Talk:Jordin Sparks (album)

Unsourced sales figures

An on-going sock puppet case involves the continual addition of unsourced sales figures. (Often, the number is changed while the source for an old figure is left in place.) Any unsourced sales numbers and/or certifications will be reverted on sight. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Source Is Outdated, Incorrect.

Her sales are 678,000. Your "source" are sales figures from quite a while ago.

Look at http://www.americanidol.com/myidol/forums/topic/?tid=802478&page=28& . They've been counting it out week by week.

Also, these people have been counting it week by week. http://idolforums.com/index.php?showtopic=496645

Hits Daily Double has the sales of every week. http://HitsDailyDouble.com

HitsDailyDouble should be proof enough. Or will you insist that it is 612,000 until it is certified platinum? It is 678,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtompkins48 (talk • contribs)

I will insist that the figure is whatever the cited reliable source says it is. (I will also block as many socks as needed and, if it comes to it, seek page protection on the articles involved.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely ludicrous to use a "source" from last month to follow the sales of an album which is in the top 20 every week. HitsDailyDouble uses reports from actual vendors, therefore, it is 100% reliable. If anything, their total is LESS than the actual total, because they don't recieve reports from the small shops.

Therefore, HitsDailyDouble can be used as a source. I will immediately count their weekly totals on every page and get the exact number they present. There is no way that you can call it unreliable unless you are calling vendors like Walmart and Target unreliable. I will cite it and you would be a fool to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.60.195 (talk • contribs)

And stop your "sock puppet" crap. We have 2 different IPs, so that pretty much throws your theory out the window. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.60.195 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict

Part of my response to you is about your behavior, not this article. I have addressed this on one of your talk pages. As you see to be using a flurry of accounts, I am linking to it here to ensure you see it.

Your first cite above [1] is an annonymous forum post. This is not a reliable source.

Your second cite above [2] is an annonymous forum post. This is not a reliable source.

HitsDailyDouble might "uses reports from actual vendors" but being a "reliable source" is not about where a source says they get there info. If Billboard says something without saying where they got their info, we have that from a reliable source. If JoesWebsite says something and says the information was on stone tablets, given to him by God at a press conference held on the 50 yardline at halftime during the Super Bowl, we have an unreliable source saying it got its info from a reliable source. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the sock puppetry cases at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Trialing, Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Trialing (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Trialing (3rd). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the "sock puppet" case because if the management runs a simple IP tracer, your "accusation" goes to hell. There is a forum topic on AmericanIdol.com regarding this, so expect A LOT of different people to be editing this page. Now back to the topic. You are obviously ignorant to what HitsDailyDouble is. These vendors CONFIRM that they send their sales to HitsDailyDouble. There is no way you can deny it's reliability. Also, you can't use an article from weeks ago for the sales of an album that is in the top 20. It is idiotic. These sales are constantly changing, an article is only good for THAT WEEK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.60.195 (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also checked, and many articles use HitsDailyDouble as a source. Unless you intend to go on a rampage against every single article using it as a source, I'd suggest you move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.60.195 (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The management" will certainly address the issue. As to the issue of multiple users canvased from a forum elsewhere, I will update the sock puppet case to make sure the admins are aware they might really be looking at meat puppets. Feel free to address your concerns in the appropriate forum. As I have already said, yes, using an old source is absurd. If anyone wants to add more current figures, though, they must cite a reliable source. That a source is used in "countless" or "many" pages is moot. Please see WP:WAX. Your argument in favor of HitsDailyDouble should not address whether you consider it "reliable", rather it must discuss how it meets the criteria outline for reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HDD is a news outlet, exactly the same as Sohh.com, which you used. I fail to see the problem in using it. Like I said before, if anything, it is LESS than the actual total, because they don't get sales from small shops. However, their sales are confirmed to be real, so I don't see the problem in using it. Since we can't get an article every week, using HDD solves this entire problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.60.195 (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all "news outlets" are the same. Anyone using a source must be able to show that that source is a reliable source. Saying it is "exactly the same as" another one just doesn't cut it.

I did not use sohh.com. I reverted edits. Someone a while back cited a figure from sohh. Later, someone changed the number, leaving the sohh cite. I reverted the number to match the only source given.

Saying that the figures are low if anything is a good place to start. What makes you think that having a wrong-but-low figure is better than having a wrong-but-high figure in my mind or anyone elses? I don't care if Sparks has sold 100 copies or 100 million copies. I do care if wikipedia has the wrong figure, though.

