Talk:List of popular Christmas singles in the United States

Deletion?
Is there seriously a moron considering these types of articles for deletion? I need this for compiling my christmas album.

God forbid a useful article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.18.52 (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please make your opinion known about the deletion proposal, by commenting on the discussion page. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and Fix This article is a very useful one-step reference to many, yes. I've personally made numerous contributions to it since I came upon it a few years ago.  However, one can't deny that it's grown pretty large in size, and it currently violates wikipedia rules in terms of size.  It also isn't as focused in scope as it possibly could be.  Proposals have been made by others to only include Christmas season-related songs that charted in the "top 40" portion of the chart (though which chart or charts is up for debate).  Should only songs that reached the top 40 portion (or any portion) of the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart be included, or any of the music/record charts published by Billboard magazine (such as Hot Country Singles & Tracks, Hot R&B Singles & Tracks, Hot Adult Contemporary, Hot 100 Airplay, Hot Dance Club Play, not to mention the special year-end, weekly Christmas Singles chart that the magazine published between 1963 and 1973 and then again from 1983 to 1985)?  What about other sources besides Billboard (such as Radio & Records, Cashbox or Record World)?


 * One of my suggestions is create multiple wikipedia articles in order to have each focused on which country and/or music chart the Christmas season-related song charted (and maybe link them all back to a parent article which either currently exists or doesn't currently exist). We could have one that focuses on songs that charted on the British pop singles chart.  Another for the Hot 100 chart, another for the Country Singles chart, another for the Christmas Singles chart, another for the R&B Singles chart, another for the Hot Adult Contemporary chart, etc.


 * A great reference I've personally used is Joel Whitburn's excellent 2004 reference book, Christmas in the Charts (1920-2004), which provides information on all Christmas season-related albums and singles that charted on any of Billboard's record charts during those years, regardless of peak chart position. --Sliv812 (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Could we have all of these tables (country singles, christmas isngles, r&b singles...) just on one page and auto-hide the tables until you click "show"? Unless someone has a good idea on navigating the different articles besides a "see also" section. --Mjrmtg (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

New parody found
There's a new 12 Days of Christmas song I found on iTunes (evidently just uploaded there). It's called "The Metaphysical 12 Days of Christmas" done this year (2010). It's a fun take-off on this song! 157.22.252.53 (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not Deletion, but Evolution
Upon further consideration (after editing/adding entries in the article this week), I have to agree with others that feel the article is too unwieldy due to its size and lack of focus. Even though consensus was reached last month to keep the article, I'm now thinking it would be a good idea break up this article into at least two separate articles: one for Christmas hit singles that have charted in the United States, and another one for Christmas hit singles that have charted in the United Kingdom. The US-only article could have multiple tables (one for each type of chart, as Mjrmtg mentioned), or maybe continue keeping only one table and either reference the type chart in the Additional Information column (as is presently done) or have multiple columns for each type of chart (Pop, R&B, Country, Christmas). The cons of the latter approach include a table with too many columns. Yet another option is to have multiple articles: one article per US music chart. However, whatever route is taken, there will end up being a bevy of songs that are currently in the table that have never charted anywhere; these will have to either be removed or relegated to a some sort of "miscellaneous popular holiday songs list/table" (though maintaining that could become even more unwieldy and welcome far too many new entries). The size of the current article is already much too large in the attempt to make it more thorough, but something's gotta give. I need feedback from as many users as possible. This would make for a good project in 2011. --Sliv812 (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that breaking this list into separate Billboard charts would be beneficial. But I can see the advantage of having the US charted Christmas songs and the UK charted Christmas songs in separate lists. Granted, there are some songs that would be on both lists, but moving the UK songs to their own list, would make this article less unwieldy. Both articles would probably need to be renamed as well, to reflect the change. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I took the first step, by creating an article for List of Christmas hit singles (UK). There is still some work to be done in updating both lists, but everything that I could determine was strictly UK material, has been moved to the new article. If we decide to make this article strictly US, there are additional songs that will need to be removed. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chad! I'll help out where I can if I see a song that only charted in the UK that you haven't removed from the parent article yet.  