Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 1

Last updated 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

=Archive discussion made before 2006=

Most articles on singles, and many on albums, have tables giving details of performance on various charts. There are two issues causing disagreement.

First, some editors hold that the charts should be divided up and assigned to separate tables. The division is sometimes between "U.S." and "World", sometimes between "World" and "Billboard", and sometimes between other categories. The most usual division is into two, but some articles divide the charts into "International", "World", and "Billboard", or other variants. Editors opposed to these divisions argue that there is often a degree of PoVness (e.g., in "U.S." vs "World" or "Other") or of arbitrariness (e.g., in "World" [incl. the U.S.] vs "Billboard"), and that dividing the tables is unnecessary, untidy, and wasteful (unified tables take up less space, and are often different widths).

Secondly, some editors hold that tables should all have a column giving the name of the single or album concerned, and another giving the year. In most cases this results in two columns that each repeat the same datum (the title of the article, and the one year) over and over again. Those opposed argue that this is again wasteful, and that on those few occasions when a variant title is used or the year varies, this can be accommodated in the table without the need for an extra column.

Thirdly, a "chart trajectory" table (sometimes more than one) is often included. Here the issue is whether it should be in a separate section, and whether it should again repeat the single's title.

Example table
This example combines the three issues, using the simplest version (in more complex examples there are three tables for the charts, with two or more tables for chart trajectories).

Charts
"It's Like That" debuted at number fifty-three on the Billboard Hot 100, and remained on the chart for twenty weeks.

It was Carey's seventh number-one single on the Billboard Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales, and her ninth on the Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play chart.

Comprehensive charts
"It's Like That" debuted at number fifty-three on the Billboard Hot 100, and remained on the chart for twenty weeks. It was Carey's seventh number-one single on the Billboard Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales, and her ninth on the Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play chart.

Discussion
It may be worth noting how Cool (song), a Featured Article, handles its chart tables. Jkelly 16:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point; unified, and even more stripped down than my version above. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

A better question: can we legally place charts? From http://www.napster.com/terms.html and several other locations: "All Billboard chart data are the copyrighted works of VNU eMedia, Inc. Billboard chart information may not be published, broadcast, displayed or redistributed without the prior written agreement of VNU eMedia, Inc." If someone from Billboard were to read these articles, they could be able to press legal action (at least according to this disclaimer). I don't thin we can even claim fair use, especially if we're reprinting nearly every chart position for each song (and an entire trajectory as well). --FuriousFreddy 11:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but might we be OK because we're not reproducing charts, only the information regarding one single or album each time? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It says they own the actual chart information; not sure if they'd make the distinction between reprints of the entire chart or reprints of chart info for one song or album. I still say we don't need the grand majority of most of these charts (only the important ones, depending upon the artist); much of this is just glut, and means next to nothing to most readers (even prsons familiar w/ chart data like me don't really care to want to read most of this for each song...at least not in an encyclopedia article). --FuriousFreddy 23:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As I've mentioned before, I'm more or less on the same page withFuriousFreddy vis a vis the need for extremely detailed tables of chart positions. I find myself a little perplexed about VNU eMedia's claim.  Is this a claim that accompanies transfer of the data ("Don't publish our RSS feed without our permission!") or are they really saying that every number that Billboard publishes is their intellectual property?  I find the latter difficult to imagine.  Jkelly 23:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My thinking is that they likely own (or at least are attempting to protect) the rights to their chart information (because if we, a free encyclopedia, reprint all the important information here, who's going to read Billboard?). I couldn't imagine them trying to sue everyone who reprints Hot 100 data, but I just don't think it's sensible to reprint all the component charts and such (and that, I think, is where legality might become a problem). As I've stated before, the whole over-detailed chart listing/analysis thing just seems like padding for what would in many cases either be (a) stubs or (b) easily mergable paragraphs. I think a lot of music fans tend to want to praise their idols by presenting their successes and such in as much detail possible. But encyclopedia articles should be reasonably concise and easy to read. --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

And a metaquestion: Why is this here? I wanted to talk about it on its discussion page, but this is the discussion page. A slip? Or anyway, can it be moved to the corresponding "project page"? -- Hoary 14:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I put it here because it's just a discussion at the moment. If consensus can be reached, the result could be made into a non-Talk page. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to make a comment: Cool (song) is a featured article that I had been working on for approximately three weeks before it achieved its status. However, there was an issue with it becoming a featured article during the nomination: several people opposed the nomination because the charts were not unified. So I merged them so the article could achieve the status; but there is absolutely no way that I want charts unified. I'd be willing to risk its achievement for separate charts&mdash;did you honestly think I was going to give up on it because a little group of mischievious beings wanted charts to be one? Never; I'm not that kind of person. But my mind has been changed. As long as certain users are on this site (User:Mel Etitis in particular; I'm beginning to question his presence here on Wikipedia, and User:Hoary, who I feel (not know for a fact) wants Wikipedia to run according to him), I will let "Cool" lose its FA status. Also, if this occurs, I'm departing from Wikipedia.


