Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 1

message: Last updated 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

message: How about we really cut some of this on down and use some discresion as far as what to include and what not to include. We don't need the music section of Wikipedia becoming the Billboard microfiche library or anything:
:"It's Like That" debuted at number fifty-three on the Billboard Hot 100, and remained on the chart for twenty weeks. It was Carey's seventh number-one single on the Billboard Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales, and her ninth on the Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play chart. 
The above text should be somewhere in the prose, not in an appendix to the article.
Year	Chart                                          	Position
2005	U.S. Billboard Hot 100                         	16
2005	U.S. Billboard Pop 100                         	20
2005	U.S. Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks	17
2005	U.S. Billboard Hot Digital Songs               	10
2005	U.S. Billboard Hot Digital Tracks              	7
2005	U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Singles Sales         	1
2005	U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play       	1
2005	U.S. Billboard Mainstream Top 40               	16
2005	U.S. Billboard Rhythmic Top 40                 	9
2005	U.K. Singles Chart                             	4
2005	ARIA Singles Chart                             	9
2005	Germany Singles Chart                          	14
2005	Sweden Top 60 Singles                          	47
2005	France Top 100 Singles                         	16
2005	Switzerland Top 100 Singles                    	10
2005	Norway Singles Top 20                          	13
2005	Canadian Singles Chart                         	9
2005	Tokyo Hot 100 (Japan)                          	1
What went and why?
#U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Singles Sales and U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Airplay. These are used by Billboard to calculate the Hot 100 chart positions. It's not really neccessary to list them unless, for some reason, a song didn't appear on the Hot 100, but did appear on one of these. The same goes for U.S. Billboard Pop 100 Airplay, U.S. Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Sales, and U.S. Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay.
#U.S. Billboard Dance Radio Airplay, U.S. Billboard Hot Ringtones, and U.S. Billboard Top 40 Tracks, becasue the inclusion of these charts is somewhat excessive, given their limited notability to most people not in the music industry or grossly interested in it.
#Any and all bold number ones. Inherently POV. If you don't understand that number one is as high as you can get, then there might be a problem.
#The chart trajectory. Do we really need to know exactly how a song performed week-by-week on the U.S. chart, in the context of an encyclopedia article?
--FuriousFreddy 00:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove "#"'s? Whoa, now this is funny. People reading the chart will assume "1". 1 what? --Winnermario 21:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well, what else could it possibly mean?  are there # symbols in the columns when you look at a Billboard chart?  or inside the Joel Whitburn Billboard books?  Do you know for certain that International readers of Wikipedia also use "#" to abbreviate the word "number"?  It's totally redundant.  -- eo 21:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, the column title "Position" might give a hint. But you don't know if it will. And User:Ericorbit, you are assuming. Of course Billboard doesn't use "#", because that's a chart site where it's evident that # is irrelevant. If you're going to a website that features chart positions, etc, no # is necessary. However, Wikipedia is full of information, and we can't be vague. That's exactly what User:Mel Etitis said about placing the Wikilink TRL retired videos in music single articles where a video "retired" on MTV'S TRL. Without the Wikilink, he said it had been too vague. Evidence The same situation occurs here. --Winnermario 18:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well how would you know that readers will know what "#" indicates?  You're talking about numbers shown in a table, within a column, with a "position" or "peak position" heading at the top, in an article where the table itself is placed in a section called "discography" or "chart placings" or something similar.  How can there be confusion as to what the number means if the # symbol isn't there? -- eo 20:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I already explained myself. Vague. --Winnermario 23:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I've been thinking of removing the R&B, dance and rock charts. They don't prove to be very useful to the charts, and can only be included depending on the genre of a song. --Winnermario 00:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The types of charts included should change depending upon the genre of the song. For hip hop music, the dance chart should be replaced with Hot Rap Tracks. For an R&B ballad, the dance chart should be replaced with the adult contemporary chart. For a rock song, both the R&B and dance charts should be replaced with the two rock charts. The number of charts included should not exceed eighteen (no more than ten national charts, and up to eight additional Billboard, "World Chart", etc.) --FuriousFreddy 00:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another proposal