Two suggestions though.  Can you rename the new article to List of Christmas/holiday hit singles in the United Kingdom?  I'd rather spell out the region in the title of the article instead of using the abbreviation.  There's another article that I've continuously been updating this year titled Best-selling Christmas/holiday albums in the United States, where both the country is spelled out and the term 'holiday' is included in addition to 'Christmas'.  The other suggestion is that, at some point, we'll need to rename the original article to List of Christmas/holiday hit singles in the United States.  Thanks.  --Sliv812 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your suggestions and help in cleaning up the articles is appreciated. I based the title of the new article on similar articles that I've found, such as List of number-one singles (UK) and List of Christmas number one singles (UK). I'm not opposed to changing the title of either article, but I think that the inclusion of "/holiday" is unnecessary, since we are specifically dealing with Christmas songs, and Wikipedia users are unlikely to type "Christmas/holiday" as a search term. If a source presents itself, which specifically refers to "holiday" songs, then we can include that word in the title at that time. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Artist and Date
It would be nice if the year the song was released was separated from the artist. I came here looking for Christmas songs from the 2000s, but could not sort by date. 71.232.131.59 (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that would be a useful feature, but unfortunately it would only affect songs on this list that originated in the 2000s. Any songs that are remakes of previously released material, would not be found sorting by date, since they would be included in the "Additional Information" section. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Chad, I'm afraid I'd have to disagree. I'm sure the sort feature of the column would properly handle years prior to 2000 as well. Isn't it simply a numerical sort?  Am I mistaken? I'm fairly certain that originally, the Year information wasn't even included in the Artist column (at least not with a majority of the entries).  As you know, this information was later added to indicate which year that the version listed in the Artist column was first released.  As long as we somehow point out that the Year column designates the year that the version of the song by the listed artist(s) (in the Artist column) was/were first released, I don't see any issues with breaking out the year information into its own column (barring any sort capability limitations with the wiki table).  As is currently the case, the Additional Information column should be used to designate cover versions of the song (and preferably only cover version that charted). However, the only potential issue I see with breaking out the Year information into its own column is with entries that feature more than one artist in the Artist column.  An example is "Baby, It's Cold Outside", in which there were five different versions of the song that charted in 1949 (though only the two versions that were the biggest hits that year are listed - both had equal chart peak positions and chart stays). Sliv812 (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was unclear. I understand that any sortable "Year" column would work for years prior to 2000. My point is that sorting by year wouldn't really improve the performance of the table, since the "Artist" column would only contain the original artist. For example, all of the information for Susan Boyle's version of "Silent Night", Taylor Swift's version of "Last Christmas", or any of Kimberley Locke's hits ("Frosty the Snowman", "Jingle Bells", etc.) is in the "Additional Information" column. So anyone looking for charted versions of those songs, without knowing the original year of release, would NOT be able to find them sorting by year. In my opinion, the limited functionality that would be gained, would not be worth the effort needed to separate the "Year" into its own column. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Overhaul Recommendation
Greetings Everyone and Happy New Year,

Now that the 2015 holiday season has come and gone, I've been thinking about modifying this article by breaking up the list into two tables:
 * One table for songs that actually charted on at least one United States-based music chart (as published by one or more reputable music/entertainment industry trade publication, with Billboard magazine being the most obvious)
 * Another table for popular Christmas songs that are in the general public conscience but (as far as known) have never charted (though the introduction of multiple Holiday music charts by Billboard over the last 10 years on its website has made this less of an issue than it had been previously).

Obviously this would be a rather involved undertaking that would require hours of research and effort on my part, but I think it would make the article a more "legitimate" and useful tool. As it stands, there are far too many entries in this ever-growing list that have never charted, and if we're going to set some level of standards, requirements and expectations, I personally think this may be a viable approach.

Further, because of the tremendous size of this article, its data would likely best be served by the use of a database rather than a static (albeit editable) wikipedia page. However, I'm currently unaware of any database media offered by the Wikimedia project for information management and display (please do not hesitate to enlighten me if there is).

Thoughts? All feedback is welcome.

