• 10.3 Chart precession

—Iknow23 (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This actually has a great deal of merit, Iknow23. Not only is it logical (to me), but it also allows for something that may eventually come around to help meet the accessibilty requirements for Wikipedia, namely, table captions. Table captions have been used on the examples at the recently revised

WP:DISCOGSTYLE

, and so also used in some/most/all of the articles where the new styling's been deployed. Look at your examples above, but with the built-in captions that tables are actually supposed to always have (per accessibility-minded best-practise, I mean):

Charts, certifications and precession

• 10.1 Charts

List of selected charts, with peak positions, where song peaked in 2009

Chart (2009)	Peak position

Selected end-of-year charts from 2009 with corresponding positions

Year-end chart (2009)	Position

Selected end-of-decade charts for the decade 2000–2009, with corresponding positions

Decade-end chart (2000–2009)	Position

• 10.2 Certifications

Selected countries [or regions] with certificates earned for quantities sold or shipped

Country	Certification

• 10.3 Chart precession

These captions wouldn't show up in the TOC, but they do tend to get bolded and centered over their tables. The actual wording has to be worked out, with consideration for what low-sighted users need (I'm just guessing here). Also, – dare I mention it? – the caption for the regular (weekly) charts table might still well have (need?) "weekly" in it, when there are year-end or decade-end charts shown.

There could still be some rearrangement of the tables into two columns for space reasons, but with your suggestion, the certs wouldn't usually be up next to the weekly charts with the year-ends down below (as on Tik-Tok now). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for considering my suggestion. I admit to ignorance (as I have not followed) on the accessibilty issue. I'm just guessing about what it might be. Is it a type of standardized display for cell phones, laptops, notebooks, and PC's so the material will render in a readable fashion on ALL THE DEVICES? Appreciate if you can let me know what it really is, in case my guess is wrong. I don't like the captions as they just seem redundant. The proposed table headers already tell us what they are. If the captions are necessary, I would leave out the word, 'Selected', as ALL verifiable material for all those tables is welcome. I don't think we need to use the 'Selected' to mean ONLY verifiable material is to be included and that unverified material is UNSELECTED because it is already understood that at Wikipedia "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" and to accomplish this by "Cit[ing] your sources". I do agree that rearrangement into two columns is acceptable for the various charts but that certs being a different subheading (within the 3 tiered Main heading) should appropriately be left-aligned. (If I understood your meaning.) :) In regard to the "weekly", I recall that an editor expressed concern that ALL the weekly charts the song/album appears on would have to be reported; or in other words, the FULL charting trajectory information which we don't want. I can understand their perspective on this as the "Yearly chart" and the "Decade end chart" show their 'full' Position info (the ONE and only position they can have), so that the "Weekly chart" would be expected to show their 'full' position info as well. However, I can also see how "Weekly" 'fits' into the time period designation usage at the OTHER tables. But "weekly" is only reporting ONE week for each chart, that of its Peak. So even though it doesn't fit into the time period designation, I believe it better to call the table "Peak chart".—Iknow23 (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More explanation (arbitrary heading)

OMG, run! I feel an essay coming on...

In general terms, accessibility refers to how well a resource can be accessed, or gotten to, by the potential users (customers, readers, passengers, clients, etc.) of that resource. Since the natural approach to creating things (any thing; buildings, buses, Web pages, etc.) is to make them useful and accessible for the creator and people like the creator, buildings have historically been built with stairs but no ramps (most architects have no problem using stairs) and Web pages have been written so they look good in Netscape (when that was the dominent browser, which the site designer had) or Internet Explorer 6 on a PC with 1024x768 displays (when that's what designers assumed "everyone" had). Meanwhile, the term "accessibility" has come (too often) to be shorthand meaning "making things usable by disabled people. An "accessible" bus means there's some kind of ramp; an "accessible building" doesn't have only stairs betweens levels.

For Web sites, accessibility is not just making sure that a page can be read (consumed?) by a completely blind user, it's ideally about removing obstacles to access for everyone (with whatever eyesight) and lowering barriers so more people can, well, access the info. I think 10% of males are color-blind, so using just red and green to show something's bad or good, respectively, is a bad idea. One accessibility guideline is to use text with color.

