Talk:2008 in country music

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

Top Singles

I put them in following forms because:

It is well organized. Don't look so messy like some other articles.
It includes its peak positions on this chart, for both US and Canada.

(Some country articles are "US only," and it is not fair!) I doubt if anyone will read this, so I change it first.
People's minds are so hard to change!--I7114080 (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

US Peak	CAN Peak	Single	Artist
22	36	All-American Girl	Carrie Underwood
12	22	Cleaning This Gun (Come On In Boy)	Rodney Atkins
-	5	Come On and Get Some	Paul Brandt
6	2	Everybody	Keith Urban
2	-	Firecracker	Josh Turner
-	7	Flirtin' With Me	Jason Blaine
14	-	Get My Drink On	Toby Keith
20	-	God Must Be Busy	Brooks & Dunn
-	4	I Remember the Music	Shane Yellowbird
48	3	In My Next Life	Terri Clark
16	-	International Harvester	Craig Morgan
25	-	It's Good To Be Us	Bucky Covington
23	-	Laughed Until We Cried	Jason Aldean
9	1	Letter To Me	Brad Paisley
11	16	Ready, Set, Don't Go	Billy Ray Cyrus (with Miley Cyrus)
30	-	Rollin' With the Flow	Mark Chesnutt
17	29	Shiftwork	Kenny Chesney (with George Strait)
18	-	Small Town Southern Man	Alan Jackson
2	-	Stay	Sugarland
13	-	Stealing Cinderella	Chuck Wicks
19	30	Suspicions	Tim McGraw
-	12	That Train	Doc Walker
30	-	Things That Never Cross a Man's Mind	Kellie Pickler
10	-	Watching Airplanes	Gary Allan
3	8	What Do Ya Think About That	Montgomery Gentry
20	-	What Kinda Gone	Chris Cagle
5	2	Winner at a Losing Game	Rascal Flatts
27	-	You Still Own Me	Emerson Drive

I personally don't think it's a bad idea at all. However, I would suggest that you please wait until a consensus has been reached first before changing the article to include this table. Some others may not like it. Try suggesting the change at WP:COUNTRY too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way it looks quite a bit; I was hoping someone would create a table for the information at some point. Now you just need to do it for the previous, oh, 50 years or so. ;-) Spell4yr (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only change I'd make with this is separating Canada/US into two separate tables, next to each other. This will eliminate the possibility of songs (like Letter to Me) getting double-listed if they reach #1 on one of two charts.Spell4yr (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Peak	Single	Artist
22	All-American Girl	Carrie Underwood

CAN Peak	Single	Artist
36	All-American Girl	Carrie Underwood

First of all, I like the idea of placing the singles in table form. Personally, I'd wish they did this on the all-genre music pages, but that's a discussion for those pages. Anyhow, if this format is used for the other years in country music pages, one of our Canadian editors would probably have to supply the information, as I'm sure they'd have reliable sources at hand there.

Uh, if it were up to me, I liked the first format better; it's fairly consistent with the individual music pages (even with the risk of double-listing U.S. No. 1s that didn't quite reach the peak in Canada and vice versa). The same Canadian editor could probably begin listing No. 1 songs from the main Canadian chart (list it right below the U.S. Billboard magazine section); just tell us the name of the chart and where the information was compiled, and you have yourself something. [{Briguy52748 (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Brad Paisley - Waiting on a Woman

Note about Brad Paisley's "Waiting on a Woman" Unlike Keith Urbans "You Look Good In My Shirt" which was re-recorded and re arranged from the original "Waiting on a Woman" is not a re-recording as stated on the page, it is the original recording just as it appears on the ablum Time Well Wasted (released August 16th, 2005) But it has been added to a repressing of Paisley's Album 5th Gear which was originally released June 19th 2007 without the track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.4.117.134 (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Ray Cyrus - Love Songs

Why shouldn't this be listed on the "Announced" section of the article? It is announced, so I don't understand why it keeps getting removed. Just about every internet music store already has it available to pre-order it, so I think it should be notable for the article. (ElboMisery1993) 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHO removed "Our Song" from the Jan. 4th #1 US song peak. It was right when I put it in there and it is now a 2 week #1 in 2008. Just because it was the incubent doesnt mean it shouldn't be listed, as it creates confusion when people don't look at the 07 page before the 08 page. Change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.186.171 (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note about Brad Paisley's "Waiting on a Woman" Unlike Keith Urbans "You Look Good In My Shirt" which was re-recorded and re arranged from the original "Waiting on a Woman" is not a re-recording as stated on the page, it is the original recording just as it appears on the ablum Time Well Wasted (released August 16th, 2005) But it has been added to a repressing of Paisley's Album 5th Gear which was originally released June 19th 2007 without the track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.4.117.134 (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shiftwork

It's back to being listed as a duet with George Strait. Does that mean it can be readded as such?Spell4yr (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go by what the labels say, which is a duet. It should be credited to both singers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.194.252 (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a little late there, O anonymous one. We've long since decided that Shiftwork counts as a duet (not to mention that both George and Kenny have since released two more singles apiece). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 18:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rearrange

I am thinking that we should rearrange our single table. It is kind of messy. There is my idea.

