Talk:Janet Jackson singles discography
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Janet Jackson singles discography article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Expanded charts for Singles?
[edit]Janet’s singles discography is woefully under-represented in terms of her chart feats. I tried to make a small edit today by adding US Adult R&B Songs data to her 2010s section, but it appears to have been removed. Yet she has a Number 1 Single on that chart and all of her singles in the 2010s have charted there.
The only place in Janet’s discography that US Dance Club Songs is listed is under the promotional singles area, yet she has charted Number 1s on this chart across 4 decades... 19 in total. How is it NOT included in her mainstream singles charting data?
And where is the chart data from U.K. R&B, South Africa or Japan? This really needs to be updated. Wayneashleymusic (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I indicated the reason for removal in the edit summary as to why your additions were removed? You can add as many charts as you like on the pages of each single. However, only 10 columns for charts are allowed on the discography pages.--Harout72 (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok thank you for the information . Given that the guidelines say "approximately 10 columns" and I've seen inconsistent numbers on other artist charts, I was under the impression that this was not a strict mandate. --Wayneashleymusic (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- This policy is generally respected by discography editors. Unfortunately, we have discographies that are not watched by more experienced editors, so they temporarily remain out of control, until somebody fixes them.--Harout72 (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- You also should know that the markets in all tables for singles should be uniform/consistent. In other words, we should not have different markets for one table of singles, and another set of markets for other tables of singles. They all should be the same. The same goes for albums. But the markets for tables of albums don't have to the same as the markets selected for the tables of singles. By the way, official albums and singles charts for all markets should be used first if there are chart peaks available, secondary charts such as R&B should only be used if there are no peaks available for certain markets' official singles. In this case, Ireland should not have been replaced by R&B chart as there are many peaks available for Ireland.--Harout72 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Again, the information is most appreciated, but if what you say is accurate, I'm a bit confused as to why this particular page is so heavily scrutinized for such consistency, while others (see Madonna singles discography, Whitney Houston singles discography, Celine Dion singles discography (both of which have in excess of the 'standard 10 allotted columns', btw) seem to be exceptions to these rules. Any feedback on this point would be appreciated, and I look forward to when issues with these other pages are addressed. -- Wayneashleymusic (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Madonna's albums discography is consistent, as for her singles discography, the editors there must have reached a consensus of some kind to include the US Dance Chart, which is not normally practiced as many markets have countless chart peaks for popular artists such as Madonna. Whitney Houston singles discography is completely out of control with 13 columns, that's unacceptable. Again, as I mentioned above some of the discography pages are out of control because there doesn't seem to be experienced editors who have those pages on their watchlist. And fans who are not familiar with the rules screw up the pages which is the case with Whitney Houston and many others. As for this page, I have worked on Janet Jackson's discography in the past, therefore, I have it on my watchlist. You will see many articles where general rules are not applied, but that doesn't mean that there is an exception.--Harout72 (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- So will you be enforcing the rules on these other pages, as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayneashleymusic (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm personally watching over 301 pages as it is, I'm not sure If I can take on anymore that that. But now that you're familiar with the rules, you can help with those pages that are out of control. You can also start a discussion on the talk pages of those pages that you see need help.--Harout72 (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I suppose I could do that, but I happen to be of the opinion that the expanded information is a good thing. I take Wikipedia's rules at their word, where it says "approximately 10 columns" which would suggest that exceptions should be allowed for artists of a certain caliber. If such exceptions are allowed to exist for legendary artists like Whitney, Madonna and Celine, then they should most certainly apply to Ms. Jackson. I would like to restore my original edit for Adult R&B, and add the US Dance data to be consistent with artists in Ms. Jackson's caliber. --Wayneashleymusic (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm personally watching over 301 pages as it is, I'm not sure If I can take on anymore that that. But now that you're familiar with the rules, you can help with those pages that are out of control. You can also start a discussion on the talk pages of those pages that you see need help.