There is a guideline for table captions, too. And yes, it is a problem that the captions may seem redundant with the headings immediately preceding them. This has to be addressed (I think some guideline somewhere says that a caption may not be necessary where a heading adequately conveys the same info.) This is a good reason this is still not required on WP (as I said, "may eventually come around").

But to wrap this bit up, and address your question a bit more directly, accessibility is about trying to keep barriers out of the way of content access, whether "most designers" would instinctively use colors only to communicate some status; or use narrow drop-down navigation lists which, for example, some older people might have trouble with; or make most or all of a page uses graphics without any text, so that users have no clue when one or more of the images don't display (or can't be seen); or require JavaScript (because some visitors don't have JavaScript turned on); or expect all visitors to be using the site in a certain level of browser with the window maximized on a Windows PC with 1280 x1024 pixels and an installed mail client and sond speakers which are turned on.

Now, about the word "selected", which is what I chose after considering other examples of table captions: they're just the selected charts not because of what's verifiable, but (1) because there's no requirement to list every chart, as we're supposed to decide what's appropriate to show; and (2) we often leave verified charts out of the table when, for example, a song charts on the Hot 100, but was also on the Bubbling Under, Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs), and six other Billboard charts.

About "weekly" meaning we have to list every dated chart published: no, that's silly. And it occurs to me just now that there may be confusion because we use the word "chart" to mean two slightly different things. In these tables, we mean it as "a set of information tracking the performance (by sales, airplay, downloads, etc.) of music recordings according to some particular set of criteria". In this sense, the Billboard Hot 100 is a chart of "the week's most popular songs across all genres, ranked by radio airplay audience impressions", and Adult Contemporary is also a chart, showing "the week's most popular soft rock songs, ranked by radio airplay detections as measured by Nielsen BDS." There's the Billboard Hot 100 for U.S. songs, the Canadian Hot 100 for tunes in Canada, the Japan Hot 100 in Japan, the Austrian Top 75, etc., all different charts in the sense we list them in the table. The second sense of the word chart is one particular week's rankings of any chart in the above sense.

I propose "weekly" because these charts (first sense) come out every week. And we're not showing the charts in the second sense because then we'd have to show a date. But our column is clearly labeled "Peak position", so showing every week's rankings for even one chart would be a crazy overkill (not that some Wikipedeans wouldn't try to do it) as well as a sure copyright violation.

I don't suppose that clears anything up, even if you carefully read it all. Anyway, I hope it's of some use to you. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. No problem receiving 'the essay', lol as I asked for it. I guess that I did intuitively understand at least part of the assessibility stuff correctly. Thanks Again.

Yes, you are correct about the 'weekly' or 'peak' charts in that for singles per

WP:USCHART

, [and with (so far) just some common sense editing when it comes to the albums] that not ALL verifiable charts are to be reported. Haha, imagine I forget that bit for a moment! However, I believe that there is no restriction when it comes to 'Yearly' (annual), or 'Decade-end' charts as there is only one per country reported. I hope there is NOT a Yearly 'US Hot 100 list', a Yearly 'US Rock Songs list', etc. and then the same for 'Decade end' charts? I know that I have never seen them shown at Wikipedia. I am aware of the '10 chart' suggestion for discog articles, but don't recall them showing 'Yearly' or 'Decade-end' chart info.

And true, the column header at 'weekly' WILL say 'Peak position', whereas the others just have 'Position'. So there is an indication of what that column will be reporting.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RickyYayo3

RickyYayo3 turned out to be a sockpuppet. You had a lot of interaction with him, and I couldn't undo all of his edits without undoing some of yours. I'm leaving it to you to undo as much of his edits as you want.—Kww(talk) 19:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. But now an IP 98.85.168.82 is making up various remixes and adding them to the Gomez and the Scene articles.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they've been undone. Wrong IP range to be Jerome0012/RickyYayo3.—Kww(talk) 23:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I wanted to let you know just in case. Since not, can you please track their activity for continuing inappropriate editing and take whatever corrective measures are deemed necessary. Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shake It Up theme song