Sliv812 (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see the advantage of splitting the list into multiple tables. This list should simply be Christmas songs that were released as singles in the US, and any chart information can be included the "Additional Information" section, especially if the song doesn't already have its own article. If we use the criteria above to start sorting the list, I think a majority of the songs on this list fall into the first category, and placing the few songs in the second category into a separate table, would defeat the purpose of having a sortable list... Fortdj33 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Changes
To explain my changes to this list article:
 * 1) The main issue was that out of hundreds of songs listed, very few were referenced. I had to remove any that I could not find sources that say they were charted. Some notes said they had charted, and I tried my best to verify, but I could not find sources for many of them. I did find that some were charted in the UK, but this list is for US only. And as I put in the hidden edit note: "A song does not necessarily had to have been charted to be listed, but it does need to have a reference showing how it is notable."
 * 2) The other issue was that the notes column (again, nearly all unsourced) caused major bloating. And the second part of the editing note says: "if you feel a note is needed, use inline notation." It took me many months to complete these improvements but feel that it was necessary. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:WORKS: "The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles". I appreciate your good faith edits, but you can't just change the criteria of the list to suit your POV. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, no. I didn't do all that work (not just on the article itself but through research as well) for you to just revert it all back to the way it was – especially for the reason you gave. MOS:WORKS does not say that list items don't need reliable sources. To the contrary, the following sentence says, "appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V)". All articles, including list article need to be properly sourced. The "criteria" of the list is in the title: popular Christmas singles in the United States. So, references need to show that the songs fit those criteria. And that's what I did to the best of my ability. Many of the songs do not have "their own separate articles", which is even more reason to give sources for them. And as I said, even some that were removed can be re-added (with reference). Also, WP:DONTREVERT says, "Do not revert an edit because it is unnecessary – because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." You say that you "appreciate your good faith edits"; well, you might want to look up the definition for "appreciate", but a complete reversion (of any edit -- except for vandalism and the like) shows the opposite. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And per WP:BRD, your bold edits were reverted, so there should be a discussion on the talk page for us to come to a consensus, before any more drastic changes are made. Like I said, I understand that all your hard work was done in good faith, but just because you have a different POV of what this page should be, does not mean that your version should remain while we discuss it. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD is not a policy or guideline. It does not mention status quo - but WP:ROWN does say "Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation." There has not been any "fully developed disputes". You just reverted without a valid reason. To follow BRD, you have to follow the Revert part before the Discuss part can be followed. The Revert section says: "Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to preserve some of the edit." Your complete reversion (especially without actual discussion) is disruptive and not a showing of good faith. I fully explained the reasons for my changes, and you just repeated what you said before, to which I would just repeat what I said. As I explained, I do not have "a different POV of what this page should be" -- unless your POV is that there doesn't need to be citations added - which would go against WP policy. I reverted back to a version that is complete with RS, which is not edit warring, while you completely reverting that shows no willingness to improve or collaborate. I will leave it for a little while, but if you (or anyone else) don't show an effort to work with me here, I will be changing it back. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you didn't just delete unreferenced material, you completely changed the format of the entire page! I think an acceptable compromise would be to add the references that you researched, to the information as it is currently displayed, and I would be happy to help do that. But you are not the only person who has done a lot of work on this article (pinging ), and it is disruptive for you to delete large amounts of information, just because you think it doesn't belong. I understand the importance of adding citations, but no one is going to research references for information that has been deleted... Fortdj33 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, it is not considered disruptive to remove unsourced material (no matter how much). An editor can and should remove such content (especially when adding sources). And it's not incumbent on that editor to make it easier for someone to re-add material removed. That content should not have been allowed to be added in the first place unreferenced. Now, you completely reverting was disruptive (as I said). I didn't just remove content. One other thing I did was to add section headings to the Table of contents. You could have at least kept that. As for the format, as I said, the notes column (or as it's called "Additional information") causes terrible bloating. The main column is, of course, the title column, so it shouldn't be squished because of notes – which, again, is nearly all unsourced. Much of what's in those notes are other versions, so to make it cleaner (and sourced) I just gave them their own rows. Other notes are the charting info, which I gave columns for as well. That all seemed self explanatory to me - but you haven't explained what you don't like about it. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It will be difficult for us to reach a consensus, if you are not able to remain civil. I understand that you are upset because I reverted your edits, but I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, and you do not seem to be willing to compromise. You claim that you do not have a different POV of what this page should be, but your edits are based on your opinion that certain material "should not have been allowed to be added in the first place" and "shouldn't be squished because of notes". I have already presented what I think is an acceptable compromise, so please comment on what we can do to improve the article, instead of making personal attacks. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pinging me on this topic, . I would indeed like to weigh in on these important issues regarding table format and data entry inclusion or exclusion for this article, but I need some time to give it more thought after carefully reading through the thread again. I've been pretty busy with work this week, so I may not be able to provide my feedback until later this week. --Sliv812 (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow, are you kidding me, ?? Exactly what that I said constitutes a personal attack? I have been very civil compared to what you did. There were things I could have said that I was thinking but didn't. There may have been some things that could have been better put on a user talk page, but since you basically started it here, I figured I'd just keep it here (and I'll still keep it here). Read WP:WIAPA and/or WP:IUC and find one thing in the list(s) that I did. One thing WP:PA says is, "address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." And from WP:CIVIL: "Insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary does not provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed." If you don't understand what you did was wrong by now... Anyway, enough on that. Back to the issue here. Of course, unsourced content "should not have been allowed to be added in the first place". That's not "POV"; that's policy – and one of the main WP policies. I did not even know about this article before about a year ago, so I couldn't have reverted unsourced additions. As for the table, I'm still waiting for you to explain what you have against my version. I have clearly explained the reasons for my changes. Your "compromise" is not really a compromise at all. It's just keeping it as it is, and adding refs. As far as I can see, there is no middle ground between the two table versions. It's one way or the other. The only "compromise" I can think of is that if I'm able to revert back to my version, I will put a list here of all the songs removed, to make it easy for someone to add them with RS. I would estimate that I removed only about 10 to 15 percent of the songs. You seem to have started to put an effort to cooperate, but with the false accusations, it's one step forward and two steps back. —Musdan77 (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , here is how I see it. Yes, I started this discussion by reverting your edits, but it was nothing personal against you, I was just correcting a bold edit which seemed to take more away from the page than it added. I have remained civil by stating "I appreciate your good faith edits", "I understand the importance of adding citations", and by proposing what I think is a good compromise. You have responded by stating "You just reverted without a valid reason", "if you don't show an effort to work with me here, I will be changing it back", "you haven't explained what you don't like about it", and "If you don't understand what you did was wrong by now". Those statements are directed at me, and have nothing to do with the content being discussed, which as you pointed out, is the very definition of personal attacks. Working towards a consensus doesn't mean that the format has to be "one way or the other", but as long as you maintain that "there is no middle ground between the two", it will be difficult for us to reach a consensus, which also is policy. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * [sigh] That whole post doesn't even belong in here (rather on my talk page) because it's not about this discussion topic. Of course those statements are directed at you, because they are about you (and are true). I have showed you, time and again, how you have not acted civilly toward me. So don't keep pointing fingers at me as if you did nothing wrong. In every one of your posts you have accused me of something, and every time you have been wrong (usually I've shown proof ... and reread what it says on WP:PA because that's not what it's talking about [not the "very definition"]). Then you take it to a peak (or all-time low - whichever way you want to look at it) by accusing me of a personal attack. I discount that by giving plenty of WP evidence, and then I bring it back on point of topic. But, what do you do? Instead of keeping on point, and keeping things level-headed and calm, you escalate tensions by again making accusations -- and even taking a WP quote out of context. Who's the one who has used an exclamation point? Who's the one who has used bold text? And you say that you have "remained civil"? I have kept trying to keep the discussion on topic. I have explained my position. I don't know what else I can say. You made a suggestion and I told you what I thought of it. I made a suggestion and you ignored it. I repeatedly asked you to explain what you don't like about my table version, but you have refused to answer. And you need to explain how there can be a middle ground between the two different versions. That's why there can't be consensus between us. The same attitude you show in editing is the same type of attitude you show in talk page discussion: not collaborating, not explaining yourself, not following MOS (and thinking you're better than me). --Musdan77 (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now that I've had more time to review the edit with the new table format created by, as well as this entire comment thread about that major edit on this Talk page, here's my feedback: All that said, and FWIW, I would still prefer the table created by over the one that has been in use ever since the article's creation. However (and as I've stated before on this Talk page), an ever-growing data table like this one (regardless of whether we're talking about the original format or the one created by Musdan77) makes it more apropos and desirable that a database be used for this information rather than a table. But (and please educate me on this), I don't think it's possible to create a database for a WP article. If such a feature does exist, a database would be preferable over a table of this size (in my humble opinion). Just my two cents on the issue. --Sliv812 (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) I feel that the initial major change to the table made by  was indeed a major edit, to such a degree in fact that it really should have been first proposed and discussed here on this Talk page in order to attempt to reach some level of consensus before it was enacted (and not after the fact). Had that been done beforehand, it's likely much of this entire dispute -- including all the accusations, finger-pointing, and escalation of tone -- could have been avoided from the start. As a side note, I admit to not being very well educated on all of WP policies regarding page edits and discussion, including the ones that have been referenced by both of you in this thread.
