Talk:2010 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.

The Suggestion

According to this discusstion, everybody agreed that #1's should be listed in separated pages. I think we can start in 2010. Langdon (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including Australian charts

The CMAA (Country Music Association of Australia) http://www.country.com.au/index.cfm?page_id=1043 here provides a link to the Country Tracks Top 30 chart http://www.nfspublicity.com.au/charts/ct30.html should it be included here? 121.216.147.180 (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it was determined on Talk:2009 in country music to be non-notable and is a banned chart on WP:CHARTS. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#1 songs

The list of #1 songs should be merged back into this page. The whole point of giving them a separate page was to provide readers with significant notes about the songs, for space purposes. The way it is organized now makes no sense. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine the way it is, the point of giving the number-one songs their own article is because that's the way it is done for all the other genres. If you want to know information about a certain song, all you have to do is click on that songs article, adding all kinds of notes is messy and useless. Nowyouseeme | wanna chat? 12:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Country chart

Something needs to be done about this. I don't want this chart to get banned like the Australian Country Singles chart because it doesn't have a reliable source. Lately, I've been revamping multiple discographies, both in country music and out. Half the time, when adding sources to singles and/or albums, I either have to not source the Canadian country charts all together, or just not source any of them. In my opinion, what I think should be done is we should gather up some prominent country music editors, and come together as a group, on creating some sort of archive website for any country artist that has charted on the Canadian country singles/albums chart from 2004 until now. Since we have the RPM website up until 2000, there should also be a place to achieve the past few years of charts. Anyone want to express their opinion? My ears are open. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is an editor here who has some sort of end-all epic country chart history book thing that takes care of that problem. CloversMallRat (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A book doesn't cut it for me. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if a print source is out there that has the information you seek, then it counts as a viable source for the chart in question. This may be the "digital age," but print sources (books, magazines, newspaper) are just as noteworthy and usable as references as anything put up on the internet. CloversMallRat (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've talked to User:Eric444 before about trying to source the Canadian chart positions from 2004 onward and he suggested using Wayback Machine archives of the R&R website. Unfortunately, Wayback didn't archive any of the CAN Country charts. I think we need to eliminate the CAN country peaks from 2004 onward since there's no way we can source them, and the addition of them is running afoul of WP:OR — therefore, since they can't be sourced, they MUST be removed, no exceptions. (Someone had tried to source 2010's peaks to the BDS weekly updates, but the links haven't been added to the 2010 list in months now.) I'd ask Eric but he stopped editing on the 6th for some reason. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a horrible idea. There has to be another way, and I don't want to see the Canadian chart go. Doesn't Billboard control the Canadian country chart now? If thats the case, there's likely to be something to verify it. Upon the new chart week being released, there is obviously tangible evidence at that point. Whether it holds up over time (like positions from like 2005 still being available or not) is not fair. We can't just go, oh yeah Keith Urban's in his 6th week at #1 in Canada right now, and then come back in a year and go: "No, he wasn't." CloversMallRat (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how can we source it? Short answer, we can't. You can't just say "but there's GOTTA be a way!" Billboard.com has nothing to verify CAN Country, and I've found nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:TenPoundHammer on this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all of its content must be verifiable. We may know that "Need You Now" was No.1 for 8 weeks on CAN country last year, but if someone came up to us and said "prove it to me" there is no way to do it. Also, having a CAN country column in a discography takes away its chance of being a featured list because it's unverifiable, I think that's why it's gone from Taylor Swift discography (FL). The worst part of this would be having to go to every article with these positions to remove them, yikes. Nowyouseeme talk2me 22:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe its gone because there can only be 10 charts, and the only genre exception is the US Country radio, because that's obviously where she releases her singles to (even if many of them are also pop hits). CloversMallRat (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my POV it would be silly to ban the use of the chart, that would be like banning Billboard Hot Dance Airplay or Billboard Latin Pop Songs just because they don't get published. However you cannot add the charts to the article unless there is a valid book source or archive. Here are my few words of wisdom. If you wish to add the chart to song article fine, do so but manually archieve the website weekly using WebCite. However I strongly recommend against using it discographies or for trying to back date chart positions because best of my knowledge an archive doesn't exist. The problem previously occured with UK R&B charts which I used to manually archive. hope that helps. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