I was skeptical as you were about Selena Gomez singing the theme song, as it turns she does. Besides Disney fan sites saying so, JustJared also confirms this: http://justjaredjr.buzznet.com/2010/10/26/bella-thorne-zendaya-selena-gomez-sings-our-theme-song/ as well as Ocean Up: [9]. But Wikipedia will automatically not allow JustJared to used as reference even though a number of celebrities are affiliated with it. QuasyBoy 18:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't entirely skeptical, just knew that the sources being cited were improper. The news will probably be reported by a 'proper' Disney source or mainstream media outlet soon. Additionally it is still unknown whether it is to be credited as Gomez only or Gomez and the Scene. I left a note on the article's TALK page about just waiting.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we should just wait for proper sources or least a good version of the pilot to be posted up on YouTube or we can just wait til the show premieres. QuasyBoy 15:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stuttering

I am aware of the article, exactly what would you like for me to contribute. :) QuasyBoy 05:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already saw the talk page :), I don't know how to assist with the discussion. Considering that I live in the U.S. and I don't know anything about the 'Reserviced version' of the track. In the U.S. iTunes I only see the regular version. QuasyBoy 05:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm in the U.S. Also, I searched for the 'Reserviced version' of "Stuttering" on YouTube, found nothing. Maybe it's Canadian exclusive thing. QuasyBoy 05:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe it just means re-release, But finding a reference is the Wiki thing to do. :) QuasyBoy 06:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joy (Fefe Dobson album)

From what I can see, you still don't see to understand my edits made to the article. First of all, Bestfan is a FANSITE, not a reliable source. Amazon.com has the correct track listing. Regarding Watch Me Move, it was not sent to radio, so can not be considered an official

(Talk) 00:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I shall answer at the Talk:Joy (Fefe Dobson album) page as we are not the only editors participating in this dispute. This will allow everyone to join the discussion.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All singles are "promotional" for their parent albums. Watch Me Move and I Want You are "promotional singles" only if they failed to appear on the album itself. Then they are "promotional ONLY singles." Watch Me Move never officially impacted mainstream radio, however, it was attached to a magnitude of T.V. commercials and movie trailers, and had it's own music video. FeFe talked about Watch Me Move being her debut single back in 2008, but due to her being independent at the time, it wasn't a mainstream single like Ghost and Stuttering. That however does NOT change the fact that it was a single, had a music video, and appears on Joy. Don't Let it Go to Your Head and This is My Life are still considered singles, and they're off an album that was never released, and TiML never had a video to help promote it. Both songs didn't chart, but they are still singles.—

talk) 05:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

AGREED. Please re-post at Talk:Joy (Fefe Dobson album). There are 'virtual posters' and maybe even physical posters were made that show WMM, IWY, and Ghost as being on Joy. This was before Stuttering, so it doesn't appear there. Just because a new single "Stuttering" comes out, does not mean that a prior single is no longer a single.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reposted. :]—

talk) 06:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. Giving full-out explanations on Talk pages are better than just using 'Edit summaries' and even 'Instructional comments'. This will prove attempts to clear up confusion on anyone's part. Also helpful to have more editors 'chime in' to support the position that you are 'championing'.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

You have been

multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Iknow23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do not understand. I do not use multiple accounts. Occasionally, my log-in may expire and an edit or two might go in without my username, but other than that it doesn't occur. I revert vandalism on a regular basis. My best guess is that someone did this out of retaliation for reverting their vandalism.

Accept reason:

Checkuser finds these accounts to be  Unrelated. jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The suspected socks are

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 68.53.47.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). On behavioral evidence alone, I am not convinced that these two are socks of Iknow23, although meatpuppetry cannot be ruled out. Checkuser attention might help here.  Sandstein  20:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

{{unblock|IF User:Ending-start initiated the block request. They should be blocked for IMPROPER use of the block procedure. They insist on their position and refuse to discuss it on article talk pages where other editors can express their views as well. It is not appropriate to seek block of those that do not agree with you! Iknow23 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)}}