message: (abbreviated to not take up space)
Chart (2005)                                     	Position
U.S. Billboard Hot 100                           	16
U.S. Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks 1	17
U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play 2       	1
U.K. Singles Chart                               	4
# remix version featuring Lil Kim, Mel Etitis, Jay-Z, Furious Freddy, Celine Dion, Hoary, Rob Zombie, JKelly, Barbra Streisand, Marilyn Manson and the Cast of The Facts Of Life
# Extrodinary Machine club remixes
*using superscript numbers instead of asterisks (I've done this in a few places)
*centering the column with the numbers
*wikilinking the chart names
I'm thining the "year" column could be necessary, as sometimes it varies between different countries. -- eo 23:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid that this chart has gone too far. It's not that I don't like it (actually, I don't like it), but this chart works to my personal best:
Chart (2005)                                   	Position
U.S. Billboard Hot 100                         	16
U.S. Billboard Pop 100                         	20
U.S. Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks	17*
** Mel Etitis remix.
Anything that was proposed after this chart is pushing the limit. Wikilinks are not required in the chart as they will appear in the "Chart performance" portion of the article. Excessive use of wikilinks is unnecessary, and is like an advertisement for its article — we really don't need to be pushing buttons. Also, from my developing knowledge of this argument (addressed by User:Winnermario), it appears as though "#" has been omitted. As much as I agree that it does not really add to the charts, it should be replaced. I am new here on Wikipedia, and when I read the heading "Position", the first thing that came to my mind was "Position number", which lead down a path of disturbing images. So I would recommend the presence of "#" in the charts. Other than that, everything else that has been addressed seems to be in the process of cleaning — I would really like a consensus to be met as this is one of the most asinine arguments I've ever stumbled upon. --Hollow Wilerding 21:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: further tweaking EM's version

message: Let's put aside, at least for the moment, disagreement over chart formatting. Based on this edit by Hollow Wilerding and its edit summary, and many, many past edits made by other editors, would it at least be fair to say that we have consensus that:
*the bolding of "1" or "#1" (or any other chart position) is POV, and so
*no chart positions are to be bolded?
It would really be a step in the right direction for all editors involved in these chart disputes to at least come to an agreement on this point
--keepsleeping say what 03:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. -- eo 07:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do feel as though I have been misunderstood, so let me make myself clear now: if I really had to choose which charts I prefer, then it would be merged charts. Next, bolding number-ones is POV. Based on the above edit, I feel as though User:Keepsleeping assumed I was against this entire proposition. Is this the case? If it is, then I apologize, because I am not against it. However, I am against removing "#" from the charts and placing wikilinks in the charts. Although I don't really like the idea of removing "*"'s and replacing them with "1"'s and "2"'s, I think I would be capable of living with them. Have I made myself more clear? --Hollow Wilerding 23:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, no, you haven't been misunderstood — in fact, this is very good: I think we finally have a workable chart here! I've taken only one liberty with the statements you've made above: rather than placing the octothorpe (oh how I love that word) on every number, I've changed "Position" in the header to "Position #". Would you be amenable to that one change? The wikilinks in the charts are removed (I'm no fan of them either, honestly), and different versions of the same single are indicated by superscript numbers, which you said you wouldn't mind. If this chart suits you, please say so by adding a vote of support to the straw poll. --keepsleeping say what 23:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I do agree with the "Position #". As long as the # is there, I am satisfied, but I do wonder why some people are so against it being included with the number itself? --Hollow Wilerding 00:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who is not in favor of the #'s in the tables, I'll give my reasons.  Firstly, I think that the symbol itself may not be used as an abbreviation for the word "number" internationally.  Aside from that, I think that "#" is redundant and unnecessary in a table.  I've seen it used within the text of articles and also when albums/singles are in a bulletted list (i.e. "Blah Blah Blah" #3 US, #10 UK).  Although that still isn't ideal, I think that when the info is arranged in a table, the #'s simply aren't needed.  Take a look at Madonna discography and imagine what that immense table would look like with # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # in all those little boxes.  Yikes!  Anyway, that's just how I look at it.  When all is said and done, however, I think the most important thing is to get all these damn tables uniform throughout Wikipedia so that there aren't fifty billion different table templates all over the place. -- eo 01:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Keep on editing! --Hollow Wilerding 02:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I felt the same way as you when I first saw the "#", however I don't believe "no" will provide any additional clarification. Is there perhaps a third version that is available? --Hollow Wilerding 02:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Position №" (although the numero sign looks awfully odd) or simply "Peak position". I should make clear, though, that I personally don't see anything wrong with "Position" on its own. --keepsleeping say what 02:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolding of chart positions