 * "Cool" is being used against us. --Winnermario 01:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think these statements you made clearly show that you're more interested in compromising the accuracy and uniform formatting of an article simply to stamp your feet and demand to have things done your way, regardless of what the rest of the community may think. You would really rather have an article not achieve its status just because you don't want the tables merged?  What does that behavior say about you as a contributor to this project?
 * "...but there is absolutely no way that I want charts unified. I'd be willing to risk its achievement for separate charts&mdash;did you honestly think I was going to give up on it because a little group of mischievious beings wanted charts to be one? Never; I'm not that kind of person..."
 * -- eo 21:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently I am the only one. I'd advise you to think before you speak. --Winnermario 00:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? Umm, I did. -- eo 01:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Laughable. --Winnermario 01:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Another brilliant arguement. I'm asking you to explain what you mean.  You're "the only one" what?  I'm to "think before I speak" regarding what?  How does your retort even relate to what I said?  Do you mean to say that you just made up the whole part about how you'd "leave Wikipedia" if the article lost its FA status due to the tables being separated according to your preference?  I assumed this whole topic isn't about you, it's about collectively putting together ideas for a standardized table for singles pages and discographies.  Or am I "not thinking" again? -- eo 02:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Putting aside all this talk of "feelings", "mischeivious beings", etc etc, I'm interested by Winnermario's statement that there is absolutely no way that I want charts unified. I presume that there are rational arguments for this. What are these? I've already asked here but got no answer. Or is it instead just a matter of "feelings"? (As in "Feelings, ah ah ah feelings. Feelings of lurv" maybe. And what, there's no article yet on that monument of schlock?) -- Hoary 04:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please learn to spell argument.
 * To User:Hoary, of course I have my reasons. These are what they are: unified charts are bloody ugly, and make it look like this long list. Two, when you're reading about the U.S. Billboard charts, the next chart is suddenly from Canada or the U.K. or something. This doesn't prove to be very logical as it seems as though the editors are cramming a pile of information to save space. Next, the removal of "#" from the charts is probably one of the stupidest things someone wants to attempt&mdash;why in the world would someone do that? Then it will read "1" over "#1". Position 1? That makes no sense whatsoever. Also, you continue to claim your unified charts as NPOV. Well in case you have failed to notice (which you have), my community thinks that unified charts are POV, but you simply ignore this.
 * I'd also like to point something out&mdash;my assumption that your community prefers unified charts is because of width. With separate charts, the width of the overall box will be longer or shorter depending on a chart that it was capable of charting on. That's most certainly my theory. --Winnermario 18:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You realize that by pointing out something as inane as a small typo, you failed (again) to explain or answer any of the questions I or anyone else asked. Coming here and making comments like "stupidest things ever" doesn't convince anyone of your point-of view.  So why don't you explain to everyone here how the combining of tables shows POV (besides exclaiming they're "bloody ugly")?  Just saying "my community says so" doesn't really address anything.  I happen to think the # symbol is "bloody ugly".  Do you accept that as a legitimate reason for their removal? -- eo 20:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Winnermario's reasons: (1) unified charts are bloody ugly, and make it look like this long list. I don't know what the second half means. As for the first half, that's a valid opinion, but it's only an opinion. As for me, I don't find them either more or less ugly than split charts. (2) when you're reading about the U.S. Billboard charts, the next chart is suddenly from Canada or the U.K. or something. This doesn't prove to be very logical as it seems as though the editors are cramming a pile of information to save space. Even if it does seem as though the editors are cramming in order to save space (which I'd dispute), I don't see how this would seem illogical. (3) Next, the removal of "#" from the charts is probably one of the stupidest things someone wants to attempt-why in the world would someone do that? Then it will read "1" over "#1". Position 1? That makes no sense whatsoever. First this seems independent of the unification of the charts or the stripping of what (to me) are superfluous columns. Secondly (if we grant that his little question is relevant here), if "Position 1" does indeed seem nonsensical, you can fix that by titling the column not "Position" but "Position no.". (4) Also, you continue to claim your unified charts as NPOV. Well in case you have failed to notice (which you have), my community thinks that unified charts are POV, but you simply ignore this. I don't believe I've said anything about the intrinsic "POV-ness" of unified or split charts.


 * I turn to the addition, my assumption that your community prefers unified charts is because of width. With separate charts, the width of the overall box will be longer or shorter depending on a chart that it was capable of charting on. I'm not aware of being in some particular (sub-)community. My reason for preferring a unified chart is that by splitting them into Billboard and the rest, you have to title them, and the titling is always problematic: "Billboard" for the one, yes; but for the other, what? You can use "The Rest", "Other than Billboard", or similar; but then the split seems entirely arbitrary (as indeed it may be). Alternatives that I've seen have been "World" and "International", which are misleading at best and bizarre (though no doubt well meant) at worst.


 * And there doesn't seem to be an answer to my question about the need for what I see as entirely superfluous columns. -- Hoary 07:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to point out that User:Mel Etitis has been reverting daily and/or weekly updated information from Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song) and Hollaback Girl. Notably in Hollaback Girl are his edits of removing Notes that I added which were made by music critics. "Because of You" Evidence, "Hollaback Girl" Evidence. There had better be a good reason for this. --Winnermario 18:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with singles tables? -- eo 20:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

An interesting comment made by Mel Etitis. It appears as though he is the only user who can never understand what I am typing; perhaps he can't read, because that's the sense I'm receiving. I am an English college major, so I don't believe that I am making no sense at all, because it's a laughable case. Also, the comments made on that page are odd&mdash;Mel Etitis obviously doesn't know about a Wikipedia policy, due to these being quotes and are placed in a "Notes" section. He is also convinced that we are reverting his articles. What? We aren't reversing any of your edits except for the bad ones. If you'd like to check the Hollaback Girl history, you will see what I mean. --Winnermario 20:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Can we please move all of this discussion about User:Mel Etitis somewhere else? Jkelly 20:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I suppose we could, but I want my questions answered first. --Winnermario 23:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Allow me to begin speaking. I was going to put this off, hoping that I needn't have to include my two cents. But Winnermario, you can't do this on your own, but I envy your perseverance. Ericorbit, you have some explaining to do. The fact that Winnermario wrote this: "I'd also like to point something out&mdash;my assumption that your community prefers unified charts is because of width. With separate charts, the width of the overall box will be longer or shorter depending on a chart that it was capable of charting on" and you choosing to ignore it sparks a fuse. Apparently she caught something that isn't being revealed. I'd like to know what this is. And how are unified charts POV? Well because a whole bunch of lists are placed into one huge box. That's not very good or professional-looking. As mentioned above, it definitely looks like it is serving as a wall to save space. Whereas when they are separate, there is no emphasis being placed on the Billboard charts &mdash; I would actually like to know who the hell originally said this. The separate charts serve as a worldwide basis, and then the Billboard basis, but there is no emphasis. It's just placing charts. The fact that this argument is ongoing is quite notrotious; why in the world are you people yelling at each other because of chart layouts? A waste of time. Come to a conclusion, and complete these idiotic RfCs and other things.


