Jump to content

Talk:Rita Ora discography/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Orphaned references in Rita Ora discography

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rita Ora discography's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BPI":

  • From List of music recording certifications: "The BPI". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 2008-06-02.
  • From British Phonographic Industry: Gallup (4 February 1989). "The Top of the Pops Chart" (PDF). Record Mirror: 4. Retrieved 16 July 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Black Widow already a single?

If not it should be moved to other charted songs... Szaboci (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rita Ora 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"Proud" as a single

So... every song Ora releases counts as a "single"? Can the user who keeps adding "Proud" (a song merely used in a promotional campaign) as an offical single explain why he/she keeps doing that? --Helptottt (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm keep doing that because I have a source with me to support my changes. You, on the other hand, are unable to provide any, thus it's merely your personal belief. You claimed that you are restoring the changes according to an "temporary establishment between several editors," which is, apparently, invalid as that wasn't supported by a reliable source either. Hayman30 (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Nothing was "established", I used a wrong term. The source you added quotes the Billboard article which doesn't mention the song as a single at all, it's just Idolator's interpretation/wording they used. --Helptottt (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with quoting Billboard. Even if it's just Idolator's interpretation, so what? Literally everything in a news article/opinion piece is the author's interpretation of something. Besides, you couldn't provide a source that says the song is a promotional single, so I don't even know what is being disputed. Sourced material vs personal belief? Hayman30 (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Billboard is a more reputable source than Idolator. I didn't even consider it a promotional single, I didn't add it as such. --Helptottt (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes of course Billboard is reliable, but does the article say that the song is promotional single? No. So this isn't even the matter of which is more reliable. Hayman30 (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I did't add the song as a promotional single, but since the song is used in a promotional campaign it makes more sense to be temporary categorized as a "promotional single". The song is definitely not a single, but I don't wish to continue this discussion with you because it feels like an ego thing. Someone will eventually remove it from the singles section. --Helptottt (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Can whoever keeps adding Proud as an official single stop? It's just a promotional track for Absolute's Open Mic Project. An official single must be sent to radio, and Proud wasn't and it isn't going to be sent for radio adds because it's just a promotional single.
No because that's an unsourced claim. I have a source with me that calls the song a single, y'all don't have one saying otherwise. A song doesn't have to be sent to radio to qualify as a single. Hayman30 (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
How is any song a single if it's not serviced to radio? The song is used for a promotional campaign only and hasn't been sent to Radio, nor it had a music video or been performed at any promo spot. Ora herself said, it's not going to be included on her upcoming album. If any track that wasn't sent to the radio is a single, then the instant grant songs that are released before the album would be considered singles too like!! You don't seem to be well educated on the topic to be making edits about it, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BUmbrella (talk • contribs) 09:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@BUmbrella: It does not have to be sent to radio to be an official single, nor does it have to be on an upcoming album. "You don't seem to be well educated on the topic to be making edits about it"???? This is exactly the type of comments on WP:OWN#Statements. Who are you to judge me? Hayman30 (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Then what would be the difference between an instant grat track and a single, if a single doesn't have to be serviced to radio? as I said before, I didn't mean to offend you, but it's basic music industry knowledge on what a single is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BUmbrella (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@BUmbrella: We'll have to look at how reliable sources reffered to it. Plenty of songs were not sent to radio, are they all promo singles? No one cares how much "music industry knowledge" you have, really, no one gives. Hayman30 (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone needs to add it back to her discography. We can't just ignore it. Froyo Fox126 (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of basically the entire article

The user laof2017 has altered the entire article and added so many unnecessary changes. The lead section is filled with superfluous and badly written information. Inexplicably, the user split the singles section into decades, removed charts and unnecessarily added new (less relevant) ones. At one point, the user even included "other charted songs" into the singles section.