message: (This chart is abbreviated to save space — the real thing would include the same charts as FuriousFreddy's version.
Chart (2004)                                     	Position #
U.S. Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks 1	17
U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play 2       	1
U.K. Singles Chart                               	4
Chart (2005)                                     	Position #
U.S. Billboard Hot 100                           	16
1 Extended club mix
2 Radio edit
:me like. -- eo 23:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from "Position #" (see above), this is just about perfect.  Would this work?
Chart (2004)                              	Highestposition
U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play 2	1
--Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't like "highest position". It should be "peak position", which is more musically incorporated. --Hollow Wilerding 14:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure what "musically incorporated" means, but "peak position" is (judging by its overuse in the articles) music-journalism/fan slang (together with "zenith position(!)" and all the rest).   "Highest position" has the advantage of being plain English. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 23:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Peak position" is no less plain than "highest position", but I don't think either of them should be used. They cause unneccesary empty space in the table header. —jiy (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It wont create extra space if you set the column to a specific width and/or make the column header in smaller text. -- eo 23:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Doesn't matter too much to me, although I like "peak position" the best.  Either that or "zenith # highest ## peak no.# position # # peakingest # number reached". -- eo 23:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Exactly my point. --Hollow Wilerding 14:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: keepsleeping chart, version 2.0

message: Well, perhaps a poll would be useful, in order to gauge consensus (though everyone who's bothered to post here seems to support the unified and stripped-down version, as do the good people over at Featured articles candidates).  Could people say whether they support or reject the new version; if they support part of the change but not all, could they say so in the support section?  In each case, as we're gauging consensus rather than merely voting, could editors do more than simply register their names in the appropriate places, but give reasons (which can be discussed above)?
===Support===
Including support for part but not all of the new changes (please specify).  If you agree with FuriousFreddy's proposal to ditch the "Chart trajectory" and to slim down the number of charts mentioned, please say so.Note: I've altered the improved tables to incorporate the removal of "#" (I hope that we can assume that readers recognise a number when they see one) and of the bolding of "1".
*Support.  I have a preference for using featured articles as models in general, for using Cool (song) as a model for current pop music song articles in specific, and would also express a hope that chart data will be moved to Wikidata when that project is ready. Jkelly 17:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Including support for part but not all of the new changes (please specify).  If you agree with FuriousFreddy's proposal to ditch the "Chart trajectory" and to slim down the number of charts mentioned, please say so.Note: I've altered the improved tables to incorporate the removal of "#" (I hope that we can assume that readers recognise a number when they see one) and of the bolding of "1".
*Support.  I have a preference for using featured articles as models in general, for using Cool (song) as a model for current pop music song articles in specific, and would also express a hope that chart data will be moved to Wikidata when that project is ready. Jkelly 17:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: Rejection of all the proposed changes.
*Strong reject. I have stated some of my reasons. I don't need to go any further. --Winnermario 00:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reject

message: I read the poll as showing a clear consensus (11:3) in favour of unifying the charts, of not bolding "1"s, of omitting the year and single/album-title columns, and of not using "#"s in the "Position" column.  There's a minor question as to whether the "Position" column should have the title "Position", "Position #", Position no", "Highest position", or various other suggestions. Assuming that we can settle that, what's the next step?  Adding this to the Singles and Albums Project pages? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 23:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to take Manual of Style (music) and either expand it to cover popular and commercial music, or write a new one just for popular music. --FuriousFreddy 05:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering popular music is an everchanging cycle, "Cool (song)" will look exactly the same in ten years if the manual reflects the mainstream. Wouldn't that seem awkward, seeing how it will no longer be "popular"? --Hollow Wilerding 14:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cool" will always be popular music. Tuf-Kat 17:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh? Prove your point. --Hollow Wilerding 20:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What's next?