Please see

WP:NOTTHEM and do not make more than one unblock request at a time.  Sandstein  20:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm leaving this request open for other admins to comment. See also HJ Mitchell's comment here.  Sandstein  20:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nowhere certain enough to overturn any admin decisions, but I am not 100% happy that these users are the same. At least one of the IPs is admitted, as a failure to log in, and most of us have done that on occasion. And

talk" 22:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Seconding the unhappiness, particularly since the blocking admin doesn't seem to have left a note pointing out the alternate accounts, or any evidence of them. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the SPI linked in the block log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTION. It is unnecessary and excessive to issue a statement such as, "I am 110% convinced..." It is usually difficult to be 100% certain of most things in life. Examples of more appropriate language: 'I have reason to believe' or 'I am fairly certain'. As I do not participate in these types of actions (until forced into it now unfortunately), perhaps I can offer a fresh perspective. I would like to recommend a more thorough check of the background and edit history of BOTH the 'accusers' and the 'accused' prior to action being taken. My record stands for itself, but I would like to call particular attention to the section immediately preceding this one and to follow it over to the TALK at Joy (Fefe Dobson album). You will see that I admonished (without naming names at that time) both Ending-start and 'my supporter' Blackarachnophobia for un-wiki like behavior and brought the discussion there where it belongs, instead of being on my Talk.—Iknow23 (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) I would support a shortened block since it's the first block; worst case, in the event that anyone's truly innocent, the block doesn't apply for much longer. That said, for the person who's blocked, it would speak loads to the credibility of your assertion of innocence if you were willing to voluntarily avoid editing whatever articles are in question for a period of time in order to demonstrate that you feel no compulsion to have to sock anyway. After all, socking seems to be the last resort of people who are desperate to edit an article to make it a certain way—not those willing to voluntarily avoid doing so. --slakr^\ talk / 23:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to whatever action you think is best. My judgement was based on the arrival of Blackarachnophobia to revert in the same edit war as Iknow23 had been involved in and the remarkably similar similar use of capitals in edit summaries. Others considering this request may make of that whatever they will and act accordingly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice the use of block 'conveniently' knocked out ALL of a certain editor's 'opponents' with one fell swoop. They then chose not to discuss the issues on the article's Talk page. To me anyway, it seems like that is a 'desperate' approach to 'have their way' with the articles. They have deleted sourced material and have altered the article to their view with incorrect assertions. For one, an unreleased album can still be a Studio album. It just means that the unreleased album is not a Live album or Compilation (Greatest hits) album, etc. I can assure you that I did not experience any 'compulsion' to sock. I am not in the habit of pretending to be someone else and carrying on a conversation with myself (as Blackarachnophobia and I have communicated a few times). There are a number of editors that I have come to see 'around', and although we do not always see 'eye to eye', I respect them and I believe they respect me. I have never made any attempt to block them and they have never attempted to block me. I have participated in Talk at MoS pages and have contributed to their corresponding Project pages such as

WP:CHARTS, etc. I revert vandalism regularly and call attention to unsourced material. Does it really seem to be 'in character' that someone like myself would then toss out all this good history of contribution and go do a sock? Now really?—Iknow23 (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I reported you because I saw something fishy. I didn't know if it was true or not, but that's what an investigation is for now isn't it? I was trying to fix the article because it was a complete mess and my edits kept being reverted. Then I see these new editors that only edited that article, so I reported it. As you can see from the article now,

talk) 18:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

To me it seems 'fishy' that you refuse to discuss the issues in the appropriate forum on the article's Talk page and seek a block of all that oppose you. You are aware of article Talk pages, are you not? Also it is 'interesting' as to the timing. This occurs immediately prior to the release of the album and covers the entire period of both the Canadian and US release! Ok. So it was an 'accusation' submitted for 'investigation'. A 'punishment' was inappropriately imposed prior to the completion of the investigation (unless Wikipedia subscribes to the notion of Guilty until proven innocent). As regards to similar use of capital letters in edit summaries and positions...I just presumed that Blackarachnophobia (and their prior IP) did a Copy and Paste of my material. I know that upon occasion I will see an edit summary, instructional comment or other that I think covers an issue to good effect and I Copy and save it, then adopt and adapt it for later use. This does not mean that I am the same person as the originator of the material. If you believe the article fails

WP:MUSIC, I do not understand why you waste your time to edit it at all. Shouldn't you instead submit it for AfD?—Iknow23 (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