 * Mentioning Mel Etitis' reverts is notable here because it is a relation to music, although not necessarily the tables. Something has to be done with him as I'd go as far as calling it vandalism, based on the links Winnermario provided us with. --DrippingInk 00:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Some explaining to do about what? The width or length of a table has nothing to do with whether the info inside the table shows POV. Seperating the tables and putting prominence on the US charts (particularly if the artist is not American) shows a bias.  -- eo 00:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A load of bloody bullcrap! That is your POINT OF VIEW! It is your point of view that placing prominence on the U.S. charts should not be if the artist is not American. It is your point of view that we are even placing a prominence. It is your point of view. So you will quit telling us that our ways are POV, because if they are, you're just as bad as us. --Winnermario 00:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Winnermario: Just wanted to say thanks for your nasty and offensive comment on my Talk Page. How nice that your true colors are coming through for everyone to see.  It is so very intelligent to throw out personal and disparaging insults when you aren't getting your way.  You're really going to go far in life with that attitude.  I'm sure acting in such a manner will greatly help your position with regard to this topic as well.  Congratulations.  -- eo 00:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My position in this battle regards chart tables &mdash; not the coversations we've been having. Also, I see you ignored the fact that I called your opinion POV. And you know why you ignored it? Because I'm right. You know I am. --Winnermario 01:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Uhh, no I do not believe you are right. I didn't address it in my last comment because I have already explained why I feel seperated tables are POV.  You obviously just can't grasp the concept, so I'm not going to explain it repeatedly.  And for you, who have answered not one of my questions, to accuse me of "ignoring" something is rather arrogant.  Please don't even try to pretend that the comment you made on my talk page has nothing to do with what is going on here; it is a direct retaliation to points I have raised on this page.  Not getting your way in a discussion?  Hmm, why not go to the person's talk page and make some personal insults?  Great strategy. -- eo 01:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're not right. I think the problem is that you're misinterpreting what "POV" and "NPOV" mean. NPOV is not "my point of view is that Chart A looks right and Chart B looks wrong". As Wikipedia editors, we are all committed to NPOV &mdash; a neutral point of view. In terms of these charts, what that means is that all charts, from all countries, get the same amount of prominence on the page. That, unless you can come up with an NPOV alternative, equals unified charts. More than one chart, with one being "United States" and the other "Everywhere Else", inherently violates Neutral Point of View, not even by suggesting that the US charts are somehow "better" but simply by implying that they're different. There's no reason I'm aware of for the charts to be separated that doesn't present a POV problem, and if there is I would be interested in reading it. -- keep sleep ing  say what  01:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're not right. Go back to bed, Keepsleeping. I very well know what NPOV and POV charts are&mdash;the fact that you bring this up makes you look stupid and quite ignorant. You are weeding your way through this, and think that you are going to win by informing me of things I already know. As I have mentioned above, your chart is as POV as ours is. And I have provided my reasons for why yours is POV. --Winnermario 01:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Please consult No personal attacks. I've read this discussion a few times over, and I'm afraid I can't understand the reasons as to why Winnermario, DrippingInk and others feel than combined charts are POV, while separated charts aren't. Yes, both of you have said things like "unified charts are bloody ugly...it seems as though the editors are cramming a pile of information to save space" and "that's not very good or professional-looking", but I don't see how this relates to the argument that the combined charts violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I feel that it would be better to try and save space that waste it, especially when splitting the tables looks rather odd, as in this version of The Trouble with Love Is. I provided a list of reasons (largely derived from the discussions at Talk:The Trouble with Love Is and Talk:One Sweet Day) on why some users prefer combined charts below, but I'll reprint them here so people won't have to scroll down:
 * Separating the U.S. and non-U.S. charts, particularly on articles about singles by non-American musicians, suggests that the U.S. charts are somehow more important or significant because they are in a separate table from the rest. This introduces a slightly biased, POV (point of view) slant to the article that is not appropriate to an encylopedic article intended to be read by visitors from around the globe.
 * The section headers "U.S." and "World" implies that the U.S. is extra-terrestrial. Those words are not antonyms.
 * "U.S." and "International" are not antonyms neither. As mentioned above, Wikipedia isn't just read by Americans, so referring to everywhere outside the U.S. as "International" is frankly rather insulting.
 * Section headers separating tables create a rather choppy effect, especially when there are only a few charts mentioned at all.
 * A lot of the U.S. Billboard charts presented in the tables are unimportant and could be trimmed, as FuriousFreddy has pointed out. Wikipedia isn't just read by Billboard magazine readers and chart enthusiasts.
 * Combined charts save space on the page, as well as a few bytes.
 * Separating identical tables for no apparent reason is also rather confusing.
 * Extraordinary Machine 14:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is where you are incorrect. "U.S. Billboard" and "World" mean two different things. --Hollow Wilerding 21:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is where you are correct.
 * I only partially agree with you. --Hollow Wilerding 21:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You are correct. But omitting the "Hot 100 Airplay" and "Pop 100 Airplay" is unnecessary, considering they determine the position of the actual chart they are componenting. --Hollow Wilerding 21:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A good observation, but is this really necessary? --Hollow Wilerding 21:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is where you are the most incorrect &mdash; you fail to realize that there is a reason, and that is the charts call different nations home, most especially the Billboard charts. --Hollow Wilerding 21:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently this argument has gotten out of end, and I seem to agree with both ends of the parties. User:Winnermario is correct about both sides of the charts being POV, while User:Extraordinary Machine has provided some useful points. My opinion is that a chart of which both parties can agree on be produced; arguing over it in an article that is about to extend 50 kilobytes is rather questioning. --Hollow Wilerding 21:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC) This is this user's second edit. The first was the creation of their userpage. Jkelly 22:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The above was my second edit. But was there perchance any necessary reason to having pointed that out? If it has to do with my limited knowledge on this discussion, then you are ignorant. However, if it's because you are attempting to clear something that is currently cloudy with other users about myself, then could you explain what that might be? --Hollow Wilerding 22:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a straw poll to help determine consensus. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, however, and considerations beyond a simple tally are important.  Since it is policy to always assume good faith, editors will sometimes note when someone participating in a consensus-building discussion is brand new to Wikipedia.  This helps to prevent endless accusations of sockpuppetry and keep a consensus-building discussion civil after a user demonstrates familiarity with Wikipedia that is unexpected, or displays anomalous editing behaviour.  I hope that clears things up.  Jkelly 23:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand. I was not as clear about my presence in this discussion so early as I should have been. You see, Winnermario was a friend of mine and sort of convinced me to sign up on Wikipedia. Oddly enough, I decided to accept the bargain (there was another situation going on between us personally at the time), and here we are. So far I've found Wikipedia to be entertaining, and I do wish I had taken accepted the bargain earlier. Winnermario has now departed Wikipedia, blaming "the number of bullies" in this discussion and miscellaneous situatiions for the evacuation. Nonetheless, I am here to attempt to resolve this unnecessary disagreement, and am, well in good faith. --Hollow Wilerding 23:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Although I am not for or against merged or separate charts, I would like to indicate a "not-Billboard" name if separate charts were to win: Other. There could be "World" and "Other". "Other" charts would be everything that is not related to worldwide charts. I had been reading some user's comments where they indicated that "World" had no meaning; incredibly incorrect: this means charts from around the world. It is not very difficult to understand. Now remember, this is only a suggestion, as I am not for or against. --Hollow Wilerding 23:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't quite understand what charts "Other" would consist of. What charts would not be considered part of "the world"? Charts from outer space? Supernatural charts? Can you give any examples of charts you would want included that wouldn't fall under the rubric of "worldwide"? -- keep sleep ing  say what  05:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mariah Carey has hit number one eighteen times on Saturn. -- eo 10:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I hear she's also a huge hit with werewolves ;) -- keep sleep ing  say what  16:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mariah Carey is the queen! :D --Hollow Wilerding 20:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Worlwide charts": charts taken from around the world (are you sure you didn't understand this?); "Other charts": charts taken from random countdown lists or any other non-major charts. See Crazy in Love for an example. --Hollow Wilerding 12:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I do at least understand the division you mean to make now: the "world" charts are the top 40/100/whatever charts from various countries (the "major charts") and the "other" charts would be the song's position on things like the MuchMusic Countdown and, I assume, things like TRL and eventually various year-in-review lists. It is my opinion, though &mdash; and it is just an opinion; you're free to disagree with it &mdash; that only the "major" charts are really encyclopedic enough to be included in the article, if only because it'll get to the point that the whole page just overflows with numbers that don't mean a lot to someone just casually searching the Wiki. I would say that as a rough guideline, any more than twenty charts total borders on fancruft, especially since a fan or researcher looking for more comprehensive chart information can just follow one of the external links at the bottom of the page (which were the original sources for the data anyway) and get some insanely detailed charts. -- keep sleep ing  say what  16:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right. There is such thing as excessive information, and I do suppose this is one of those situations where too much of one thing is crossing the barrier. --Hollow Wilerding 20:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"single" articles
All of the above examples are not to my liking. However, if they are featured on an article specifically for a particular single, then it does not bother me as much. The example showing the song title over and over again in the column is not good at all. The table which has a new line per chart is much better. The chart trajectory thing is totally excessive, that is something that belongs on an artist's website or fan page, not in an encyclopedia.