message: I've been bold and created a guideline page to lay out the changes that seem to have been agreed on here. The text is pretty much skeletal, though, as I have no aptitude for writing "rules" — hopefully one of the editors who've participated in this discussion can flesh it out. --keepsleeping say what 01:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, somehow I missed this when I wrote the previous comment.  Very nice (though I still think that "Position #" looks peculiar). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 23:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest linking to it from WP:ALBUM, WP:SONG and the entirely theoretical Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical groups (for right now Wikipedia:WikiProject Music)... anywhere we have guidelines about those articles into which editors insert chart information.  Jkelly 23:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds amusing. Excellent. --Hollow Wilerding 14:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Keepsleeping's guideline page - the column headers still say "position #" and the numbers themselves are left-aligned (not centered).  Is it OK to change the tables on that page to look like the most recent ones here?  Or are we back to those versions? -- eo 00:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The left-aligned numbers don't wow me. Since these numbers are a peak position, they should be centred, to emphasize their value to the chart that the song charted on. --Hollow Wilerding 00:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Done!  Numbers centered in column (aaaaahhhh.... soooo pretty!) and header changed to "Peak Position"... at least for now until (if?) some other turn of phrase is preferred. -- eo 01:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why I didn't center the numbers in the first place. They really do look much better that way. I'd suggest removing the line break from "PeakPosition", because it doubles the width of the header (which puts a lot of empty space in the "Chart (2005)" block); the only problem is that that puts the position number in the middle of an unnecessarily wide cell, and I'm not sure which way looks better and which looks worse. --keepsleeping say what 04:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline page

message: Now that most of this is worked out with regard to "singles" articles, do we need to create some sort of guideline for "discography" tables that appear on an artist's main page? -- eo 19:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it just me, or is all of the writing in this and other articles suddenly green? But to keep on topic, I'd say we should have guidelines for the discography as well. --Hollow Wilerding 02:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone once mentioned that discogs like Michael Jackson albums discography can't be justified under fair use. Although I imagine such a layout being problematic for older artists whose album cover images cannot be found, I do have to admit that this table is neatly laid out (though it's missing the most important thing--liks to the album articles) and better than something like the albums section of Brandy (entertainer). Can someone explain why this sort of table isn't fair use (I'm assuming the placing of the pictures into the table all on one page)? --FuriousFreddy 02:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In re: the green thing -- Wikipedia broke HTML Tidy.  Everyone's bad HTML is now rendered for the world to see.  I cleaned it up here.  In re: the fair use thing -- there's a difference between what the U.S. doctrine of Fair use might allow in a court of law and what Wikipedia's fair use guidelines allow.  Slapping a small image of a low-resolution album cover next to every mention of the album might not get WikiMedia succesfully sued, but WikiMedia doesn't want to have to go through the process of getting unsuccesfully sued for things that are outside the guidelines, which state that copyright-infringing images must be kept to a minimum, never used for decoration or navigation, etc.  If you're interested in helping, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use.  Jkelly 02:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the new can of worms

message: I just wanted to add that I have been taking the basic layout concepts we agreed upon for singles tables and applied them to main Discography listings on artist pages.  I've placed an example below.  If anyone wants to check out specific artists, see Mary J. Blige, Alicia Keys, Blondie (band) or Morrissey, just to name a few.  If anyone wants me to stop doing this so that we can agree on any further tweaking, just say so and I'll hold off for now.  Basically I've gotten rid of a lot of #'s and boldfaced numerals (some tables just #1s, others had everything boldfaced). -- eo 20:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do attempt to limit the awkward titles, notably the fourth one, as some users would find it rather offensive. Thanks. —Hollow Wilerding 21:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works).  I don't like using Wikipedia:Tables for discographies, because I don't see why discographies are substantially different from bibliographies.  Jkelly 21:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jkelly, I will check out that page and see how other things are being formatted.  I would say that a discography table would set iteself apart from, say, a bibliography or filmography because of the tendency for people to list chart positions and/or RIAA certifications and sales totals along with the titles.  I figured that if we had agreed upon a NPOV format and a pleasing "look" for tables within a "single" article, those same attributes could be carried over to main disography listings.  Would you prefer then, that I hold off on updating sloppy or incomplete tables I come across to this format? -- eo 22:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What kind of feedback are you getting from other editors?  My impression is that a lot of people like charts.  If you're getting approving feedback, I don't know that there is any reason to stop until an actual guideline is in place, but that actual guideline is, unlike the chart positions conversation, likely to get input from more than just the Music Project.  Jkelly 22:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't gotten any actually - positive or negative... although the ones I have put in place have not been reverted or significantly altered.  People just seem to be adding to them as new releases come out.  So in other words - no complaints (at least not yet).  Just thought it'd be nice to have discographies that look like this or this instead be presented this way or this way. -- eo 22:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The singles chart looks good, but I suggest linking the albums for navigational purposes. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 13:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There's a particular type of table-formatted discography that's not exactly standardized, but that elements of which are shared by a couple of Featured Articles (Dream Theater and Nirvana), and that I used a variation of in current Featured Article candidate Marilyn Manson, which looks like this:
;Albums and EPs
Year	Title                     	Label         	Other information
1999	El Primer Álbum           	Sub Pop       	First studio album.
2002	Het Tweede Album          	Geffen Records	Second studio album.
2004	L'Album Della Compilazione	Geffen        	Compilation of B-sides, covers, and studio rarities.
2005	Das Phasenalbum           	Geffen        	Recorded live at Nippon Budokan, Tokyo, Japan.
;Singles
Year	Title                       	Label  	Other information
1999	"Een Groot Lied"            	Sub Pop	From album El Primer Álbum. Certified 5x Platinum
2002	"Une Chanson Médiocre"      	Def Jux	Limited edition.
2005	"Uma Canção Terrível" (live)	Geffen 	From album Das Phasenalbum.
Personally I rather like it — it's very clean-looking. However, all three articles I linked above use it slightly differently, and so its specific appearance would have to be made standard. --keepsleeping  say what 22:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: ooooooohhhh me likey those.  indeed, very clean.  the only thing I would worry about with that format is if people began adding those pesky chart positions (and they will!), the lack of lines may cause it to look like a jumble of numbers all over the place. -- eo 22:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: and P.S. I've added a blurb in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works) discussion... thanks for the link, Jkelly.  Maybe you can join me over there, Keepsleeping? -- eo 22:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: EW, what is going on here?? This discussion is supposed to be about unified/separated chart tables. Adding another topic here is absolutely asinine—most of you don't even edit music articles. --Winnermario 22:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Artist Pages