--Harout72 (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- So will you be enforcing the rules on these other pages, as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayneashleymusic (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Madonna's albums discography is consistent, as for her singles discography, the editors there must have reached a consensus of some kind to include the US Dance Chart, which is not normally practiced as many markets have countless chart peaks for popular artists such as Madonna. Whitney Houston singles discography is completely out of control with 13 columns, that's unacceptable. Again, as I mentioned above some of the discography pages are out of control because there doesn't seem to be experienced editors who have those pages on their watchlist. And fans who are not familiar with the rules screw up the pages which is the case with Whitney Houston and many others. As for this page, I have worked on Janet Jackson's discography in the past, therefore, I have it on my watchlist. You will see many articles where general rules are not applied, but that doesn't mean that there is an exception.--Harout72 (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Again, the information is most appreciated, but if what you say is accurate, I'm a bit confused as to why this particular page is so heavily scrutinized for such consistency, while others (see Madonna singles discography, Whitney Houston singles discography, Celine Dion singles discography (both of which have in excess of the 'standard 10 allotted columns', btw) seem to be exceptions to these rules. Any feedback on this point would be appreciated, and I look forward to when issues with these other pages are addressed. -- Wayneashleymusic (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- You also should know that the markets in all tables for singles should be uniform/consistent. In other words, we should not have different markets for one table of singles, and another set of markets for other tables of singles. They all should be the same. The same goes for albums. But the markets for tables of albums don't have to the same as the markets selected for the tables of singles. By the way, official albums and singles charts for all markets should be used first if there are chart peaks available, secondary charts such as R&B should only be used if there are no peaks available for certain markets' official singles. In this case, Ireland should not have been replaced by R&B chart as there are many peaks available for Ireland.--Harout72 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- This policy is generally respected by discography editors. Unfortunately, we have discographies that are not watched by more experienced editors, so they temporarily remain out of control, until somebody fixes them.--Harout72 (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok thank you for the information . Given that the guidelines say "approximately 10 columns" and I've seen inconsistent numbers on other artist charts, I was under the impression that this was not a strict mandate. --Wayneashleymusic (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
If a part of the policy stated that exceptions should be allowed for legendary artists, then I would agree. However, I've been editing music related pages for ten years, and I can assure you that such exceptions and/or policies do not exist. What you see on the discographies you mention are not exceptions, they are disruptions to the policy. Let me state again in case you missed what I said above, you can add your desired charts to the tables on the pages of the singles. In fact, you can add as many as you'd like as no restrictions apply to those tables. Having 10 chart columns is more than enough to illustrate the performance of the listed singles. After all, R&B and Dance charts are not designed to represent the sales performance of the singles, The Billboard Hot 100 is, which we already have.--Harout72 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your explanation alone is insufficient. I suppose i’d Be apt to believe you if the other pages did not contain copious exceptions, but they do. Please correct the other pages, and once that is done and they adhere by the rules, i’ll Be glad to oblige. Otherwise, i’ll have to assume that you are operating under some bias which pertains only to Ms. Jackson, which I would have to then take steps to expose. Wayneashleymusic (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- My explanation has been more than sufficient as I have covered/answered everything you asked and even more. I will now go ahead and provide you one other information before you become anymore disruptive, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point". You might also want to consider Wikipedia:Third opinion before you disrupt the main page. Good day.--Harout72 (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Gladly. Wayneashleymusic (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- As of today, no adjustments or changes have been made or requested to any of the other pages in violation of rules discussed, including Whitney Houston singles discography-- contains more than the requisite 10 columns with several genre charts that are not a country's primary market, Celine Dion singles discography-- contains more than the requisite 10 columns with several genre charts that are not a country's primary market, Mariah Carey singles discography-- contains more than the requisite 10 columns with several genre charts that are not a country's primary market, Bruce Springsteen discography-- contains more than the requisite 10 columns with one genre chart that does not represent a country's primary market (in particular this page has been cited as a Watch Page in the Discographies project, which would infer that said violations would have been addressed. Like Janet Jackson, all of the artists represented are legacy artists that have significant international success across a variety of charts. Yet the standards applied to these pages appear to be less stringent than those being applied here. Per rules cited by the senior editor, the above pages appear to interpret 10 columns for charts use of the term "approximately 10 columns" to mean that more than 10 columns are warranted in certain situations. In the case of this particular artist, such enforcement of these rules