The whole "World" term and lumping all non-US counties into a seperate table clearly shows POV. A much preferable template (if none above are chosen) is one simple table with atist's home-country listed first and other country chart peaks following, the US data obtained from Billboard Hot 100. For an artist with a very extensive history in a particular genre (i.e. R&B chart, dance chart, country chart), then I believe those stats are ok as well.

"artist" articles
I worked on some of these, so my bias will show here:
 * Good tables: Prince (artist), Eurythmics, Madonna discography (singles), Bananarama, Siouxsie & the Banshees, Sarah McLachlan
 * Bad tables: Erasure (singles), Foo Fighters, The White Stripes, The Beloved, Electronic (band), Morrissey, Thompson Twins, 10,000 Maniacs, Beck

bad, bad, bad

 * Repeating the same text throughout an entire column ("It's Like That" table, above)
 * Incomplete info, i.e. including only songs in a table for which editor has chart info, while ignoring all other releases.
 * Taking certain song titles from a text-list (bullet item list) and putting them in a table while leaving all the other titles in the old text-list.
 * Boldfacing the chart positions, particularly number ones
 * Including weeks spent at number one
 * Using the # (number) symbol preceding the chart position.
 * Automatically listing U.S. peaks first, especially when the artist isn't American.
 * Updating peak positions week-by-week as a song climbs the chart

I realize I'm being nitpicky and longwinded, but a lot of music article discography tables in Wikipedia look like sloppy, incomplete, biased crap with half-assed research done. -- eo 18:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yikes. I'm guilty of number 2 at Temptations discography (I didn't go on past 1976 becasue I don't have copies of many of those later songs to identify lead vocalists. What should be done?). Number 4 is one of my biggest pet peeves...it's like "ooo look! My favorite musician got a number-one record! Yay!". As far as updating peak positions week-by-week, most editors are prone to add singles as they come out. Should we just hold off listing a peak until after the song's chart-run is pretty-much over (unless, of course, the song hits number-one)?
 * Well I have suggested in several pages (agreed by some editors, ignored by others) that perhaps a symbol or some kind of indicator be placed next to the number to show "song is still charting" or something to that effect.... I think thats a good compromise for those who want to go in every week and update the new chart position. haha the Temptations table doesnt look too bad... are you only missing vocal info or do you need the chart placings as well for the later singles? -- eo 00:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just missing the vocal info, which I have for about 40% of them. --FuriousFreddy 03:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all of eo's points except the second; adding partial information, hoping that other editors can fill the gaps is surely what Wikipedia is all about. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mel, I totally understand what you're saying, the point I was really trying to make was in reference to tables that, say, list only two songs (when an artist clearly has released many more than two) and/or a table filled with question marks (which I've seen many times). Just seems a bit sloppy to me.  And I've done what I can in most cases, for example, I think I'm missing one or two chart peaks for Sinead O'Connor, so I put a note on her talk page.  Yet, I know Prince had a very long US R&B chartography so I held off on adding that column until I was able to do a lot of searching and get the whole history.  Just seems like common sense is not being used in many cases.  -- eo 15:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, and I agree that in some (many?) cases it's just carelessness or impatience not to wait until an editor has enough information. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Another proposal
How about we really cut some of this on down and use some discresion as far as what to include and what not to include. We don't need the music section of Wikipedia becoming the Billboard microfiche library or anything:


 * "It's Like That" debuted at number fifty-three on the Billboard Hot 100, and remained on the chart for twenty weeks. It was Carey's seventh number-one single on the Billboard Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales, and her ninth on the Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play chart.

The above text should be somewhere in the prose, not in an appendix to the article.