We are talking about what to do with the CAN country chart positions from 2004-now Nowyouseeme talk2me 22:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This chart not having anything to verify it makes no sense. Do they not publish this chart like all the others? Especially since its run by Billboard now, and on top of all that: How does one know at this point what the chart is? If I wanted to know whats #1 on the chart for next week, there has to be a way... otherwise no one would know, and it wouldn't exist here. CloversMallRat (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can archive it from this week on using WebCite which will be a source and a way to verify, so we can still use the chart, but we can't verify positions from 2004-now. Nowyouseeme talk2me 22:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the past charts I'm most concerned with. Eric444's edits said that "Redneck Woman" went to #1 in CAN Country in June 2004, but besides his edits and any Wiki mirrors, we have bupkis to verify it with. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there needs to be some exceptions to the rules here or another way needs to be found aside from deleting a massive amount of information. For one thing, its a rather ridiculous idea to delete the existence of 2004-2010 up until this very week. Last year — and probably several years past, for that matter — users have looked at the chart (which, (from what everyone's said) I gather disappears the next week or something?) and put down the facts on Wikipedia. Bravesfan2006 is almost always the user to update Wikipedia's country singles to their current chart for each week, be it U.S. Country, Canadian Country, or the Billboard Hot 100 or Canadian Hot 100. CloversMallRat (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOSE is basically what you're arguing. We can't make exceptions to rules on something so important as WP:V. Keep in mind we once had charts like United World Chart and ARC Weekly Top 40 across literally thousands of articles before someone pointed out, "hey, these charts are kinda fishy." Just because there's a huge amount of info doesn't mean that it must stay regardless. How would the average, uninvolved user know that Bravesfan2006 or Eric444 weren't making those numbers up? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't some questionable chart like those, its the real deal... and for the past year, its been put out by Billboard, and therefore it should be no less important than the U.S. country chart. And you and I both know that these users aren't making those numbers up, and that's all that matters. If some joe schmoe decides to visit Wikipedia today for the first time and goes "Those are fake," I don't think you'd agree. This "average" Wikipedia guy probably won't care anyways; the people you describe are just that, uninvolved, and likely aren't going to go looking for another website when this one already has it. CloversMallRat (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just getting nowhere with you, am I? You're failing to grasp, so maybe I need to go allcaps on you: IT'S NOT SOURCED. UNSOURCED INFO ON ANY WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE MUST BE SOURCED OR DELETED. SINCE THERE ARE NO SOURCES TO BE FOUND BY ANYONE, IT MUST BE DELETED. Clear? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Source - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". There can not be any exceptions to this. Like 10lbHammer and myself said above, even though we know that the chart positions are correct ("truth"), an average person, just casually viewing, doesn't know that ("verifiability"). Nothing short of time travel is going to give us back the web pages of past charts 2004-last week. Nowyouseeme talk2me 00:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you people really trying to tell me that the Canadian charts aren't viewable at all? Particularly after Billboard began publishing them, since they literally put them out in a magazine AND have a website. When the next Canadian country chart becomes available, where does one even view it then? It has to be found somewhere so that Bravesfan2006 can see it and update Wikipedia like he usually does. CloversMallRat (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, the use of allcaps is not going to help your cause TenPoundHammer, it only does the same thing it always does when I see you do it (which I have several times in the past, particularly in edit summaries); it strikes me as childish. CloversMallRat (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Bravesfan gets it from the weekly update that's e-mailed out. There's no other evident way to publicly see the CAN Country chart, and it doesn't seem to be published in the magazine. Billboard's website makes no mention of it, either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A weekly update via email is a verifiable piece of info then. I can't publicly view the entire U.S. country chart without a subscription to Billboard magazine. But some people can see it all, just like some people can view the Canadian chart. CloversMallRat (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about all the older charts? You're still forgetting that. We must have a source for the older charts. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have obviously been getting the information provided to them for a long time. There's no other way they would know it. I don't question the U.S. country chart, even though I myself can't physically look at it in its entirety. The only problem with this chart is that its unfortunately, not a big deal in America and they apparently don't utilize the internet as a storage place. I'm sure record labels or artists are informed of chart performance for their singles in Canada, at the very least. If someone were to ask Terri Clark if she got a #1 hit w/ "In My Next Life," I imagine that she herself would tell you "Yes, I did." CloversMallRat (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUT HOW THE HELL DO WE VERIFY IT?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't, they do. I just pointed out that I myself can't verify so much as the Hot Country Songs for a given week. Just because you can't verify something, doesn't mean someone else doesn't hold the information. I think the two editors in question should respond here. CloversMallRat (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is but one link that can verify a recent chart position. You can do a similar search with almost any artist's name and it'll pop up with chart search results for their singles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've even seen flaws in Billboard's website in the past. One example that comes to mind is the lack of 2 Miranda Lambert singles ("Dead Flowers," and "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend"). See here CloversMallRat (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard.com isn't the only website that archives US country positions, just after a quick glance I saw Crazy Ex-Girlfriend on allmusic.. Nowyouseeme talk2me 02:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very strongly opposed to the removal of the Canadian country peaks. According to this Broadcasting Regulatory Policy and this press release, the Nielsen BDS Country Spins chart was designated the Canadian Chart of Record by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. To address Clovers' queston of where the charts can be viewed, they are published for free at bdsradio.com, Radio & Records, Milkman UnLimited and in the weekly Nielsen Music Canadian Update. Are we certain that they are not also published in Billboard magazine?

Is there anyone with an account at bdsradio.ca who can confirm whether or not they maintain an archive? Clearly an archive exists, for this week's Canadian update acknowledges that "[a]ll ten of [Taylor Swift's] previous singles have reached the top-10 at the [country] format, including four number one songs." A press release for the forthcoming Canadian Country Music Association Awards recognizes that Dean Brody's debut album "spawned a top 10 Canadian hit [...] with 'Brothers'" and that "Dirt Roads Scholar" also reached the top 5. Has anyone contacted Paul Tuch, the editor of the Billboard Canadian Update? I was the one adding references to the List of number-one country hits of 2010 (Canada), but unfortunately, only a few PDF's were actually preserved on the Billboard website, and none since May.

Without the Canadian peaks, how can we establish the notability of, say, Darren McGinnis? What is being proposed as the alternative, filling Terri Clark's discography with a column of asterisks indicating that we don't know where her singles peaked, because it would be a complete fabrication to use dashes to state that her singles didn't chart. The Billboard website hardly maintains a thorough archive of the Hot Country Songs chart as it is. They still state that Sarah Marince hasn't charted yet. Does that mean that her discography should be removed until Joel Whitburn's next book is published?

These charts are not like the aforementioned Australian country chart, which was removed unanimously almost as quickly as it was added because it wasn't coming from a reliable source. These are the official charts of Canada as recognized by the CRTC, published by Billboard and Radio & Records and compiled by Nielsen BDS and it is premature to remove them until a consensus has been reached. Eric444 (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an e-mail to Paul Tuch. The first e-mail bounced, but I found a second address that seems to work. I'll see what he says. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is one of Wikipedias 3 core policies, and having a "very strong opinion" on something does not trump it. It does not matter how bad you want them to stay, if it can't be proved it can be removed, and it is not premature to remove them since they are not adhering to Wikipedia policy. What do you think would happen if you tried to get consensus to keep them anyway? "Consensus" to violate Wikipedia policy? It sounds like a lost cause. I do hope a way can be found to source them, but without a source I don't think they belong. I strongly, strongly, strongly, urge you to read and familiarize yourself with WP:VERIFIABILITY Nowyouseeme talk2me 17:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to encourage you to familiarize yourself with WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, such as "It's useful", "It contains valuable info", and "Do not lose the information or the effort". Nowyouseeme talk2me 17:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in total agreeance with Eric444. This is not the same situation as removing past charts like the Australian country one, because its a legitimate chart to have. A majority of the Canadian country artists don't even chart in the U.S., so to remove that chart would leave some of them with nothing. And lastly, I'm in agreeance with the idea to actually attempt to get references, rather than coming in and deleting stuff that we know exists. CloversMallRat (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUT WHERE CAN WE VERIFY IT?!?!?!?!?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian charts might be viewable from Billboard.biz with a subscription. Other than that books or archives from the national libraries are your best bet. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 01:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no Canadian charts listed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am against removing the charts but seeing as there is not source, we pretty much have no choice but to kill them from the pages. I also want to ask should we remove the album peaks for Canada country as well? I don't think there is an archive for at all. I also want to make note if we remove country charts, AC should be removed as well since it's from the same chart as country. (see Sarah McLachlan discography for example). --Caldorwards4 (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, quit with the caps and such TenPoundHammer, its very off-putting. Secondly, several users here have provided links to the charts that were previously not known of (to me, and likely to several others I assume). @Lil-unique1: Interesting, hopefully someone can find book references then. Since, I believe there's a book used as many refs for the U.S. country charts. And this discussion is still ongoing, and therefore no editors should be removing the chart in question or any of the peaks. They should stay put until references can be found, as there have been multiple suggestions as to getting that accomplished. Its amazing how quickly people are to start questioning/deleting this chart so rabidly when they've passed it over for many years past. CloversMallRat (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have it backwards Clovers, the positions should be removed until references can be found, then re-added. We do not know if archives or references even exist! I don't know how else I can drill this into your mind.. read WP:VERIFY!!!!. You have no choice, it doesn't matter how much you want them to stay they can legitimately be removed since they are not verifiable at this moment. You CANNOT just say "Hey, there may or may not be a source for them somewhere, but lets just go ahead and keep them anyways in case there might be." I don't know how I can explain that simpler . Nowyouseeme talk2me 07:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And @Caldorwards4, yeah they should be removed too if not verifiable. (And on a side note, I just read on your page that you were at the CMA Music Fest a few months ago, I was there too, thought that was kinda funny, lol) Nowyouseeme talk2me 07:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference here is that it took somebody 6 freakin' years to complain about verifying this chart. If this was 2004 and we were a couple months in and somebody was making this case, it'd be different. But Wikipedia has gone on 6 years maintaining this thing and to delete it now would be ridiculous. A majority of the U.S. country posititons are no more referenced than the CAN ones are; they are easier to find perhaps, but an exception to the rule it seems to some editors here. I think we should keep them primarily because if we can't find another source, then some of those chart positions will be lost forever. Wikipedia would do no harm in preserving that information, which we know based on the reliable editors who contribute to it. I can understand why some things need a source, but the only reason its kept to such a strict standard is because of the one-time yahoos who visit just to vandalize things. CloversMallRat (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since they cannot be verified, they should be removed. I do hate to see it go, but there's nothing we can do it about there not being an archive for these positions. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My, oh my Clovers....... as we have said repeatedly, what you are saying is a textbook example of arguments not to use, such as WP:LOSE and WP:HARMLESS, among others . You cannot use what you've just said as valid arguments Please, please read the links. And @EnDaLeCoMpLeX, thanks for finishing the refs in that sandbox bud :-) Nowyouseeme talk2me 20:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do have some Canadian Updates available since March 19, 2010. Why not keep them and source them? Langdon (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are so many of them missing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean we still get rid of information even if we have sources? Langdon (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means we get rid of it because there are so many gaps; what purpose would the list serve if we removed the unsourced content? It'd have lots of gaps and stop at May. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian country charts

There doesn't seem to be a single source online to verify the positions added by Eric444 and BravesFan2006 pertaining to the Canadian Country Singles chart. CloversMallRat doesn't want them removed, thinking them to be especially important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TenPoundHammer (talk • contribs)

Have you tried e-mailing Billboard to ask? DS (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Now to see what Gary Trust says. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Country Songs are not Billboard but Radio & Records, and all the country charts on wikipedia i saw right now are unreferenced (Carrie Underwood, Miranda Lambert... all unreferenced charts). I'm not going to add the citation needed template in all them, but it would be better if there were some references ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 18:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard charts#Canadian charts -->Canada Singles Charts --->CANADA: COUNTRY -->CanadianCountryMusic.ca. Moxy (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is the chart we've been using. The Americas Music Charts one is published by Mediabase, and Canadian Country Music.ca is published by yet someone else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can we know which one is official?? ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 19:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This link shows the official chart: http://cclamp.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite20/Members/Charts.aspx?ChartId=36 CloversMallRat (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this being a no-win situation around here since TenPoundHammer being the one who complained about it and he doesn't want the Canadian Country chart numbers posted anywhere on either in the articles of the singers and groups or the 2003, 2004, 2005. 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 in country music article and everywhere for that matter. I kind of liked having the Canadian Country chart numbers posted and seen who was where on the chart but since we have to abide by the rules of Wikipedia and a few members who don't like having something that we can look forward to editing and seeing how singers are faring on the American and Canadian country charts. These days, people seem to complain about the least little thing and then they make a huge thing about it (having to eliminate the Canadian country chart numbers because they have to have a source being complained about by one member of the crowd (TPH)) Makes me wonder what will be next. Someone complaining about the American Country Chart? BravesFan2006 (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although i do agree that TenPoundHammer has always hated country music we still need to find the right sources as he mentions... We must figure out the one that is used by the industry. We cant have this articles references going nowhere/dead links. Moxy (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just heard back from Gary Trust, and he said that the CAN Country charts are archived at Billboard.biz. But if you think I'm gonna plunk down $200 a year just to resolve a Wikipedia dispute you're crazy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate to see, but I have to agree with TenPoundHammer's statement. It just doesn't look good for Wikipedia to have unverifiable references. I wouldn't blame it on any particular user just because there is no archive list or any other source-able information out there. It's only a matter of time before someone out there decides to create a website that archives these particular Canadian country positions. It's not gonna hurt the feelings of Canadian country artists to see that their singles have not been recorded via Wikipedia, trust me. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the Candian chart is indeed archived (which apparently it really is), then there's absolutely no justification for deletion of any of these Canadian chart peaks. Its unfortunate that you (or anyone, for that matter) would have to pay $200 to access them, but that's not a just reason for the elimination of this chart. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are dead wrong. Even if they are archived we have to be able to see them, it's unfortunate that you are not able to comprehend that. Nowyouseeme talk2me 21:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We would have to be able to physically see them to be able to reference them. We cannot just say that "oh yes there is such a place to retrieve these, unfortuneately we can't view them." EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Even if the official chart is only accessible to those who pay for it, someone who can view that chart and view it and include references here. Someone such as the 1 or 2 people who frequently edit the posititons, who likely have access to it. Just because you can't view it, doesn't mean someone else can't. Sorry that not everyone here is rich and can afford the actual chart, but thats not a just reason for terminating it. CloversMallRat (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clovers... Clovers..... Clovers..... you are losing your mind. Nowyouseeme talk2me 22:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the last statement. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically speaking, if I paid $200 for a subscription - and I'm not about to - how would I go about referencing information that is only available to paid subscribers? Eric444 (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you guys saying you dont need to see the reference, this is covered in the beginners section on referencing. You just need need to note that a subscription is required. We however need to find the link first,,does not matter if people can see it. Moxy (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to fork out two hundred bucks to get that link then be my guest, until then we are in the same boat. Nowyouseeme talk2me 08:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that You are dead wrong in having to see them..Perhaps you could give comprehensive and informed advice in the future and not just mock people.Moxy (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could bite me. Even if someone bought the subscription it just won't be one link, it would be many, which would mean that one editor would have to reference everything on their own, good luck with that sweetheart. Nowyouseeme talk2me 08:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow i see your a great asset to our community...keep up the positive work. Moxy (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, will do. Nowyouseeme talk2me 09:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't somebody have the subscription to view the charts? We know for a fact there's at least 1-2 people w/ some knowledge of thie chart, who've contributed to putting the peaks up for the past 6 years. Plus, @Moxy: Thanks for your contribution to the argument. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok have emailed them and they have informed me that its all on a search engine...So we would not need page after page..but simply say "Search by artist or date required"...So i will look on the wiki board see if anyone has this subscription..if not will email them back see if they will give me the link to the search engine page. As i have no dough they would love us to spam there search page(that has ads) all over.Moxy (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't any of you mentioned the TRAX report as a source which has been charting the history of CDN acts for the past 5 or so years? Are you saying that if a chart has subscriber only availability then it doesn't exsist? Have you bothered to contact the CCMA for information or perhaps the AFM? Snowback22 15:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Singles Bullet Marks

what the hell is going on. the "A" marks keep getting deleted. put them back and stop it. i cant tell what's a single or not with out them so put it back and leave it alone thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/countryboyjohn (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I don't think they are being brought back. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok this is bull crap. you guys keep messing up this page. i use this all the time it's my main source. it is good the way it was put it back. please your gonna make it harder to know what songs are current singles and the ones that are not. the year is not over yet do that when it is leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/countryboyjohn (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask TenPoundHammer about this since he's the one who complained about the non-sources and there should be sources according to him, the Canadian Country chart (which is accessible when the Canadian Update is sent out by Nielsen Billboard on Wednesday night and on Wednesday morning on the BDS chart on www.radio-info.com, and him wanting to change and eliminate everything in the first place. BravesFan2006 (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm Ending it. This Is Insane. I Am Sick Of People Screwing Up This Page. If He Wants Sources That's Fine. But Also Leave The "A" Marks Alone. I Need Them I'm Sure Other People Do To It's Just easier. By The way why do you need sources there's no reason. i'm gonna add back the "A" marks his Sources Can Stay But The Current Singles Marks Are Staying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/countryboyjohn (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.203.84 (talk) [reply]

Yeah, the 'A' marks for whether a single is currently charting should definitely be left alone. Sources may need to be added, but not in place of this. After all, similar marks are found on individual discographies... but it is a big stretch to expect to click each one to find out whether a song is charting. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya I Agree Your 100% Right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.203.84 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Singles

Who Deleted These Whoever Did Put Them Back Up. I Like A Few Of Canada's Artists. I Need To Be Able To Know About Their Singles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.195.53 (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we can't find a source for the peaks, we can't prove if they are hits. So the only Canadians that will be list will be the one's with top 20 hits in the U.S. (which has been, like 3 in the last 5 years) --Caldorwards4 (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/71.243.203.84 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. I'm tired of listening to you whine like a baby, how many of your accounts are going to have to be blocked in order for you to get a clue? Nowyouseeme talk2me 09:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude I Don't Know What You Are Talking About I Am countryboyjohn i use that name for everything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.118.151 (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Singles Chart

If you are gonna take away the Canadian country peaks what about taking away the Canadian Singles Chart peaks as well? There seems to be no accurate sources for them between 2001-2007. Canadaolympic989 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't verify it, then remove it too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Occassionally, they can pop up on the Allmusic site for an artist's charts. For instance, I while back I edited Fall Out Boy discography, and I couldn't find one of the Canadian Singles Charts peaks, so I looked on Allmusic and found it. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a website I once found that had many Canadian Singles Chart peaks (I found one on Emerson Drive through it). I can't remember the link but when I find it I'll post it. Unlike the R&R country, there is an archive for this chart. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also if anyone has hardcopy's of the Canadian RPM magazine from October 1988 to April 1989, can they please fill in peaks of various songs on all charts and add the number one country songs from those dates. They are missing from the online archives. Thanks. Canadaolympic989 (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.186.179 (talk) [reply]

Alarming lack of sources

Over the past week, a substantial amount of country music song articles have had their Canadian peaks removed as "unverifiable." Although it was established that anyone with a Billboard account could verify them, it was ruled that peaks need to be either be sourced or removed and nobody stepped up to source them. While Canadian peaks alone have been enthusiastically targeted and removed from the following articles, the fact remains that only a handful of the chart positions in all of these articles combined are sourced, and many of these articles contain no sources whatsoever. Considering the importance of sources, as stressed in the preceding comments, what effort, if any, is being made to verify and source these articles? Eric444 (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced articles

Oh my god.. how do you have the time to put together lists like that? I'm adding sources to articles little by little, and you could help also instead of specifically going to articles just to add ^{[citation needed]}. Nowyouseeme talk2me 07:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You could help by adding sources instead of slapping everything with ^{[citation needed]}. Instead of complaining about articles lacking sources so much, what's stopping you from adding them? Like for the time you took to make the list above, you could have easily had been adding sources to those. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You're clearly being WP:POINTy here. Why not fix a problem yourself instead of making more work for everyone else? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That list was surprisingly easy to put together. I think it's important to maintain a list of articles that Canadian peaks have been removed from should an archive ever make itself available. Anyway, it's nice to know the primary concern wasn't unsourced information after all. For the record, there's still 174 articles containing Canadian peaks. Eric444 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're working on it. The fact is, we have two problems here: unsourced US peaks that can be verified, and unsourced CAN peaks that can't be verified and should be removed. With two jobs to do, it's going to take a lot more time, which is why I'm working on removal of the CAN peaks first — once they're all gone, then I'll go back and source the US peaks that still need sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Site With The Current Top 50 Canadian Country Hits

I just found this site with the current top 50 for canada singles. so now you all can leave them alone here's your source.

[Top 50 Country Singles Chart] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.196.212 (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One, that's the Mediabase chart, and not the one that had been used. And two, it doesn't have archives of past charts, which is what we really need. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok then what site were u using for the canada peaks give me that site so i can use it you may not want to but i do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.197.37 (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric444 apparently gets the same weekly update e-mail that I do, but I don't know how either of us signed up for it. In any event, the chart's mirrored here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100

I propose that we add all top 100 country songs to this page and all others to make these lists more comprehensive.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What top 100? The Country Songs list is only 60 positions. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 22:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Randy Travis discography. His single "She's My Woman" reached #91 in 1978 and "Baptism" reached #75 in 2000. Perhaps there are only 60 positions in 2010 (I am not aware), but for other years, as I see above, there was a top 100. If this is the case, please incorporate the top 60 into 2010 and the top 100 in all the others. This would be a great service to wikipedia readers. Thank you.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chart has been 60 positions since 2001. I, personally, think that if all the positions from 1-100 were added in earlier years would be too much. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 23:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there can be separate sections for organization: 1-20, 20-40, 40-60 and so on for the years prior to 2001. This would greatly enhance knowledge of the subject, which we should strive for on wikipedia.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may work. But let's wait for other editors' opinions on the subject. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 23:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that under 'Top Hits' we add every song that charts on the Country chart, instead of the top 20 hits? If you are, I don't support it, I think that's a little over the top, that would be an insane amount of songs to add, all of which aren't very notable to begin with. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're overestimating the number of songs that charted. It's not really much more than what's already listed. Why do you wish to hide this information from readers?--Lost Fugitive (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're underestimating the number of songs that charted, buy a copy of Joel Whitburn's Country book, it has over 600 pages of songs that have charted on the Country chart up until 2008. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That covers 60 years.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over 60 years I believe.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could provide the number of songs, it would be helpful.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Over 19,000 songs. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's only 288 songs per year. Certainly managable.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use this page quite often for charting information. I think this may be beneficial.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, rest assured, you won't be getting any help adding them from me. Good luck. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:IINFO is the main argument against this. The "[decade] in American Music" lists establish a precedent for including only Top 20 hits. If we include everything down to someone who had a song that peaked at #99 and is so obscure that Google hasn't heard of them outside the Whitburn books... it'd just be a huge headache. 300 songs a year is way too many to list, but I really don't feel I need to say anything more than Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that ever existed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TPH! I was a bit hesitant about this, then thought of it as a possibility, but with the above remarks, I have to agree with you. Not everything has to be given. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 02:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper. There is no need to exclude relevant information such as this (because it's a "headache"?), especially since it can be sectioned so that you do not have to look at the higher charted songs if you do not wish to see them. If it's possible and feasible to add all, why not add all? The link WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information does not argue against such lists as this, just that they be organized in a reasonable manner.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 41 external links on 2010 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.people.com/people/article/0%2C%2C20401049%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/kenny-chesney/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/blake-shelton/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/josh-turner/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/lady-antebellum/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/brad-paisley/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/zac-brown-band/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/justin-moore/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/josh-thompson/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/kenny-chesney/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/darius-rucker/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/reba/chart-history//
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100928161223/http://www.billboard.com// to http:///
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/billy-currington/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=alan/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=joey/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=blake/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/the-band-perry/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=randy/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/darius-rucker/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=colt/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=trace/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=easton/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=keith/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=jaron/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=jamey/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=josh/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=brad/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/sugarland/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=jerrod/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=blake/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=lee/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/lady-antebellum/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=jason/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=lady/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=rascal/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100831145303/http://www.billboard.com/ to http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/various-artists/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=tim/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=zac/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=clay/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname%7Cartist=dierks/

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

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) 01:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]