causes an informational disparity between her discography record and the works of her contemporaries. The net result of which causes this artist and her work to appear diminished in the Wikipedia realm. Admittedly, I am a new editor, and greatly respect the work of senior editors as I learn continue to work on my skills and contributions. But it is my hope that inconsistencies such as this one can be addressed in a respectful manner. Wayneashleymusic (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- You need to stop writing and listen to what editors are saying to you. Your long continuous arguments are nothing but disruptive. All decent/featured discographies that are under scrutiny of experienced editors have 10 columns for charts, all of which have official singles/albums charts listed only, whether it's Robbie Williams discography, Rihanna discography, Taylor Swift discography, Ed Sheeran discography, Bruno Mars discography. Try to learn and take an example from the discographies that are well organized.--Harout72 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- No edits have been made to this page since you reversed them last week, yet you're saying that a continuation in the talk page is also considered "disruptive"? A bit confused by that. Also a bit confused that pages like Celine Dion singles discography is a top-rated Featured List, yet it does not appear to adhere to the rules you have previously mentioned. So if I'm paying attention to the work of experienced editors, shouldn't I pay attention to their work as well? Care to provide an explanation for how that is possible? Wayneashleymusic (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- You need to stop writing and listen to what editors are saying to you. Your long continuous arguments are nothing but disruptive. All decent/featured discographies that are under scrutiny of experienced editors have 10 columns for charts, all of which have official singles/albums charts listed only, whether it's Robbie Williams discography, Rihanna discography, Taylor Swift discography, Ed Sheeran discography, Bruno Mars discography. Try to learn and take an example from the discographies that are well organized.--Harout72 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- As of today, no adjustments or changes have been made or requested to any of the other pages in violation of rules discussed, including Whitney Houston singles discography-- contains more than the requisite 10 columns with several genre charts that are not a country's primary market, Celine Dion singles discography-- contains more than the requisite 10 columns with several genre charts that are not a country's primary market, Mariah Carey singles discography-- contains more than the requisite 10 columns with several genre charts that are not a country's primary market, Bruce Springsteen discography-- contains more than the requisite 10 columns with one genre chart that does not represent a country's primary market (in particular this page has been cited as a Watch Page in the Discographies project, which would infer that said violations would have been addressed. Like Janet Jackson, all of the artists represented are legacy artists that have significant international success across a variety of charts. Yet the standards applied to these pages appear to be less stringent than those being applied here. Per rules cited by the senior editor, the above pages appear to interpret 10 columns for charts use of the term "approximately 10 columns" to mean that more than 10 columns are warranted in certain situations. In the case of this particular artist, such enforcement of these rules causes an informational disparity between her discography record and the works of her contemporaries. The net result of which causes this artist and her work to appear diminished in the Wikipedia realm. Admittedly, I am a new editor, and greatly respect the work of senior editors as I learn continue to work on my skills and contributions. But it is my hope that inconsistencies such as this one can be addressed in a respectful manner. Wayneashleymusic (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
3O Response: I recognize the problem of the table growing out of control, but I'm actually more concerned about it creating bias by over-representing performance in the U.S., as if to say that other countries don't matter as much. Also, WP:SUMMARYSTYLE should be applied here. As has been mentioned, the individual articles for albums and singles (when they are notable enough to justify such) can have additional chart data; I don't feel that this list article should repeat all of that. So, my non-binding third opinion is to not expand the charts with additional columns for U.S. Adult R&B Songs, or other secondary U.S. rankings.
I would also note that this discussion involves what I think of as editing by policy vs editing by practise. There are a lot of policies and guidelines, and even veteran editors aren't going to know all of them. Most editors simply try to repeat what they see practised in other articles. And usually that's fine. But the policies and guidelines are there for a reason, they're the result of considered discussions and represent the collective wisdom of the community. They aren't always applied uniformly but its generally better to follow them unless there is a good reason not to do so. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Runaway's single chart peak in Canada
[edit]I am writing to provide chart run sources from the actual Canadian Top Singles chart showing that Runaway has only ever managed to peak at #2 and not #1 in Canada, no 3rd party sources just straight from the Canadian charts themselves provided by RPM back in the 90s and archived by the Library and Archives Canada government. It seems the mistake in listing it as a #1 single in Canada stemmed from the confusion in it peaking at #1 only on the Canadian Adult Contemporary charts, which is a component chart and not the main overall singles chart.