To the best of my knowledge and still uncertainty, it looked to me as if you were talking to yourself. Why the hell would I bother? And also, did I receive a message on my talk page about the discussion? No, I didn't. The only reason I saw it was because I was watching it. I reported you because it seemed fishy to me. Period. There's nothing more to it.

talk · contribs) 22:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Now that my good [user]name has been vindicated, I may just retire from Wikipedia. I had been spending way too much time here anyway and I have much more important things to do in life.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey wait. You got blocked by mistake, and then unblocked. Not the end of the world. In your block log, it appears that it was a mistake. HJ Mitchell is a good admin, and he is doing lots of stuff at the same time, wherever you go at Wikipedia, you will see him, giving rollback permissions, protecting articles, etc. As everyone here, he also make a mistakes.. Another topic. I came here to tell you that Linkin Park discography just got peer reviewed and maybe you could help me to make the changes suggested in the peer review. If you have meta:Wikistress, you can always try a WP:Wikibreak (I'm trying, but can't =P) --Neo139 (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Iknow23, you're name in my eyes has not been vindicated. You are a good editor and not only do I respect your opinion but others do too. We've all been guilty of getting too involved in a heated edit war. don't let it hold you back from doing what you obviously love. Please don't retire.... you'll be missed too much. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 14:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to apologize for taking as long as I did to unblock; I noticed it a couple days earlier but got distracted by the American late November fuss. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to express appreciation to all those that showed support (including jpgordon) during this time and apologize for the delay in doing so.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why Don't You Love Me

Please participate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Why_Don't_You_Love_Me_(Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles_song)#Single.3F Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC courtesy notice - succession boxes

As someone who has taken part in previous discussions regarding the use of succession boxes in articles for songs and albums, I'd like to notify you of a request for comment that is taking place at

WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes. It would be nice to finally come to a resolution on this. If you have already participated in this RFC or do not wish to participate, then please disregard this notice. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi

Please take a look

here and please put your name if you are interested. Jivesh • Talk2Me 19:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Talkback

Hello, Iknow23. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Promotional singles.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate

Please participate in this discussion about adding A-side and B-sides to the songs template. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 19:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Moments 4 Life

Apologies if I confused you. In the UK "Moments for Life" was promoted as a digital download on March 20, 2011 (its digital download date). Similar to "What's My Name?" by Rihanna this date is considered its digital download despite not recieving a seperate listing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that March 20, 2011 IS the release date? That's what I edited it to show. I was puzzled by the March 29, 2010 date you put there.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Apologies... it was a typo. You'll have to excuse that. I've not been editing much recently and when I have, I'll be the first to admit it was with haste. :( how have you been? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

np, I thought it was just something like that. Yep, I too can make errors from time to time ;) I am generally well and hope you are the same :)—Iknow23 (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not to bad thanks. Just wondering... how's the single release clarity going at

WP:SYNTHESIS — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

LOL! WE are currently the last contributors there! —Iknow23 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise-surpise!!! Isn't that the biggest shock of 2011.... almost as big a shock as this, this or even this! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Yepper.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: One Night Stand

Oops, I did not realise things have changed. Thanks for the update!

talk) 05:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Ellie Goulding singles discussion

I would appreciate it if you took part in this discussion about the deletion of all of the articles of

start 00:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm into You

Endingstart already created a sandbox for the page here. Its not yet notable but in good shape. Feel free to help out. We're just awaiting a chart or a tad more info then it will be considered notable! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

btw.. i apologise... I thought you had started the article lol. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

np :) ... I think that there have been a few out there LIVE already. I agree it is too early for that, but just improving what readers can already see.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radio as release

Per discussions at WP:SONGS, radio is a form of release. You have no consensus to change pages to show a later date of purchase. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radio is not called 'release' but we have agreed that Radio can create a single. Just don't use the word 'release'.
Please contribute: Re reporting of Radio dates in infobox in Singles 'Released' field and chronology sections.
The crux of the issue is that we are reporting a NON-release date in a PREFORMATTED field titled "Released:". Radio date is NOT a 'Release' (industry terminology). We are attempting to resolve the reporting of Radio date in infobox