Released by U.S. artists

US	CAN	Single	Artist
25	26	Already Gone	Sugarland
18		That Song in My Head	Julianne Hough

Released by Canadian artists

CAN	Single	Artist
23	Virtual Life	Paul Brandt

Released in U.S.

CAN	US	Single	Artist
5	23	You Can Let Go	Crystal Shawanda
	22	You Still Own Me	Emerson Drive

Please tell me your opinion. If there is no message, the change will be effective on September 30. Langdon (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any single reached No. 1 will not appear in any of these tables. The positions will be listed in No. 1 tables as a note. Langdon (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine the way it is. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EnDaLeCoMpLeX, and think this version is a lot messier. Spell4yr (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree too. The old way was better. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~The new version isn't as good as the old way. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)~~ Never mind, I see now. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my opinions:

American artists released a lot of songs in Canada. Why should we put the same song into 2 or more tables? The purpose of merging is to let people get information more quickly. I know it looks better if it is separated in the old way.
The olny thing you guys may disagree is the #1 songs. There are not a lot of #1 songs in Canada, but most of them are American songs which mostly also reach No. 1 in U.S. Lots of songs reached #1 in U.S. That was a trouble for me because I believe a song shouldn't appear more than once in the list.
What's the matter with you guys? I posted the issue almost a month ago. How come you response this late?
If you disagree with this, you guys must give out the reasons. Why is it bad? Why is it messy? Do the arrangement really confuse people? In what ways should we improve?

Langdon (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

Yeah, that's a good point. The current way prevents the same song from being listed twice on the page, which does make it more concise. I didn't think of that. I've changed my mind. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Langdon, I haven't been on Wikipedia much lately and only now noticed the change. You said you'd change it if there was no objection, but there was at least one before September 30. I think all of the US/Canadian songs can be included in one table, with the #1s listed twice, with no problem, and as it stands, I have an issue with the Canadian artists section -- it's a little bit of OR to classify Emerson Drive as a mainly-Canadian band, for example, as yes, they released two Canada-only singles, but they also released one US-only single and they had their greatest chart success ("Moments") in the U.S. The current setup just seems to lend itself to a lot of arbitrary categorization for bands who make it big on both charts (will Shania Twain be put in that last category if/when she ever returns?) Spell4yr (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement

In 2009, Australian information will be included in 2009 in country music. Let's see how it goes.Langdon (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

I don't see why. The page for 2008 in 47 kilobytes long, and adding the Australian charts would need another #1 table, singles released, top new albums, and awards. I really think it'll be too much to handle. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd only support this if it was split into 2009 in country music (United States), 2009 in country music (Canada), and 2009 in country music (Australia), or something to that effect. Three countries is too much info for one page, especially adding another tabulation source into the charts.Spell4yr (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, would support that. I never thought about doing that. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I prefer to put them all in one page. 47 kilobytes is not a big deal. We can do some edits to shrink it (e.g. remove albums peaked over #60). Also the country music industry in Canada is really dependent on American one, so there is no point separating them. Also there are more and more American songs released in Australia. We should not put a song's data in so many different pages (even tables in a page). Langdon (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

I'm still not sold on this idea. I will think it through some more, but at the moment I agree with what Spell4yr has said. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's dependent on different sources, though, Langdon. We can't really put US and Australia info on the same page for that reason. If we separate them into different countries, then we might have a little more freedom to, for example, start listing some Mediabase 24/7 numbers, or (on older pages) R&R from before it merged with Billboard (similar to how some artists' discographies are formatted). Spell4yr (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albums

Can we delete albums that is not Top 60 (or Top 50) like the singles? There are too many of them. Langdon (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

If you do this you're gonna need to remove the ones from all the other articles. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will also do that. Langdon (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 in country music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080818033653/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gZUL2wcPRkmJWqAtSzZldQm8eSFQD92GSF581 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gZUL2wcPRkmJWqAtSzZldQm8eSFQD92GSF581

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2008 in country music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nydailynews.com
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080630085548/http://www.tvguide.com:80/ to http://www.tvguide.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]