Week 1 - September 18th, 1995: Debuts at #90
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2761&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2761.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2761
Week 2 - September 25th, 1995: charts at #76
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.8527&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.8527.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.8527
Week 3 - October 2nd, 1995: charts at #72
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2768&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2768.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2768
Week 4 - October 9th, 1995: charts at #60
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2775&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2775.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2775
Week 5 - October 16th, 1995: charts at #53
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2781&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2781.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2781
Week 6 - October 23rd, 1995: charts at #34
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2787&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2787.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2787
Week 7 - October 30th, 1995: charts at #25
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2794&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2794.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2794
Week 8 - November 6th, 1995: charts at #18
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2801&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2801.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2801
Week 9 - November 13th, 1995: charts at #5
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2807&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2807.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2807
Week 10 - November 20th, 1995: charts at #2 (PEAK)
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2813&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2813.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2813
Week 11 - November 27th, 1995: charts at #2 (2nd week at PEAK POSITION)
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2819&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2819.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2819
Week 12 - December 4th, 1995: charts at #3
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2827&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2827.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2827
Week 13 - December 11th, 1995: charts at #4
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2833&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2833.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2833
Week 14/End Of Year chart week - December 18th, 1995: ranked at #32 for the year-end Top Hit Singles chart
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2840&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2840.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2840
Week 15 & 16 - January 8th, 1996: charts at #11 (shows it was at #9 the previous week)
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2851&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2851.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2851
Week 17 - January 15th, 1996: charts at #16
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2858&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2858.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2858
Week 18 - January 22nd, 1996: charts at #27
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2864&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2864.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2864
Week 19 - January 29th, 1996: charts at #44
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2872&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2872.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2872
Week 20 - February 5th, 1996: charts at #55
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2878&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2878.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2878
Week 21 - February 12th, 1996: charts at #62
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2885&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2885.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2885
Week 22 - February 19th, 1996: charts at #88 (final week on the chart before falling out of the top 100)
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2892&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2892.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2892
As you can see from the single's 22-week run on the charts, it only managed to peak at #2 for two weeks before it started falling down, thus it was never a #1 single on Canada's main overall singles chart which was the Top Singles chart. Below is the source to show the single only peaked at #1 on the Adult Contemporary charts in Canada, also provided by the RPM and archived by the Library and Archives Canada government.
November 13th, 1995: charts at #1 (PEAK)
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2802&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2802.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2802
Therefore from all the sources shown above, the chart peak for Runaway's single in Canada should be changed to #2 given all her other Canadian single chart peaks are based on the Top Singles chart, not the Adult Contemporary charts. -- 15:17, 9 December 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.39.135 (talk)
- Well, this source on the main page that was supporting the No. 1 for "Runaway" is based on the source from Billboard's Hits of the World, all those peaks for all countries at Hits of the World are based on official Singles/Albums charts, not on Adult Contemporary Charts.--Harout72 (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- The Billboard Hits Of The World source states the chart they get their Canada data from is from a competing music industry magazine company called The Record, although it was not considered the main national music charts for Canada in the 90s. The RPM rival music industry magazine was considered the de facto national music charts instead, as also backed up by Canada's Gold Leaf Awards of 1970 that used RPM as their basis for the awards for many decades prior, which would later become the Juno Awards. This is similar to the Billboard magazine being used as the basis for the Billboard Music Awards where that magazine is considered the official national music charts for the US. The RPM music magazine sources should be considered the official national music chart for Canada then for the 90s and decades prior, hence that particular chart showing Runaway peaking at #2 on the Top Singles chart in 1995 should be considered the official Canada singles chart peak on this page. -- 17:26, 9 December 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.39.135 (talk)