 * 2) Mainly because of the bloated and ever-increasing size of the article, I actually prefer the table that  created over the format of the original table. I also agree with him that much of the bloated effect of the article was due to the notes in the "Additional information" column, and that in some cases, the size of the notes could justify a case for the existence of an entire separate WP article for the song entry (if one already doesn't already exist).
 * 3) Another topic of this discussion: the removal of entries that contain no valid references to justify their existence in the table. This has been a major contention of mine ever since I first came upon this article nearly 10 years ago, and I am partially to blame for this, as I admittedly have created entries to the table without citing a sufficiently sourced reference. On a related note, a point was made in this thread that, barring a sourced reference, a song entry that has never had any music chart appearances (by any artist) should at least be considered "notable" for its inclusion in the table. But how does one define when something is considered "notable"? It just leaves it open to too much subjective interpretation. I feel that all entries in the table should require some sourced reference to justify its existence (and by sourced reference, I mean its presence on at least one major popular music chart from one or more music/entertainnment trade industry journals, like Billboard, Cashbox, Record World, etc.).
 * 4) One drawback I see with the table created by  is conditional: if a song entry has a large enough number of recorded versions by different artists that warrant their inclusion in the Artist and Year columns of the table (and/or a large enough number of music charts listed in the Chart column), it could result in the Title cell for that song entry to be so large in height that it would require a user to scroll down just to see the title of the song (i.e. there would be a large amount of white space in the cell in order to account for the number of hierarchical sub-rows for the song entry). This would make usage of the table a tad unwieldy, but not overly so that it would make the table completely unusable.
 * First, thanks, Sliv812, for your input – and thorough as it is (I guess it's making up for lost time). Very rarely have I proposed a major change on an article talk page. I see something that needs improvement, I start thinking of how it can be fixed, then I make the changes, not thinking that anyone would disapprove. I guess that's a flaw of mine. As for the rest, I'll wait and see if has anything constructive to add, before replying. During the time of no activity here, I began the process of adding (to my version) the songs that I had removed that weren't charted but have their own articles (though some of those pages aren't sourced themselves) along with "citation needed" tags. But, I too have been quite busy the past week or so – and will be this week. That's one reason I wanted to have it done by the end of November – before the Christmas season really began.--Musdan77 (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, . I hope my feedback was at least somewhat constructive, and not overly critical. One thing I neglected to mention for point # 1 of my response is that there is a Wikipedia feature known as the Sandbox, and though I have not researched it, I believe it is a space used for drafts of WP articles. However, and if my assumption is true, I don't know if this feature is meant to be as draft space for future articles that is to be shared publicly in order to elicit feedback from other WP users, or if it is draft space for future articles that is strictly used as private space for each user. If it's the former, that would allow for another means to propose a prototype of an article before it's published for public access. --Sliv812 (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have used my sandbox in the past for projects, but I haven't made it available (like some editors have) to other editors to view before. But here it is. You can search "citation needed" to see those I've added recently. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for taking the time to continue this discussion, before making any major changes. I have also been busy lately, and thought it would be best to step away until we could work together towards a consensus. I'd be happy to address each of 's points in detail, but basically I agree that 's changes were substantial enough to warrant a discussion before being implemented.
 * The criteria for this page has always been Christmas songs that have charted in the United States. Musdan77's edits completely changed the purpose of this list article. And while I agree that every entry in the list should ideally have a reliable source, I disagree with the removal of the "Additional Information" column. As I pointed out initially with MOS:WORKS: "The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles". And for those entries that do NOT have their own articles, that additional information is necessary.