HERE. Also feel free to review the considerable material prior to the subsection given in the link. Please contribute to the discussion at the link above so it can all be in one place and thank you.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

We may think of it as sorta slang being a 'release' but we are reporting on their industry which refuses to call Radio a release, so we cannot do so. We need to use their terminology of "Radio add date", "Going for adds", "impacting radio", etc.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pink Friday

I have no problem with it. I understand what you've been doing now, no biggie. xD ℥

start 04:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Naw, everything's all good. Thanks, have a great one yourself! :) ℥

start 04:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Jasmine (American singer)

Just to let you know, some people use the DD-MM-YYYY dating system instead of the typical MM-DD-YYYY system. It's no big deal, and the notice probably was unnecessary. The only exception would be if all the dates were on or before the 12th of any month. Then some people might be confused trying to figure out which system is being used. --Djc wi (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like I said, no big deal. By the way, you might consider archiving your talk page. It's rather large. --Djc wi (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Papi

To find the US chart position you have to click on the canadian listing, it then says "also charted on..." — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arrrrrgh. Billboard! Now it doesn't even show the Canadian chart there. I knew it was there yesterday when I looked.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FML... i hate billboard with their stupid Javaflash site. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temp source: here. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So is the Billboard fluff-up a 'good thing' this time, LOL? You found two new charts because of it! :D —Iknow23 (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha... I still want to phsyically terminate the billboard website. it can't even be manually archived. it makes discographies even more difficult to produce.. gr!!!!!!!!!! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation

I wrote the article for this song... at the time of creation and soon after... Amazon showed Motivation available for purchase on April 11, 2011 in Germany and France. Its now been changed to May 13, 2011 on the page however I can vouch that the single was available earlier than this. Is it worth trying to source it or should we just leave it at the date now being reported by Amazon? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There you are, and Here I Am ;)
I believe you, but what to do now...Hmmm. If you can find a stable or webcite even an unstable source showing the April 11 -- go for it. Otherwise we can't give a source that shows May 13 to support a text and/or table date of April 11.
Which brings me to another problem....when iTunes does the early 'unlock' sales, apparently the ORIGINAL planned sales date still remains. Thus we can't use iTunes to source THESE occurrences. Other stable or webcite sources are needed.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about your comment on iTunes dates (is this a new thing? I've not come across this before). That doesn't make much sense to me because iTunes unlocking allows songs to chart early due to Digital sales think of things like Papi (song) by Jlo. It was eligable to chart several days before its iTunes unlock date (for which there is an archived source to prove it happened). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(continuing from above) It's almost at the point where we need to webcite ALL sources if possible. Arghhhh—Iknow23 (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here I Am (Kelly Rowland album) is in quiet a bad state... I've checked the sources and a lot are now redirect. Also because I've had less time to watch the article people have slowly been slipping shite into the article. I've begun work earlier today e.g. removing the mass of information from the singles sections, adding a songs section and de-toxifying the introduction. Not sure how to tackle the rest of the article tbh. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About iTunes, I was thinking about "I'm Into You". Can't use iTunes in the 'Radio dates and release history' table for US & Canada because they show Apr 5. However iTunes is the 'trusted' source for the rest of the world! The archived material like HERE shows "Posted 4/2/2011...You gave it LOVE? Now you get it EARLY!