It almost feels like this user's edits are done in bad faith because, as another editor wrote, the edits are senseless. It feels like this article is being held hostage. Helptottt (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You are constantly being reverted not only by me but also by other users for your disruptions. I would recommend you to do your research and become familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies or take part on the featured list review. Add your concerns there and contribute to the article instead of unnecessarily disrupting it. Iaof2017 (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Please point out where I'm being "constantly" reverted by other editors on this article? I was reverted on another article and the issue was solved. Your edits have been reverted by three editors on this article. The only editor who's engaging in disruption is yourself. So, your only motive in editing these Rita Ora articles is to get a "featured article" for yourself? This is appalling. Helptottt (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The only ono who is reverted by other users is you. And as I checked your profile history, it is definitely not the first time as I saw you were even blocked for days. Your edits makes no sense. I asked you multiple times to explain some edits you did, but you never answered, only said that my behaviour is disrupting. What you did with Ora's discography is a MESS and as the user Helptottt said...you don't own the page, so please think about your behaviour because you are acting like a child with no reasonable arguments and explanation. Jakubik.v (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
What????. The article is well written, it complies with the manual of style and discography guidelines, it is verifiable and contains reliable sources, so what "makes no sense"? Argue with Wikipedia's guidelines, I'm here to improve articles and not waste my time with absurdity. Iaof2017 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I’ve been off Wikipedia for some time for personal reasons, but I still know the rules and guidelines perfectly. What Iaof2017 is doing is against Wikipedia rules, so, guys, keep reverting if this user keeps on doing these senseless edits, this isn’t a war about who is the best, so stop acting like a little kid, if not, go to the park, but not disrupt Wikipedia pages, because you are going to undermine the seriousness of it as a reliable source of information. So, please, we all ask you to stop doing these edits, it’s for the best. Thank you. Swedishbrittisk (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Swedishbrittisk, provided you're familiar with the Wiki guidelines, I assume that you already know that WP:SOCKING is a violation on Wikipedia? So again, what legitimates your removal of reliable content? Iaof2017 (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Listen to me, I only have one account, so stop doing these accusations because I am not none of these two accounts that you say I own, because they’re not me, is it clear? Stop, please, it’s not funny. Swedishbrittisk (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Duplication

@Helptottt and Swedishbrittisk: The version that you have been reverting to contains two copies of the article.... please don't carry on reverting to that. SmartSE (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you for pointing it out. Helptottt (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Listing the issues

I've decided to start a list of all the recent unconstructive editing in this article, and these are just some of the issues:

  • The lead section is now filled with irrelevant and incorrect information (Ora's debut album was not released by Ministry of Sound and mentioning that an album charted within the top 30 of a few countries is irrelevant), while at the same time leaving out important information (such as the first single going number one and breaking the record for most top ten songs for a female British artist in the UK). WP:IRRELEVANT and WP:VNOT explain it. The lead remains poorly written.
  • The Dutch chart (and certification) was arbitrarily removed from the albums section, and a Japan chart was randomly added.
  • In the extended plays section, the exact chart (the Dance/Electronic Albums chart) on which an EP charted was removed and Billboard 200 was added instead (despite not charting there). Other discography articles regularly use component charts when albums or EPs don't chart on Billboard 200.
  • In the singles section, a user split the singles into decades, as if Ora's career was spanning 30 years and the singles list was so long that it was hard to navigate. Completely unnecessary and ruins the flow of the article.
  • In the newly formed 2010s singles section, an 11th chart was added, the CIS one and a user even added positions such as 245 and 710 (WP:OVER200).
  • The Belgian chart was removed and replaced with the French chart, despite Ora having more songs charting in Belgium. Several of the added French chart positions are FALSE, such as the "Anywhere" and "Girls" placements.
  • Since the discography was unnecessarily split into two parts, the user removed three charts from the "2020s" section.
  • The user then reduced the featured singles charts as well, reducing them to seven, despite one of the singles listed charting on all ten of the previous charts.
  • The user also inexplicably removed the "Latin" part from a US certification.
  • The user then also removed charts from the "promotional singles" and "other charted songs" (which is now renamed as just "other songs"), and added new charts and new songs.
  • The section "other appearances" was completely removed.
  • The user added FALSE chart positions for "After the Afterparty", completely ignoring the fact that the version of the song that Ora featured on was just a remix that didn't chart anywhere.