 * I also agree with Sliv812's point that it's not practical to have multiple rows for songs that have charted by multiple artists, or songs that have appeared on multiple charts. This simply decreases the usability of the table. Therefore, to keep the table uniform, the additional information should be limited, especially for entries that have their own articles, and any reference information can be placed in that column. IMO, it serves no purpose to have the reference links in a separate column, if we are removing the information that is being referenced.
 * As for creating a database for this information, I don't think that is necessary. The current list format of this article has been sufficient for years. All that remains is to add the reference information that Musdan77 has researched, and as stated before, I would be happy to help do that. I have also been meaning to add inline citations for Christmas in the Charts 1920–2004 by Joel Whitburn, which would justify a majority of the information that Musdan77 removed. Hopefully we can come to an understanding about how that information should be displayed. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "The criteria for this page has always been Christmas songs that have charted in the United States." That's the first time you said that. But then you follow that by saying, "Musdan77's edits completely changed the purpose of this list article." Those two sentences don't correlate -- because that's exactly what I did. Then you repeat the quote from MOS:WORKS that you used in the beginning, but once again, you don't say how you think that applies here. First, MOS:WORKS is not really about list articles; that would be Stand-alone_lists. Second, I don't think that sentence is really worded correctly. But, it follows a sentence that's talking about lists of works on bio articles. On Featured_lists, I looked at close to a dozen featured articles in various subsections and not one of them has a Notes column. This is a list article; an "Additional Information" column is just unnecessary trivia. If something in it isn't trivia, it should be in the actual list (and again, that's what I did). For "those entries that do NOT have their own articles", I don't know what more info is needed that's not in the reference, but if there is, it could be added in an inline note (as I suggested). Also, if there's only one artist to have a row, what determines which artist it is? Is it the first one to have a hit with the song? ...because, in my changes, that wasn't/isn't the case for some of them. And, in reply to 's point: "if a song entry has a large enough number of recorded versions by different artists that warrant their inclusion in the Artist ..., it could result in the Title cell for that song entry to be so large in height that it would require a user to scroll down just to see the title of the song." No song in my version has a cell that is that long; and even so, it could be changed to where the song title is at the top, instead of the default middle. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is why it is so difficult for us to reach a consensus. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss the improvement of the article, but Musdan77 will apparently argue against anything that doesn't fit his POV. To clarify:
 * When you made your changes, you removed the original intro for the page, which specifically states that this list is for singles which have charted in the United States. You replaced it with your own criteria, which included an editor's note that stated "A song does not necessarily had to have been charted to be listed, but it does need to have a reference showing how it is notable". No one is disputing that the entries should have references, but that edit completely changed the criteria of the article...
 * I've quoted MOS:WORKS twice now, because it directly states that it is for "lists of works, such as lists of texts, discographies and filmographies". It specifically explains how individual items in the list do not have to be notable enough to merit their own separate articles. Of course there are exceptions, but you can't just disregard one manual of style in favor of another that better fits your POV.
 * As to your question about having one row per song, the answer is "Yes". The artist column should be the first person to have a hit with the song, because that is the criteria of the page! The Additional information column is where other artists who charted with the song can be listed (and referenced). Saying "No song in my version has a cell that is that long", is once again your POV...
 * So it's clear that Musdan77 is unwilling to compromise, given his "I'm right, your wrong" mentality. I have already stated my reasons for reverting his edits (which he has taken personally), and stated my ideas for improving the article (which he has rejected). I have no desire to continue arguing the same points over and over again, but I look forward to working with him, when he is able to remain civil, assume good faith, and work towards a consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And there you go again, putting the blame on me and not accepting any blame yourself. It is you who refuses to compromise. At least, you are finally explaining your reasoning.
 * Again, that's the first time you've said that. Have you even read the lead?? It does not say, "for singles which have charted in the United States". It says "many of which have hit on various charts". Wouldn't that mean "not all" are charted? It also says "mostly in the United States (some only released in the artist's home country)", which goes against the title (and talk page) criteria of only U.S. hits. I changed it to remove what goes against the criteria. Then, I added that editing note because there were so many that I removed that hadn't charted at all. So, if that was the criteria, why were/are there so many listed that go against it??
 * This is not a list "of works, such as lists of texts, discographies and filmographies". As I said, that's talking about a list for one individual on their article. And you still haven't explained how that goes against my changes anyway. If you're saying that songs don't have to have their own articles to be listed here, that certainly doesn't go against my changes. So, that still baffles me.