Because of the fan LIKES on Jennifer's Facebook Profile her new single "I'm Into You ft. Lil' Wayne" is now unlocked for sale on iTunes" BUT it does not show it was available on Apr 1. They can post about it a day or MORE later and still say it is 'now unlocked for sale' without saying when THAT first occurred. Arghh. But in the article we show "Originally due for release on April 5, 2011, the song was unlocked and released on April 1, 2011,". I believe it but it is actually unsourced for Apr 1. Best that can be gotten from the archived source is Apr 2.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'problem'? with wiki is we are not allowed to state the 'truth' unless 'verified'.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If only JLo online could have said something like 'was unlocked for sale since yesterday on iTunes.'—Iknow23 (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About comprehensive article writing...I don't really do that. I was planning to tell you this on your Talk, but you probably already know most of this. Others have said that I 'nit-pick' which I can't really disagree with. What I do disagree with is their perception that I have an ulterior motive in mind to 'undermine' their work. Quite the contrary, I admire and appreciate their hard work and efforts in creating the articles 'from scratch'. That is the hard work. I attempt to make numerous small formatting, etc. corrections to improve the articles and to be vigilant that sources support the material claimed. Everyone is welcome to contribute in the manner that they wish. This is my way to contribute. Or to put it another way...others are working on the 'big picture' and I am 'sweating out the small stuff'.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no you got my last message wrong lol... i wasn't asking for you to help re-writing the article lol I just wondered if you had any suggestions lol!! With regards to el Lopez... the wording of the archived source says... "available now" which is also what fans on her mailing list recieved in an email ("because you showed likes for LOVE? "I'm Into You" is now available for purchase"). Thus one can surmise that the date that message was posted is the date the song was unlocked. The other alternative would be to use the general purchase date (i.e. the date when the single was available at all retailers?) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, OK. I prolly misunderstood your message bc I already had that stuff bout my wiki participation in mind to tell u.
Hmmm. I was already thinking a bit about what you just brought up. Just like we don't use iTunes charts, should a SPECIAL PROMOTIONAL early-release date by ONE retailer be properly recognized as THE release date? OR should "the general purchase date (i.e. the date when the single was available at all retailers?)" be used for wiki? I was planning to bring up the part I said earlier about the problem with early-release date sourcing at

WT:SONG, but now you bring up the larger issue of 'is that date even proper to use'? Could you start the discussion there? I know that some are tired of seeing discussions there started by me. I think it really needs to go there because this issue affects many articles and certainly goes beyond just the two of us.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Right There / amazon release dates

Hi Iknow, Just wanted to inform you that Amazon updates its UK and Irish websites at the same time ... hence singles in the UK appear with the Irish download date (which is usually 2 days before on the Friday, whereas UK singles are released on a Sunday). Amazon always does this and always has a green/blue box in the left hand corner stating the actual release date. For "Right There" is says "This album will be available on 5 Jun 2011" or "This song will be available on 5 Jun 2011" depending on if you click the individual tracks or the entire single. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. So even your Amazon speaks a different dialect of English! I never knew that!—Iknow23 (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and viewing it from the US, the blue box appears in the upper right hand corner.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I'm extremely tired from revision and personal life. But I too did not realise Amazon UK used British english (if that's what you're alluding too). And i meant upper right hand corner. my hand musta slipped to the wrong keys lol. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Yes, you got it! my attempt at humour ;)
By the way the archive links for the radio material do not work. :( The original links work (for the time being) at this is still for a future date.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah webcite is temporarily down (one of the servers). Emails to my inbox say the archiving is successful. Around 60% of previously archived linked do not work atm. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't know that.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it. I only realised when i checked some previously archived links and saw that they didn't work :( — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'm not worried. I expect that they will be fully back up sometime relatively soon.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robinlovemusic and the Trina articles

Given the history of

WP:AN/I report to see if an independent administrator thinks she should be blocked? I'm probably a little too close to the situation to block her myself, but I'd have no qualms filing or seconding a report. (Watching your talk page for a reply.) —C.Fred (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, definitely. I've never been involved in this process before, though. I have noticed (peaked) at their user talk page and have noticed the numerous warnings. I must say you have much patience. I have never seen anyone else add material and INCLUDE a cn tag on it. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." so if you don't have a good source, then don't add it. Anything and everything can be said WITHOUT verification. Example: Every man, woman and child has purchased five of each of Trina's albums in the year of their release. (cn). Sorry, I had to rant a little.
Since I am unfamiliar with the process, it will probably be better if you file the report. I will be happy to second it, and hope you can give me a quick hint how to do so. I don't relish trying to sort though all the technical details of the procedure.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Put Your Hands Up (If You Feel Love)‎

Please put your two cents into the jukebox. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Radio was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Naturally (Disco Fries Remix) - Single. iTunes. Retrieved on 2010-02-07.

Record Chart template removal consideration

I am contacting directly you because you have edited Wikipedia talk:Record charts more than once in the last two weeks. The following templates are at issue at The Beatles: