Talk:Carly Rae Jepsen discography

Canada: Music Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.

Discographies

This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.DiscographiesWikipedia:WikiProject DiscographiesTemplate:WikiProject DiscographiesDiscography articles

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Why?

Why is this a seperate article, and not just listed under the Carly Rae Jepsen main wiki entry? It's not large enough nor unique enough to warrant a seperate wiki entry, and it would complete the original entry on Carly Rae. Most artists have a discography listing under their original wiki entries, so why deviate from that format? 84.30.90.132 (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, and is instead just a mass agglomeration of useless information. That's why it has articles devoted to individual episodes of sitcoms, pokemon monsters, minor local politicians, this, and all sorts of other drivel that no serious encyclopedia would cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.3.223 (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice about possible full protection

I notice lots of reverting going on at the article, with snarky edit summaries or no edit summaries, over the course of several weeks, by multiple editors. And nothing on this page newer than last August. If this continues, I'll fully protect the article so no one can edit it without using an {{edit protected}} request here, and odds are that it will be at a version you hate when it's protected. I doubt anyone wants that. Please discuss your disagreements here, and come to a consensus, before continuing the reverting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This all boils down to a recurring issue of people not knowing what a single is. Generally, if a single is not successful, people like to deem it to be a "promo single", instead (what's a promo single, you may ask? Well, a promo single, by definition, is a single released for free.) In this particular article, all of the singles were released to buy, thus, making none of them promo singles. Insisting they are is WP:OR. (Sorry for the late reply, I hadn't noticed this, or I would have commented a lot sooner on the matter.) — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chart positions

If you see articles such as Taylor Swift discography, Drake Bell discography, Justin Timberlake discography, only the max positions. An equivalent of Billboard Bubbling, that position should not be added to the max number. That's not how it works. A footnote is supposed to be placed, saying something like "Song X did not chart on the Billboard Hot 100, but peaked at number 3 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 single chart, which is an extension of the Hot 100." -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-It depends on the page as well.. not all pages are done that way. Others include just the position i.e, 104. Plus this is the Belgium chart, the position is below 100, so I see no reason to not include it, especially since it has been there since 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.20.149 (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect as shown here, 64.231.20.149: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Record_charts/Billboard_charts_guide ". It should be indicated as an uncharted song with a footnote to indicate the Bubbling Under peak. In the song's article, just indicate it as a Bubbling Under peak, so long as it is verifiable." -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All That

There seems to be some confusion about whether "All That" is an official single or a promotional single (probably due to shifts in the way music is distributed and the blurring line between the two, but that's an issue for another day) so rather than starting an edit war moving it back and forth, I figured we should talk about it. This article was given in a comment as a source confirming the song as a single. However, Billboard clearly called the song just "a track from her forthcoming album" in this article, in which they also explicitly referred to "I Really Like You" as a single. Jepsen's Facebook page still features a promotional banner for "I Really Like You", referred to "All That" as "My heart song of the album" without making mention of it being a single in this announcement on the page, and when promoting her then-upcoming appearance on Saturday Night Live where she premiered "All That" she made it clear she was still promoting "I Really Like You" as a single with the caption "Tune in to Saturday Night Live to watch me perform my new single #IReallyLikeYou!" on this photo. In my opinion, multiple sources suggesting the song is not an official single including "word of god" from Jepsen herself should trump one (admittedly reputable and sufficient under other circumstances) source stating it is. Journalists have tossed the term around incorrectly before. Maybe until/if it gets promoted to radio, sold in physical format, or receives a music video we keep it as "promotional"? Not moving it until a consensus is reached (hopefully... ;) ) Songsteel (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed on iTunes as a single with no sources indicating that it is promotional-only. None of Jepsen's posts (or Billboard's about it being a "track" - almost all singles are album tracks) suggest that this is not a single and the interpretation comes across as original research. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was released the same way as "I Really Like You". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.125.113 (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this interview from May 6th, Carly confirms that there is no other singles after I Really Like You: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjHXVtHdw28&feature=youtu.be She says that she cannot reveal what the second single is yet, although she hints at it being a song titled "Run Away With Me" that she performed in China. So we can safely move "All That" under promotional singles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.23.93 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Countries for "Singles section"

Why have the coutries been changed in the singles section, making it look more disorganized. Example.. why was Italy even added when Call Me Maybe did not peak at #1 there, and no other song of hers has charted? Can we revert to how the countries were previously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.219.116 (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get Italy but I get Japan as multiple songs charted there whereas with Italy, it was only "Call Me Maybe". Only charting song. Italy should be removed with something else if it is available. -- 104.161.12.144 (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Carly Rae Jepsen discography. 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:

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) 19:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tribute Album

Should the Emo-tion tribute compilation album be listed in the article? It seems like it would be relevant to notice than an artist who has only had 2 mainstream studio albums would already have a compilation album dedicated to just one of her albums.Gagaluv1 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]