I invite User:Jakubik.v, User:Ss112, User:Binksternet and all other editors to add to the list. Since the user who is persistently making questionable edits left us with a page of a feature list review, please point out all the issues there, too. Helptottt (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  • The main aspects of Ora's musical career are addressed in the lead, including her two albums with their preceding singles and their commercial performances. Everything is clear, concise, verifiable and most notably understandable with correct grammar and spelling. The article in general has now a good use of text layout, formatting and tables. I can't do your homework so study the article, open the sources and convince yourself before edit warring. In contrast to the former version [1], every listed album, single or song listed is provided with a reliable archived source in accordance with the layout style guideline. I've arbitrarily tried to include charts from each continent. Although there is no set inclusion criteria for which charts should and shouldn't be included. So why is the Dutch chart more important than the Japanese one or the other way round? Both are reliable and meet all requirements for inclusion. Wikipedia:Discographies/style only suggests that the artist or band's home country comes first, followed by an English-language alphabetical ordering of countries (with the option to prioritize English-speaking countries before others), then followed by international, multinational, or worldwide charts if available. Concerning the certifications, certifications for countries whose peaks are not shown should also be left out of the per-release listing, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, all your comments still do not justify your edit warring and continual disruption. What was the point of your big riot in the last weeks? You just could have make it to the talkpage or again, participate in the featured list review with other experienced user, who are reviewing the article. Iaof2017 (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • This is not explanation. Okay, why is the Japanese chart more important than the Dutch chart? Another question...why did you reduce featured artist list from 10 to 8? That is nonsense. And I could just keep going...you don't explaim your nonsense edits, you just simply DON'T! Plus million other unnecessary sources. You are redoing the article according to your own preferences which is so obvious and that is wrong. Even when your edits are done the correct way like technically, they are missing points and you are not improving the article, you are just making it look like it's your own. Create your own article but don't change already good one. Jakubik.v (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Your comment absolutely makes no sense and has no basis in policy, read my comment above for a second or third time. I recommend you to become familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, that's all I can offer you. Iaof2017 (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • No, in fact, everything is not "clear, concise and verifiable" in the lead section. I already pointed out that you included the wrong information about the record labels involved in releasing the first album. Another mistake was to refer to "Hot Right Now" as an "immediate success" in "several countries" when that description only really applies to the United Kingdom, where the song immediately went to number one. You have unjustifiably removed information about Ora being the singer with the most number-one songs on the UK Singles Chart in 2012. It's an obvious lie that only nine of Ora's songs reached the UK top ten, when in reality 13 of her singles achieved that. You maliciously try to lecture me to "study" an article that you completely altered and to "open the sources and convince myself", yet many of your edits don't match the sources. The biggest issue with this article is what you have done with the charts. Since you mentioned the previous version of the article, it's obvious to see that it was already very well sourced, some links simply needed archiving. Your reasoning for including the Japan chart makes no sense, not even Adele's discography includes charts from each continent. It's especially out of place here considering that Ora barely charts in that country, yet she often charts (and gets certified) in Netherlands (the chart you removed). Of course some certifications are not shown when you, unjustifiably, removed several charts. None of the other discography articles include 11 chart positions, like you, again, arbitrarily added to this article (discographies/style). Let's also address the fact that you falsified several chart positions (like with the French chart). You have debased this article and made the editing experience very hostile. Helptottt (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • These minor "issues" still do not justify your problematic behaviour. I don't know how you define success but "Hot Right Now" was commercially active in Europe. Its also not obligatory to exactly add 10 charts so read this: Wikipedia:Discographies/style for more. Though I see that the Durch certifications are missing but those can be quickly added. Iaof2017 (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I really don't know if I should be crying or laughing, but it is really getting ridiculous. Yes, why would you keep 10 charts when you can do whatever you want to do with the article. Why would you follow the rule that everyone is following when you can do the opposite way. It is exactly what I was saying before. You just want to recreate the article to your own image and that's it. Jakubik.v (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I won't repeat myself so read the comments above. As a gesture of goodwill, I agree to combine the 2010 and 2020 single's sections into one section. As for the lead, I accidentally added 9 instead of 13 top 10 singles but that can be quickly corrected. PS: That point could be listed in the featured list review and avoid the edit warring but we all have different intentions. Iaof2017 (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
    As a gesture of a goodwill??????? That is exactly What im talking about...That's onnly your article and you are doing a favour to the rest of us...Where are the administrators now to see how greedy you are? I really don't understand how you can call yourself an editor... Jakubik.v (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I think basically everything Helptottt pointed out above is reasonable and should be implemented/reverted to. The CIS column should not have been added. Its peaks are mostly ridiculously low. On the very face of it, including positions lower than 200 is a violation of WP:OVER200, and for an airplay chart no less. All the other columns listed in the singles section at least combine some semblance of sales or actual active listening streams whereas the CIS chart does not. The lead artist singles section did not need to be split (and five singles being listed in the 2020s subsection is silly). The false French chart peaks need to go. There is no way this should be a featured list in its current form with such glaring errors and oversights, like removing the "Latin" specification from a certification, and making the Dance/Electronic Albums chart a note in a Billboard 200 column...what is this? There is no need for the Billboard 200 column at all, it should have remained the US Dance Albums column chart as Helptottt stated. Ss112 19:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
  • You focussed on one point when I did not even say there was a "Latin RIAA". I referred to Helptottt pointing out you removed the Latin "specification from a certification". You can very clearly see on the RIAA page you linked that the gray-coloured Platinum disc next to "RIP" has Latin below RIAA and above Platinum. Latin certifications have different thresholds to English-language certifications, which you should be aware of. Latin Platinum is absolutely not the same as ordinary Platinum—that's 60,000 versus a million, as RIAA certification#Spanish points out. Therefore we absolutely should be specifying such a difference by denoting it is Latin Platinum denoting 60,000 units and not ordinary Platinum denoting a million. Ss112 17:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Helptottt stop removing sourced content and changing the well written lead for unlogical reasons. The mentioned part regarding "Hot Right Now" was removed so everything is clear now and the dispute (hopefully) over. Enough! Iaof2017 (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
    Copying the way similar articles are written is not an improvement. I removed some irrelevant (and incorrect) information you added and left some other changes you made. You are aware that I can correct this information myself? Am I even allowed to edit this article, according to you? Helptottt (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Helptottt you're changes are not improving the lead so discuss it first, you're removing reliable sources, the record labels as well as significant chart performances [3]. Your claim is not even supported by the source you added [4]. Your reasons are not convincing at all. Again, I removed the "Hot Right Now" part and added Ora's record for the most top 10 entries with a reliable reference, at some point enough is enough. Iaof2017 (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
    Dear User laof2017,
    Do you realize that after a rebuke from another user, you've redone half of your edits that you were convincing us that they were true and relevant and simply the best? Those edits that when we pointed them out, you reported us for inappropriate behavior and for warring? Please realize that your edits don't really improve the page, but vice versa. Thank you. Jakubik.v (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Get familiar with Wikipedia guidelines Jakubik.v it is quite difficult to discuss with someone who has no idea about any of this and whose contributions are zero. I've just responded to few issues, the article is the same that's how Wikipedia works. You better invest your time in more relevant things than edit warrings. Iaof2017 (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
    Dear user laof2017,
    Thank you for your suggestion, but still it it not me who is edit warring and changing their edits previously claimed as the correct ones. It makes me doubt even more about all of your edits and your credibility. Thank you. Jakubik.v (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  • No arguments? Get familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers! Iaof2017 (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Iaof2017, both you and Helptottt need to stop edit warring on the article. Helptottt and others are allowed to edit the article, and from my perspective, the way you're talking to both Helptottt and Jakubik.v is coming off like you think you WP:OWN this article. You do not have more of a claim to editing or restoring your revision because you are actively trying to promote it to a featured list. All editors involved here are only trying to improve the article. Even if you're trying to get it promoted to a featured list, take a step back and realise it's absolutely not going to be promoted with edit warring happening on it every day. Reviewing editors do not promote articles to featured status if editors are reverting content on the article every day, because it's considered unstable per WP:FA?. Nobody is more justified in reverting to their preferred revision because they're the one who is trying to make the article a featured list, and it takes more than one editor to edit war, so it is not Helptottt alone who could be considered edit warring. Even if Helptottt or another editor makes a change on the article that you don't agree with, maybe your first step should not be to revert it, but rather, ping Helptottt here and discuss why you think their edits should be undone, not the other way around. Nobody has to propose their edits here first. Either way, if this continues the article will be fully protected again and I don't think anyone here wants that. Ss112 05:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm welcoming everyone whose intentions are to improve and help promote the article to featured status. I was ready to end the edit warring at any time from the beginning and yes, I DO NOT own the article but I do not agree when it comes to removing reliable sourced content and violating WP:UCR. I do not see any improvements here at all [5] although his claims are not even supported by the references. So tell me was that an improvement? The listed point from Helptottt regarding Ora's record for having 13 top 10 entries, which I added, was also removed for unknown reasons. I can't do his homework and research before removing everything! It took a dozen attempts to get them to discuss and I was always open for cooperation despite being insulted and systematically reverted by them. Two of the users that were edit-warring have even turned out to be sockpuppets [6][7]. Their participation came after weeks of reverts and apologies but nothing justified their removals of every change done by me [8][9][10] for such minor problems. Be fair! They would have listed their concerns from the beginning and a solution could have been found together. Anyway, I hope the edit war is over now. Iaof2017 (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