 * Nowhere does it say that "that is the criteria of the page". It says "popular Christmas songs recorded by various artists". Even if that was the criteria, I would strongly disagree with it. Just because one version was the first hit, doesn't make it more notable than others – especially if others were charted higher. They all should be treated equally. And specifically tell where in my version a cell is so long that you have to scroll down to see the title. Of course, that's my "point of view". That's what a discussion is all about! If you have a differing view, it's up to you to tell how your view is different (or better). Do I really have to explain that to you? My "POV" is to improve the article (according to the criteria), and that's why I put in all that hard work! (As for the rest, it's pure BS - because almost everything I'm accused of is what you have done.) --Musdan77 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * So now that nearly a full year has passed since the last entry of this heated discussion (which abruptly ended on December 19, 2017, without any indication of a resolution), and the format of the table in the article has not been overhauled since that date, am I to assume where are going to stick with the status quo? --Sliv812 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Titles to Add
Toyland. Doris Day did it. Who else? Who popularized it? Thanks.--Artaxerxes (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I just checked my copy of the reference book Christmas in the Charts: 1920-2004 by Joel Whitburn, and in the Singles section, there is no entry for Doris Day's 1964 rendition of "Toyland" (or any version of the song with that same title for that matter). The closest version of the song that charted was a 1961 adaptation by The Vonnair Sisters titled "Goodbye to Toyland", which "bubbled under" the Billboard Hot 100 chart in January 1961, peaking at No. 115. Nat King Cole also charted with a 1955 recording entitled "Take Me Back to Toyland" (reaching No. 47 on the Billboard Top 100 Sides chart in early 1956), but that appears to be a completely different song. Hope this helps. Sliv812 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Remove Entries That Never Made Any U.S. Singles Chart
This article was created on December 27, 2006, by user @Jkaharper. And its size has only grown larger and larger in the ensuing 15 years and 10 months, to the point that the response time when attempting to edit the page is now noticably sluggish. I'm proposing a major overhaul to the table. Currently, there are many entries that, by all accounts, never made it onto any of Billboard's published singles charts (the entry "A' Soalin" by Peter, Paul and Mary is one such example). This includes the Billboard Hot 100, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, Hot Country Songs, and any of the various Christmas/holiday singles chart that Billboard has published (on and off) since 1963 (including the now 11-year-old Holiday 100 chart). When this article was created, it's my belief that the subjective nature of the term "popular" wasn't really considered, which allowed the addition of any holiday song by any user. Limiting qualified entries to only those songs that are known to have charted would at least provide some level of objectivity to the article, and generally make it more useful. Reference sources for eligibility would include Joel Whitburn's 2004 reference book 'Christmas in the Charts 1920–2004' (of which I have a copy) and Billboard's own online chart database. Another option is to move such non-charting songs to a separate (second) table in the article (titled non-charted singles), but that wouldn't do anything to reduce the article's size. Thoughts? Sliv812 (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Gosh, way to make me feel old! I was 14 when I created this 16 years ago... I've been alive for longer since! It's somewhat warming to see that so many people have contributed to it since (I haven't!). I agree the article is pretty lengthy now (however I have seen much longer lists on here). With regards to how we cut it down, I strongly oppose the idea of cutting out songs because they never made the Billboard charts. It's a poor way to measure popularity over time. Example – Blondie's singles discography reveals that many of their most popular songs didn't even dent the Billboard Hot 100 (or even the Bubbling Under chart). Likewise in the UK, Don't Stop Believin' by Journey is hugely popular (THAT particular version – not any of the covers). When it was released in 1981, it didn't even hit the UK Top 40. This type of measurement has problems across the board of popular culture, not just in music. Cutting down down a list of American film actors on the basis of who has a star of the Hollywood Walk of Fame would see Will Smith, Denzel Washington, George Clooney, Carrie Fisher and Leonardo DiCaprio excluded, which would make no sense either. I think the easiest and least harmful way to split the article would be A–D, E–J, K–O etc. It retains all the information, makes the pages more manageable in size, and yet allows visitors to the page to easily navigate their way around. We could even do individual letters, like on List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients. How would you feel about splitting by letter group? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the article is massive and has issues, but I like it. Some of the titles could be merged to List of Christmas hit singles in the United Kingdom instead since the title of this page refers to the United States.  The addition of the A-Z contents at the top of the chart is quite useful.  If a limit to charting US charts was a factor, you should include other surveys such as CASHBOX for inclusion.  Maybe a separate section or page for non-charted popular US Christmas singles.  I'll think more on the issue at hand, but "A'Soalin" did chart the Billboard's Christmas Records Charts. Djaymiller (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in, Djaymiller. I really do appreciate your feedback. Regarding your suggestion that some of the titles could be merged to List of Christmas hit singles in the United Kingdom, that was actually partially done many years ago (though I'm sure not completely). Of course, there are also many titles in this article that were considered hits in both the U.S. and the U.K.