What went and why?
 * 1) U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Singles Sales and U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Airplay. These are used by Billboard to calculate the Hot 100 chart positions. It's not really neccessary to list them unless, for some reason, a song didn't appear on the Hot 100, but did appear on one of these. The same goes for U.S. Billboard Pop 100 Airplay, U.S. Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Sales, and U.S. Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay.
 * 2) U.S. Billboard Dance Radio Airplay, U.S. Billboard Hot Ringtones, and U.S. Billboard Top 40 Tracks, becasue the inclusion of these charts is somewhat excessive, given their limited notability to most people not in the music industry or grossly interested in it.
 * 3) Any and all bold number ones. Inherently POV. If you don't understand that number one is as high as you can get, then there might be a problem.
 * 4) The chart trajectory. Do we really need to know exactly how a song performed week-by-week on the U.S. chart, in the context of an encyclopedia article?

--FuriousFreddy 00:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've altered my "improved version" to omit "#"s and bolding. I agree about the chart trajectory, and in principle about the excess charts (though I'm happy to admit that I've never seen any of these charts, and don't know enough to decide which is important and which isn't). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Remove "#"'s? Whoa, now this is funny. People reading the chart will assume "1". 1 what? --Winnermario 21:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * well, what else could it possibly mean? are there # symbols in the columns when you look at a Billboard chart?  or inside the Joel Whitburn Billboard books?  Do you know for certain that International readers of Wikipedia also use "#" to abbreviate the word "number"?  It's totally redundant.  -- eo 21:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The column title "Position" might give a hint, too. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the column title "Position" might give a hint. But you don't know if it will. And User:Ericorbit, you are assuming. Of course Billboard doesn't use "#", because that's a chart site where it's evident that # is irrelevant. If you're going to a website that features chart positions, etc, no # is necessary. However, Wikipedia is full of information, and we can't be vague. That's exactly what User:Mel Etitis said about placing the Wikilink TRL retired videos in music single articles where a video "retired" on MTV'S TRL. Without the Wikilink, he said it had been too vague. Evidence The same situation occurs here. --Winnermario 18:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well how would you know that readers will know what "#" indicates? You're talking about numbers shown in a table, within a column, with a "position" or "peak position" heading at the top, in an article where the table itself is placed in a section called "discography" or "chart placings" or something similar.  How can there be confusion as to what the number means if the # symbol isn't there? -- eo 20:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I already explained myself. Vague. --Winnermario 23:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm, I've been thinking of removing the R&B, dance and rock charts. They don't prove to be very useful to the charts, and can only be included depending on the genre of a song. --Winnermario 00:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The types of charts included should change depending upon the genre of the song. For hip hop music, the dance chart should be replaced with Hot Rap Tracks. For an R&B ballad, the dance chart should be replaced with the adult contemporary chart. For a rock song, both the R&B and dance charts should be replaced with the two rock charts. The number of charts included should not exceed eighteen (no more than ten national charts, and up to eight additional Billboard, "World Chart", etc.) --FuriousFreddy 00:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet another proposal
This is essentially a combination of FuriousFreddy's proposal above and the charts table at Cool (song):


 * * Mel Etitis remix.
 * ** FuriousFreddy remix.

The "Year" column should probably be excluded from chart tables unless the years are different for some charts. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia markup to properly format the asterixes, though. Extraordinary Machine 22:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, after re-reading Talk:The Trouble with Love Is and Talk:One Sweet Day, I have written a summary of reasons for why users may be against separated tables and superfluous columns:
 * Separating the U.S. and non-U.S. charts, particularly on articles about singles by non-American musicians, suggests that the U.S. charts are somehow more important or significant because they are in a separate table from the rest. This introduces a slightly biased, POV (point of view) slant to the article that is not appropriate to an encylopedic article intended to be read by visitors from around the globe.
 * The section headers "U.S." and "World" implies that the U.S. is extra-terrestrial. Those words are not antonyms.
 * "U.S." and "International" are not antonyms neither. As mentioned above, Wikipedia isn't just read by Americans, so referring to everywhere outside the U.S. as "International" is frankly rather insulting.
 * Section headers separating tables create a rather choppy effect, especially when there are only a few charts mentioned at all.
 * A lot of the U.S. Billboard charts presented in the tables are unimportant and could be trimmed, as FuriousFreddy has pointed out. Wikipedia isn't just read by Billboard magazine readers and chart enthusiasts.
 * Combined charts save space on the page, as well as a few bytes.
 * Separating identical tables for no apparent reason is also rather confusing.
 * Readers don't need to be reminded of the song's title every time a chart is mentioned. If it was a remix or radio edit or computer-aided moon-June-soon (thanks, Hoary :)) version of the song that charted, add in an asterix or something and mention it at the bottom of the chart.
 * Same with the year of release. Unless it was different for different charts, there's no reason for a superfluous column where every cell reads the same. Extraordinary Machine 22:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

further tweaking EM's version
(abbreviated to not take up space)


 * 1) remix version featuring Lil Kim, Mel Etitis, Jay-Z, Furious Freddy, Celine Dion, Hoary, Rob Zombie, JKelly, Barbra Streisand, Marilyn Manson and the Cast of The Facts Of Life
 * 2) Extrodinary Machine club remixes


 * using superscript numbers instead of asterisks (I've done this in a few places)
 * centering the column with the numbers
 * wikilinking the chart names

I'm thining the "year" column could be necessary, as sometimes it varies between different countries. -- eo 23:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC) -- keep sleep ing  say what  01:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There may need to be a year designation of some kind, though not necessarily a year column; say one of these singles is on the chart now but reaches its peak position two months from now, in January 2006. I suppose this is how it would be done:


 * I am afraid that this chart has gone too far. It's not that I don't like it (actually, I don't like it), but this chart works to my personal best:


 * * Mel Etitis remix.