message: Year	Song              	US Hot 100	US Dance	US Modern Rock	UK singles	Album
1990	"The First Single"	59        	7       	3             	–   	Debut Album
1991	"My Second Hit"   	3         	1       	16            	–   	Debut Album
1992	"Number Three"    	1         	1       	4             	2         	Second Album
1993	"Four of Hearts" 1	5         	1       	32            	2         	The Notorious W.I.K.I.
1995	"Five"            	15        	6       	2             	18        	Greatest Hits
1 Remix version features 2 Live Crew and Kenny G.
:Please do attempt to limit the awkward titles, notably the fourth one, as some users would find it rather offensive. Thanks. —Hollow Wilerding 21:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works).  I don't like using Wikipedia:Tables for discographies, because I don't see why discographies are substantially different from bibliographies.  Jkelly 21:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jkelly, I will check out that page and see how other things are being formatted.  I would say that a discography table would set iteself apart from, say, a bibliography or filmography because of the tendency for people to list chart positions and/or RIAA certifications and sales totals along with the titles.  I figured that if we had agreed upon a NPOV format and a pleasing "look" for tables within a "single" article, those same attributes could be carried over to main disography listings.  Would you prefer then, that I hold off on updating sloppy or incomplete tables I come across to this format? -- eo 22:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of feedback are you getting from other editors?  My impression is that a lot of people like charts.  If you're getting approving feedback, I don't know that there is any reason to stop until an actual guideline is in place, but that actual guideline is, unlike the chart positions conversation, likely to get input from more than just the Music Project.  Jkelly 22:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't gotten any actually - positive or negative... although the ones I have put in place have not been reverted or significantly altered.  People just seem to be adding to them as new releases come out.  So in other words - no complaints (at least not yet).  Just thought it'd be nice to have discographies that look like this or this instead be presented this way or this way. -- eo 22:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The singles chart looks good, but I suggest linking the albums for navigational purposes. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 13:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There's a particular type of table-formatted discography that's not exactly standardized, but that elements of which are shared by a couple of Featured Articles (Dream Theater and Nirvana), and that I used a variation of in current Featured Article candidate Marilyn Manson, which looks like this:
;Albums and EPs
Year	Title                     	Label         	Other information
1999	El Primer Álbum           	Sub Pop       	First studio album.
2002	Het Tweede Album          	Geffen Records	Second studio album.
2004	L'Album Della Compilazione	Geffen        	Compilation of B-sides, covers, and studio rarities.
2005	Das Phasenalbum           	Geffen        	Recorded live at Nippon Budokan, Tokyo, Japan.
;Singles
Year	Title                       	Label  	Other information
1999	"Een Groot Lied"            	Sub Pop	From album El Primer Álbum. Certified 5x Platinum
2002	"Une Chanson Médiocre"      	Def Jux	Limited edition.
2005	"Uma Canção Terrível" (live)	Geffen 	From album Das Phasenalbum.
Personally I rather like it — it's very clean-looking. However, all three articles I linked above use it slightly differently, and so its specific appearance would have to be made standard. --keepsleeping  say what 22:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: ooooooohhhh me likey those.  indeed, very clean.  the only thing I would worry about with that format is if people began adding those pesky chart positions (and they will!), the lack of lines may cause it to look like a jumble of numbers all over the place. -- eo 22:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: and P.S. I've added a blurb in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works) discussion... thanks for the link, Jkelly.  Maybe you can join me over there, Keepsleeping? -- eo 22:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: EW, what is going on here?? This discussion is supposed to be about unified/separated chart tables. Adding another topic here is absolutely asinine—most of you don't even edit music articles. --Winnermario 22:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Singles