    Dear laof2017,
    My contributions are zero? I think that is not correct. Speaking of contributions I ask the user User:Ss112 again to check another Albanian artist Regard and his discography page to see what you did there [11]. Again this is against Wikipedia policy. We are not here to fight you, we are here to improve things, but when we point it out you are acting very hostile and superior. You are not improoving the articles, you are making it worse and I'm really tired of saying those things over and over again for a month now and bother other editors to help to solve this unpleasant situation. And as you wrote above...insults? Apologies? You tried to work it out together? You are lying now. I'm really suprised about your behaviour. Best Regards, Jakubik.v (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, we see how much you contribute on Wikipedia. What does my origin [12], my history and my other contributions have to do with this article now? It's probably the opposite of what you're saying, you're just insulting and not constructively contributing. It is also funny that you consider my changes here as "worse" but don't mention the other Rita Ora articles ([13][14][15][16]), which I promoted to Good Articles. So senseless! Iaof2017 (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
    Dear laof2017,
    I never mentioned your origin so please don't lie again. Only pointed out that you clearly focusing on Albanian artists which is of course totaly all right, but still doesn't give you any right to act like you own all those articles. Regards, Jakubik.v (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
After the numerous mistakes you made in editing this article, I am the one who's not improving it? I already explained what the issues are with the lead, but I'll reiterate. The lead section is filled with irrelevant information, like the instance where you mention that "Hot Right Now" "entered the top 50 in several countries" when it should only really say that it went to number one in the UK because that's when the breakthrough moment happened. It's also totally irrelevant to mention that the debut album reached the top 30 in some countries (because those aren't notable chart positions to have them highlighted like that). SYL and Radioactive had minor success compared to the two first singles from that album, so mentioning their chart positions is, again, irrelevant. Not even Adele's lead section (from her discography article) mentions where every single song from the albums charted. You also included the wrong record label involved in releasing her debut album (again). I added that she signed to Roc Nation in 2008 which then covers the part of the record label involved in the release of that album (because it's implied, there's no need for repetition). You added that the EP's songs charted in several countries, yet not that the Phoenix singles actually charted within the top ten of relevant charts across the world. I'll include the one reference I removed in my next edit. As far as the rest of the text goes, I actually left some of your changes and restored some of the parts you (unjustifiably) removed when you (badly) redid this article, because that's how editing works! Helptottt (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
  • What is your main goal and intention here? Rita Ora made her international breakthrough with "Hot Right Now", which is supported by the song's charting performance in several countries entering the top 50, what's so hard to understand? Its quite more relevant than having a national breakthrough. Are you able to read sources [17][18]? You're ignoring and manipulating sources, which clearly states that Ora was released by the Ministry of Sound. Anyways you're ignoring sources and actually broke the WP:3RR rule! Iaof2017 (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
    This is harassment at this point. After literally falsifying things in this article, I'm again accused of the things you are doing. The only reason Ministry of Sound is mentioned in this one source (the other source only mentions Columbia) is because it's responsible for the release of ONE song from the album, which is Hot Right Now. No one is trying to deny that Hot Right Now charted in other countries, but not including that the song debuted at number 1 in the UK (which is responsible for its wider success) is an oversight. Helptottt (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The source clearly mentions how many number ones she had at that point. The text I changed was not well written and I didn't remove any sourced information, I actually restored the reference you put. What kind of editing is this? Is this now your article? Helptottt (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • There should always be at least one actual numerical value listed in a chart column. A chart column does not only have to be notes for the main chart. If there have been no entries on the main chart for a song listed in a section, the chart column should be changed to the chart the artist actually appeared on. WP:USCHARTS outlines this logic ("do not include charts on which the artist has never appeared"), and we can apply said logic to any chart-listing table. Only listing notes can hinder accessibility. In line with this, I have changed the New Zealand columns with only notes in them to the actual New Zealand Hot Singles chart on which Ora appeared with songs listed in those sections. I don't understand why the Belgian Ultratip chart (for "Torn Apart") and the US Dance/Electronic Songs peaks (for "Summer Love") were removed, so I have restored them. ChrisTheDude's comments on the featured list review were only asking why there was a song that had not charted in a section titled "Other charted songs", not that there should not be an "Other charted songs" section at all or that it should be re-titled to "Other songs". Besides, having an "Other songs" section sounds incredibly broad. We could literally list any song Ora has ever done as it could be considered an "other" song by her. "Other charted songs" anchors the section and makes it actually have meaning—a group of songs that are not singles nor promotional singles but album tracks that appeared on a chart. Without charting, there is no meaning to the section. Ss112 02:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rita_Ora_discography/Archive_1&oldid=1132203457"