Anything that was proposed after this chart is pushing the limit. Wikilinks are not required in the chart as they will appear in the "Chart performance" portion of the article. Excessive use of wikilinks is unnecessary, and is like an advertisement for its article &mdash; we really don't need to be pushing buttons. Also, from my developing knowledge of this argument (addressed by User:Winnermario), it appears as though "#" has been omitted. As much as I agree that it does not really add to the charts, it should be replaced. I am new here on Wikipedia, and when I read the heading "Position", the first thing that came to my mind was "Position number", which lead down a path of disturbing images. So I would recommend the presence of "#" in the charts. Other than that, everything else that has been addressed seems to be in the process of cleaning &mdash; I would really like a consensus to be met as this is one of the most asinine arguments I've ever stumbled upon. --Hollow Wilerding 21:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Bolding of chart positions
Let's put aside, at least for the moment, disagreement over chart formatting. Based on this edit by Hollow Wilerding and its edit summary, and many, many past edits made by other editors, would it at least be fair to say that we have consensus that: It would really be a step in the right direction for all editors involved in these chart disputes to at least come to an agreement on this point -- keep sleep ing  say what  03:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * the bolding of "1" or "#1" (or any other chart position) is POV, and so
 * no chart positions are to be bolded?
 * I agree with that. -- eo 07:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I do feel as though I have been misunderstood, so let me make myself clear now: if I really had to choose which charts I prefer, then it would be merged charts. Next, bolding number-ones is POV. Based on the above edit, I feel as though User:Keepsleeping assumed I was against this entire proposition. Is this the case? If it is, then I apologize, because I am not against it. However, I am against removing "#" from the charts and placing wikilinks in the charts. Although I don't really like the idea of removing "*"'s and replacing them with "1"'s and "2"'s, I think I would be capable of living with them. Have I made myself more clear? --Hollow Wilerding 23:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, no, you haven't been misunderstood &mdash; in fact, this is very good: I think we finally have a workable chart here! I've taken only one liberty with the statements you've made above: rather than placing the octothorpe (oh how I love that word) on every number, I've changed "Position" in the header to "Position #". Would you be amenable to that one change? The wikilinks in the charts are removed (I'm no fan of them either, honestly), and different versions of the same single are indicated by superscript numbers, which you said you wouldn't mind. If this chart suits you, please say so by adding a vote of support to the straw poll. -- keep sleep ing  say what  23:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I do agree with the "Position #". As long as the # is there, I am satisfied, but I do wonder why some people are so against it being included with the number itself? --Hollow Wilerding 00:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As someone who is not in favor of the #'s in the tables, I'll give my reasons. Firstly, I think that the symbol itself may not be used as an abbreviation for the word "number" internationally.  Aside from that, I think that "#" is redundant and unnecessary in a table.  I've seen it used within the text of articles and also when albums/singles are in a bulletted list (i.e. "Blah Blah Blah" #3 US, #10 UK).  Although that still isn't ideal, I think that when the info is arranged in a table, the #'s simply aren't needed.  Take a look at Madonna discography and imagine what that immense table would look like with # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # in all those little boxes.  Yikes!  Anyway, that's just how I look at it.  When all is said and done, however, I think the most important thing is to get all these damn tables uniform throughout Wikipedia so that there aren't fifty billion different table templates all over the place. -- eo 01:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Keep on editing! --Hollow Wilerding 02:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Position #" is going to be very obscure to many people around the world; when I first saw it I thought at first that it was a mistake (and in any case, the hash – sorry, octothorpe takes so much longer to type – isn't used in that way even in North America usually, I think). If we really don't think that our readers are bright enough to recognise that a column of numbers are all... well, numbers, then can we at least use the standard abbreviation, "Position no"? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I felt the same way as you when I first saw the "#", however I don't believe "no" will provide any additional clarification. Is there perhaps a third version that is available? --Hollow Wilerding 02:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Position №" (although the numero sign looks awfully odd) or simply "Peak position". I should make clear, though, that I personally don't see anything wrong with "Position" on its own. -- keep sleep ing  say what  02:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

keepsleeping chart, version 2.0
(This chart is abbreviated to save space &mdash; the real thing would include the same charts as FuriousFreddy's version. 1 Extended club mix

2 Radio edit


 * me like. -- eo 23:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Aside from "Position #" (see above), this is just about perfect. Would this work?

--Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't like "highest position". It should be "peak position", which is more musically incorporated. --Hollow Wilerding 14:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure what "musically incorporated" means, but "peak position" is (judging by its overuse in the articles) music-journalism/fan slang (together with "zenith position(!)" and all the rest).  "Highest position" has the advantage of being plain English. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Peak position" is no less plain than "highest position", but I don't think either of them should be used. They cause unneccesary empty space in the table header. —jiy (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It wont create extra space if you set the column to a specific width and/or make the column header in smaller text. -- eo 23:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter too much to me, although I like "peak position" the best. Either that or "zenith # highest ## peak no.# position # # peakingest # number reached". -- eo 23:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point. --Hollow Wilerding 14:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Poll
Well, perhaps a poll would be useful, in order to gauge consensus (though everyone who's bothered to post here seems to support the unified and stripped-down version, as do the good people over at Featured articles candidates). Could people say whether they support or reject the new version; if they support part of the change but not all, could they say so in the support section? In each case, as we're gauging consensus rather than merely voting, could editors do more than simply register their names in the appropriate places, but give reasons (which can be discussed above)?

Support
''Including support for part but not all of the new changes (please specify). If you agree with FuriousFreddy's proposal to ditch the "Chart trajectory" and to slim down the number of charts mentioned, please say so. Note: I've altered the improved tables to incorporate the removal of "#" (I hope that we can assume that readers recognise a number when they see one) and of the bolding of "1". ''


 * Support. I have a preference for using featured articles as models in general, for using Cool (song) as a model for current pop music song articles in specific, and would also express a hope that chart data will be moved to Wikidata when that project is ready. Jkelly 17:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Partial support. Although I much prefer the trimmed-down version, I still don't see the honest need for a lot of this. Allmusic.com doesn't go into this level of chart detail, so why should we? Let me make a proposal above. --FuriousFreddy 00:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Support FuriousFreddy's pared-down version -- keep sleep ing  say what  04:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to come out in opposition to the bolding of "#1" on charts &mdash; it is, as has been mentioned, POV; this was brought up in the Featured Article discussion of Cool (song) and the bolding was removed, then re-added after the article was Featured. -- keep sleep ing   say what  04:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the proposal I made (though I'd be happy with FuriousFreddy's version), for the reasons I listed above. However, I'm not sure that a poll would be the way to decide on the course of action for this issue: remember where polls left discussions such as Articles for deletion/O Holy Night (Mariah Carey song) and Articles for deletion/Sylk. Extraordinary Machine 22:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I now support keepsleeping's even sleeker version. Extraordinary Machine 14:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * support keepsleeping's latest version get crunk  juice  22:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the newest slimmed down version. I'm not opposed to chart trajectories though. Tuf-Kat 17:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support keepsleeping's version, though I think if the charts are going to be linked to, the entire line within the cell should be a link (e.g. "U.S. Billboard Hot 100", not "U.S. Billboard Hot 100"). I also want to emphasize how #1 positions should not be bolded. —jiy (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There's something to be said for linking to the article on a chart that's listed and for limiting the charts that are listed; for now, I'm neutral on those issues. I have trouble saying that I support certain of the versions above because it's not clear who wrote them or how I should refer to them. So I'll say that I support the gist of this proposal, and specifically: (1) As every table seems to need a title, and as nobody has yet come up with a good title for not-Billboard, tables of chart positions shouldn't be split; (2) Any column is superfluous and should be cut if its every cell is identical. -- Hoary 08:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, this discussion which was once silly and would reward little to Wikipedia has transformed into something more. Although I'm still a bit hesitant on accpeting the position "#" currently plays in this game, I am overall satisfied. Now, I gladly support. --Hollow Wilerding 00:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I've already run my mouth (fingers?) enough above - any of the two or three most recent tables shown here are good to me. -- eo 01:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support as per eo. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Reject
Rejection of all the proposed changes.