 * I also agree with your point about other music industry trade sources like Cashbox, though Billboard music chart data is most easily accessible compared to the other sources. This is in great part due to the existence of the 2004 Joel Whitburn reference book Christmas in the Charts 1920–2004, which you cite in the excellent and much-needed article that you created, Billboard Christmas Holiday Charts. I do hope Record Research actually updates that book to a new edition that not only includes Billboard holiday music chart from the last 18 years, but also holiday music chart data from the other industry trade magazines/newspapers (like Cashbox, Record World, and Radio & Records). And per my original comments in this section of the Talk page, I personally think a separate section for holiday singles that haven't yet charted (as far as we know) would be warranted (over a separate Wikpedia article). And believe it or not, for all these years ever since I started editing this article more than 15 years ago, I always thought the 1963 Peter, Paul & Mary single "A'Soalin'" never charted. And even though I've owned a copy of Christmas in the Charts 1920–2004 since the mid-2000s, I never found it in the book. But that's because I was looking in the 'A' list of the index of titles in the Singles section of the book rather than the 'S' list of the same index. Ugh! And I guess I also never bothered looking for Peter, Paul & Marry in the Artist pages of the Singles section of the book. Stupid, silly me...now I really feel foolish!


 * One more point regarding the article and the reference book Christmas in the Charts 1920–2004: there are still many titles from the Singles section of the book that are missing in this article, and I've been in process of adding them in when I can find the free time. But there's still a long way to go in that endeavor. And on a related note, there are also still many song entries in the article that need to be expanded in multiple sub-rows to account for the many artist cover versions of the song that have charted in the past ("Jingle Bells" and "White Christmas" are two such examples of this). I've also been slowly working towards doing this, but again when I can find the free time.


 * And thanks again for weighing in.--Sliv812 (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Djaymiller, including others like Cashbox would be akin to using RPM if a Canadian list existed. In discographies, it's common to leave out Cashbox and RPM in the singles section when listing charts in some discographies.  Billboard and major charts from other countries are what's usually noted.  RPM is just a footnote at the best of times in some discographies.  Hell, Cashbox was charting music 14-years before Billboard ever did.  Cashbox was revived in 2006 as an online only publication.  It wouldn't hurt to look through what has been charted over the years before and currently in their various charts.  But because Billboard is considered the "measuring stick," not much thought is given to Cashbox for this list.  (Although, I don't really look at this or other lists because they're heavily edited and this subject matter in all articles can be contentious.)   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that more chart representation is a more accurate and complete. I hand it to the users that take the trouble to add multiple chart statistics to discographies.  As far as Christmas music is concerned, I have researched CashBox archives.  They did have a Christmas chart that lasted a couple of years, but Billboard has surpassed them, especially with the multiple holiday charts they currently publish.  I would be interested to know of any other charts from music surveys magazines that do chart these titles.  Are you aware if RPM does? Djaymiller (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Djaymiller, from what I've checked, I haven't been able to find anything. But the best resource for looking that up is on Library and Archives Canada. But everything is being transferred over to the new site.  So until it is, you can't do a comprehensive search since you can't view images.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Full back issues of the major music magazines are available at this site https://worldradiohistory.com/RPM.htm Djaymiller (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Djaymiller, I've already been on that site. I checked a few and didn't find anything.  If you want to dig deeper and look at all the available issues, go hard.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

New alphabetizing
In my opinion, the page was much better before it was separated into sections representing the first letter of the song title. Before, you could easily group artists together to see all of their listed songs. Djaymiller (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)