I'm still looking for the forum discussion you mention, but haven't found it yet. I did find a few posts where that very forum was discussing the inaccuracy of figures at HDD, though.[3] - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HDD collects their data 1 day after Billboard, but they don't collect from small venues. This creates a small difference between BB and HDD. However, if they say a certain number has been sold, than it has been sold. It's time frame just isn't used in conjunction with BB, which creates a small difference.

This is why using HDD is better than using nothing. We know that at least 653,000 have been sold. It is better than keeping it at 612,000, which we know is dead wrong. However, if you don't deem HDD to be good enough for sales, than just remove the sales entirely. It is certainly better than an article at Sohh.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.60.195 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, if using HDD doesn't cut it in your eyes, than using Sohh.com doesn't cut it either. And if that is the case, the entire sales number should be removed completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.60.195 (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've Solved The Problem

I made this a new discussion so it will stand out, and end the last one of bickering.

Sohh.com (what was used in the 612 source) has released a new article, saying that Jordin has sold 677,900 so far. Since Sohh has been used before, it should be fine to use it again. Hopefully, Sohh will keep saying what her totals are in the coming weeks and solves the problem. As of now though, this issue has been resolved in my eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.60.195 (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, sourced and all. I'm still not taking a position on whether or not sohh is a reliable source. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I updated and sourced her numbers again. It's 716,500 now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.60.195 (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

One Step at a Time (song) fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS: "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

Taking it apart:

"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts," Nope.

"won significant awards or honors" Nope.

"have been performed independently by several notable artists," Nope.

"A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." At present, there are zero sources.

Incidentally, saying it "is going to" or "will certainly" chart is meaningless. When it does chart, recreating it will be as easy as reverting the redirect.

Failing meaningful discussion to the contrary, I will re-redirect this in a few days. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the One Step at a Time page is not needed at the time. In a month or so, possibly, but as of now there is simply not anything of any real significance to note of in it's own page. Give it time. -

IthielZ (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do expect to see the song chart on the billboard chart this Tuesday, due to the performance of the song that she gave on the American Idol finale this week (specifically doing well on Itunes). So there is no need to delete it because it will have ranked on a significant music chart. MusicAngel16 (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now moot. The appropriate forum is the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Step at a Time (song). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God Loves Ugly

Was the track "God Loves Ugly" written by Clint Black, because when I saw the track listing, I saw "God Loves Ugly" (C. Black). --Martin4647 (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"acharts" :
- [http://acharts.us/performer/jordin_sparks "Jordin Sparks worldwide chart positions and trajectories"]. ''aCharts.us''. Retrieved [[December 22]], [[2007]].
- [http://acharts.us/album/29994 Jordin Sparks - Jordin Sparks - Music Charts]
- [http://acharts.us/album/29994 United World Chart]

DumZiBoT (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gold certification?

I'm surprised that there are two sources saying that the album was certified gold while the RIAA database doesn't confirm it. Is the RIAA site usually up to date, or is it possible that they are lagging behind? --Amalthea^Talk 21:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the RIAA awards the certifications, its website database should be the last word in whether an album/single is certified. The RIAA is usually up to date, see Jennifer Hudsons's album that was certified less than ten days ago. Of the two sources cited, the first is not a reliable source and the second comes up an error. Since the RIAA website does not list an album certification yet, I am removing the certification on the article. Aspects (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is she was presented with an official plaque live on national television. I think it's more likely that the RIAA website hasn't been updated than the several links you can find on the internet, plus the thousand who were in attendance, plus the millions more who watched on tv, were all wrong. I've put the information back up, with another new link, I hope all goes well. - Packerfansam 17 November 2008

Was Freeze released as a single?

I've removed the information that Freeze was released as a single in Australia, cause I can't find any reliable source to support it. If anyone can prove me wrong feel free to add it back, but the two sources we had only showed that it was aired on some radio stations, and nothing more. --Amalthea 17:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She was interviewed on TAKE40 Australian radio few weeks back and confirmed it, explained the song etc. But i cant find the source 58.178.222.207 (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that TAKE 40 Interview too. Freeze has jumped from 65 straight to number 22 on the Australia airplay chart. Also, just because shes recording her sophomore album doesn't mean she won't have singles. Lady Gaga started to record hers in late 2008, yet she is still releasing singles. There are at least 3 more to come from her, so Jordin can release more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.90.216 (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Dré waz @ here checkin these comments out ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahf (talk • contribs) 00:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]