 * Strong reject. I have stated some of my reasons. I don't need to go any further. --Winnermario 00:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong reject. Separate charts are not POV, regardless of how convinced my opposition feels. --DrippingInk 00:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject. I prefer the original version, but I don't think it's really that big of a deal. --Musicpvm 03:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What's next?
I read the poll as showing a clear consensus (11:3) in favour of unifying the charts, of not bolding "1"s, of omitting the year and single/album-title columns, and of not using "#"s in the "Position" column. There's a minor question as to whether the "Position" column should have the title "Position", "Position #", Position no", "Highest position", or various other suggestions. Assuming that we can settle that, what's the next step? Adding this to the Singles and Albums Project pages? --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We need to take Manual of Style (music) and either expand it to cover popular and commercial music, or write a new one just for popular music. --FuriousFreddy 05:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Considering popular music is an everchanging cycle, "Cool (song)" will look exactly the same in ten years if the manual reflects the mainstream. Wouldn't that seem awkward, seeing how it will no longer be "popular"? --Hollow Wilerding 14:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Cool" will always be popular music. Tuf-Kat 17:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh? Prove your point. --Hollow Wilerding 20:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Guideline page
I've been bold and created a guideline page to lay out the changes that seem to have been agreed on here. The text is pretty much skeletal, though, as I have no aptitude for writing "rules" &mdash; hopefully one of the editors who've participated in this discussion can flesh it out. -- keep sleep ing  say what  01:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, somehow I missed this when I wrote the previous comment. Very nice (though I still think that "Position #" looks peculiar). --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest linking to it from WP:ALBUM, WP:SONG and the entirely theoretical WikiProject Musical groups (for right now WikiProject Music)... anywhere we have guidelines about those articles into which editors insert chart information. Jkelly 23:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It sounds amusing. Excellent. --Hollow Wilerding 14:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding Keepsleeping's guideline page - the column headers still say "position #" and the numbers themselves are left-aligned (not centered). Is it OK to change the tables on that page to look like the most recent ones here?  Or are we back to those versions? -- eo 00:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The left-aligned numbers don't wow me. Since these numbers are a peak position, they should be centred, to emphasize their value to the chart that the song charted on. --Hollow Wilerding 00:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

eo, I think that you should go ahead. I find myself agreeing with Hollow Wilerding, however; if it were up to me, I would centre-align the numbers. Jkelly 01:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Done! Numbers centered in column (aaaaahhhh.... soooo pretty!) and header changed to "Peak Position"... at least for now until (if?) some other turn of phrase is preferred. -- eo 01:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I didn't center the numbers in the first place. They really do look much better that way. I'd suggest removing the line break from "Peak Position", because it doubles the width of the header (which puts a lot of empty space in the "Chart (2005)" block); the only problem is that that puts the position number in the middle of an unnecessarily wide cell, and I'm not sure which way looks better and which looks worse. -- keep sleep ing  say what  04:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with all the guidelines, except the limitations on the number of charts presented. If an article already has 18 useful charts, and someone comes up with the Estonian chart data, why remove it? I understand trying to limit people from adding every little Billboard chart they can find, but I don't think limiting the total number is necessary or useful. Tuf-Kat 05:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor issue
I think that the table looks very good now. I've noticed one point that I'd missed before. Some of the charts are described adjectivally ("Australian", "Canadian") and some not ("Germany", "Sweden", etc.). I've changed them all to the adjectival forms in one or two tables, but then thought that I should ask here. What do people think?

Oh, one other thing; shouldn't it be "Peak position"? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me... although I think if a chart has a specific "name" (i.e. "The Hot 100") then that should be used. Do non-U.S. singles charts have titles?  I'm not sure.
 * I did already add "peak position" to the project page tables... I really don't think that term is too "jargon"-y, it pretty much speaks for itself, although if a consensus would rather something else, then it doesn't bother me much.
 * And I almost hate to open a new can of worms, as this may belong in a separate discussion page but...
 * Charts around the world are typically called the "Swedish Singles Chart" or the "South African Singles Chart". The thing with the "Sweden Top 60" (or whatever) is that each chart worldwide contains a limited number of positions. The U.K. Singles Chart is also known as the U.K. Top 40 and the Canadian Singles Chart is also known as the Canada Top 40. If it were me in command, I would use "...Singles Chart", as that is the standard name. --Hollow Wilerding 02:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I meant that the "p" in "position" should be lowercase. I've corrected that now, in fact. --Mel Etitis (&#91;&#91;User talk:Mel Etitis&#124;&lt;font color=&quot;green&quot;&gt;Μελ Ετητης&lt;/font&gt;)]] 09:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

the new can of worms
Now that most of this is worked out with regard to "singles" articles, do we need to create some sort of guideline for "discography" tables that appear on an artist's main page? -- eo 19:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or is all of the writing in this and other articles suddenly green? But to keep on topic, I'd say we should have guidelines for the discography as well. --Hollow Wilerding 02:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone once mentioned that discogs like Michael Jackson albums discography can't be justified under fair use. Although I imagine such a layout being problematic for older artists whose album cover images cannot be found, I do have to admit that this table is neatly laid out (though it's missing the most important thing--liks to the album articles) and better than something like the albums section of Brandy (entertainer). Can someone explain why this sort of table isn't fair use (I'm assuming the placing of the pictures into the table all on one page)? --FuriousFreddy 02:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In re: the green thing -- Wikipedia broke HTML Tidy. Everyone's bad HTML is now rendered for the world to see.  I cleaned it up here.  In re: the fair use thing -- there's a difference between what the U.S. doctrine of Fair use might allow in a court of law and what Wikipedia's fair use guidelines allow.  Slapping a small image of a low-resolution album cover next to every mention of the album might not get WikiMedia succesfully sued, but WikiMedia doesn't want to have to go through the process of getting unsuccesfully sued for things that are outside the guidelines, which state that copyright-infringing images must be kept to a minimum, never used for decoration or navigation, etc.  If you're interested in helping, there is WikiProject Fair use.  Jkelly 02:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Artist Pages
I just wanted to add that I have been taking the basic layout concepts we agreed upon for singles tables and applied them to main Discography listings on artist pages. I've placed an example below. If anyone wants to check out specific artists, see Mary J. Blige, Alicia Keys, Blondie (band) or Morrissey, just to name a few. If anyone wants me to stop doing this so that we can agree on any further tweaking, just say so and I'll hold off for now. Basically I've gotten rid of a lot of #'s and boldfaced numerals (some tables just #1s, others had everything boldfaced). -- eo 20:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Singles
1 Remix version features 2 Live Crew and Kenny G.


 * Please do attempt to limit the awkward titles, notably the fourth one, as some users would find it rather offensive. Thanks. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding 21:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You should probably join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works). I don't like using Tables for discographies, because I don't see why discographies are substantially different from bibliographies.  Jkelly 21:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jkelly, I will check out that page and see how other things are being formatted. I would say that a discography table would set iteself apart from, say, a bibliography or filmography because of the tendency for people to list chart positions and/or RIAA certifications and sales totals along with the titles.  I figured that if we had agreed upon a NPOV format and a pleasing "look" for tables within a "single" article, those same attributes could be carried over to main disography listings.  Would you prefer then, that I hold off on updating sloppy or incomplete tables I come across to this format? -- eo 22:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What kind of feedback are you getting from other editors? My impression is that a lot of people like charts.  If you're getting approving feedback, I don't know that there is any reason to stop until an actual guideline is in place, but that actual guideline is, unlike the chart positions conversation, likely to get input from more than just the Music Project.  Jkelly 22:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't gotten any actually - positive or negative... although the ones I have put in place have not been reverted or significantly altered. People just seem to be adding to them as new releases come out.  So in other words - no complaints (at least not yet).  Just thought it'd be nice to have discographies that look like this or this instead be presented this way or this way. -- eo 22:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The singles chart looks good, but I suggest linking the albums for navigational purposes. --Andylkl [ talk! 13:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a particular type of table-formatted discography that's not exactly standardized, but that elements of which are shared by a couple of Featured Articles (Dream Theater and Nirvana), and that I used a variation of in current Featured Article candidate Marilyn Manson, which looks like this:


 * Albums and EPs


 * Singles

Personally I rather like it &mdash; it's very clean-looking. However, all three articles I linked above use it slightly differently, and so its specific appearance would have to be made standard. -- keep sleep ing   say what  22:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ooooooohhhh me likey those. indeed, very clean.  the only thing I would worry about with that format is if people began adding those pesky chart positions (and they will!), the lack of lines may cause it to look like a jumble of numbers all over the place. -- eo 22:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * and P.S. I've added a blurb in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works) discussion... thanks for the link, Jkelly. Maybe you can join me over there, Keepsleeping? -- eo 22:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * EW, what is going on here?? This discussion is supposed to be about unified/separated chart tables. Adding another topic here is absolutely asinine&mdash;most of you don't even edit music articles. --Winnermario 22:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Album pages proposal.
A lot of the time, we have editors write stubby articles on singles, only for the purposes of providing catalogue information for those singles. For example, I just redirected damn near every single Alicia Keys ever put out, because all but a few of the articles were barely two sentences long.

This proposal is something I unwittingly fell upon yesterday while doing some article edits: keep a consistently formatted table of chart and singles information in the album article itself, preventing the need for a single article in many cases. Here is an example, from Stillmatic by Nas (I placed them all under "Charts and singles history"):

Chart and singles history
All the data comes from allmusic.com. The table would essentially replace the old tabbed data table.

Second example, from Stillmatic's predecessor Illmatic, of the difference:

Old version
Billboard Music Charts (North America) - album 1994	The Billboard 200	               No. 12 1994	Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums	               No. 2 Billboard (North America) - singles 1993	Half Time	       Hot Rap Singles	                     No. 8 1994	It Ain t Hard To Tell	The Billboard Hot 100	            No. 91 1994	It Ain t Hard To Tell	Hot Rap Singles	                    No. 13 1994	One Love	       Hot Rap Singles	                     No. 24 1994	The World Is Yours	Hot Rap Singles	                    No. 27 1994	It Ain t Hard To Tell	Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks    No. 57 1994	The World Is Yours	Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks    No. 67 1994	It Ain t Hard To Tell	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales  No. 3 1994	One Love	       Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales   No. 6 1994	The World Is Yours	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales  No. 6 1995	One Love	       Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales   No. 34

New version
(I would list the music video directors, but I've no idea who they are.)

I also used it on the following album pages: Psychedelic Shack (album), Cloud Nine (Temptations album), Masterpiece (Temptations album), All Directions, The Temptations with a Lot o' Soul, and What's Going On. (I also introduced a chart for formatting the tracklist information; we can discuss that too).

It works out great: if there's anything to pick up on the singles themesleves, it can be done i nthe album article prose, and then only the major (major) important songs will need albums. For example, I used the charts while working on Psychedelic Shack (album) and, lo and behold, I found I had no need for the Psychedelic Shack (song) article anymore, so I merged them.

Thoughts? If you think any of it is too much -- like the catalog numbers maybe -- let me know. Also, does anyone think it could be better formatted? --FuriousFreddy 16:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that it looks really good. I used a different format for the charts at the Be Not Nobody and Harmonium (album) articles, but I think that your version is better at including information other than chart positions. Extraordinary Machine 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether I like the information box that FuriousFreddy has prepared. However, I don't like any of the album boxes that are being displayed on Wikipedia. Perhaps the catalog numbers should be removed because I must admit that their presence in the boxes are a bit... over the top. I apologize, however, because I doubt that I'm ever going to find an album information box appealing. Rant ends here. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)