message: Title              	Information
Stillmatic         	
*The Billboard 200 #5
*Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums #1
"Ether"            	
*Album track
*US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks #37
"Got Ur Self A ..."	
*Ill Will single 76976, December 4, 2001 (US) 
*Sony Int. single 672001, February 19, 2002 (other nations) 
*Music video directed by Benny Boom
*US Billboard Hot 100 #87
*US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks #37
*US Hot Rap Tracks #30
*UK Singles Chart #30
"You're da Man"    	
*B-side of "Got Ur Self A..."
*US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks #67
"One Mic"          	
*Ill Will single 79723, April 16, 2002
*Music video directed by Chris Robinson
*US Billboard Hot 100 #43
*US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks #14
*US Hot Rap Tracks #7
"Rule"             	
*Album track
*US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks #76
All the data comes from allmusic.com. The table would essentially replace the old tabbed data table.
Second example, from Stillmatic's predecessor Illmatic, of the difference:
===Example 2===
====Old version====
Billboard Music Charts (North America) - album
 1994	The Billboard 200	                No. 12
 1994	Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums	                No. 2
Billboard (North America) - singles
 1993	Half Time	        Hot Rap Singles	                     No. 8
 1994	It Ain t Hard To Tell	The Billboard Hot 100	             No. 91
 1994	It Ain t Hard To Tell	Hot Rap Singles	                     No. 13
 1994	One Love	        Hot Rap Singles	                     No. 24
 1994	The World Is Yours	Hot Rap Singles	                     No. 27
 1994	It Ain t Hard To Tell	Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks     No. 57
 1994	The World Is Yours	Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks     No. 67
 1994	It Ain t Hard To Tell	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales   No. 3
 1994	One Love	        Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales   No. 6
 1994	The World Is Yours	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales   No. 6
 1995	One Love	        Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales   No. 34
====New version====
Title                  	Information
Illmatic               	
*The Billboard 200 #12
*Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums #2
"Half Time"            	
*Columbia single 74777, November 12, 1992
*Originally issued as a single for the Zebrahead soundtrack
*US Hot Rap Tracks #8
*Music video
"It Ain't Hard to Tell"	
*Columbia single 77320, 1994
*US Billboard Hot 100 #91
*US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks #57
*US Hot Rap Tracks #13
*Music video
"The World is Yours"   	
*Columbia single 77513, 1994
*US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks #67
*US Hot Rap Tracks #13
*Music video
"One Love"             	
*Columbia single 77683, 1995
*US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks #6
*US Hot Rap Tracks #24
*Music video
(I would list the music video directors, but I've no idea who they are.)
I also used it on the following album pages: Psychedelic Shack (album), Cloud Nine (Temptations album), Masterpiece (Temptations album), All Directions, The Temptations with a Lot o' Soul, and What's Going On. (I also introduced a chart for formatting the tracklist information; we can discuss that too).
It works out great: if there's anything to pick up on the singles themesleves, it can be done i nthe album article prose, and then only the major (major) important songs will need albums. For example, I used the charts while working on Psychedelic Shack (album) and, lo and behold, I found I had no need for the Psychedelic Shack (song) article anymore, so I merged them.
Thoughts? If you think any of it is too much -- like the catalog numbers maybe -- let me know. Also, does anyone think it could be better formatted? --FuriousFreddy 16:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it looks really good. I used a different format for the charts at the Be Not Nobody and Harmonium (album) articles, but I think that your version is better at including information other than chart positions. Extraordinary Machine 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure whether I like the information box that FuriousFreddy has prepared. However, I don't like any of the album boxes that are being displayed on Wikipedia. Perhaps the catalog numbers should be removed because I must admit that their presence in the boxes are a bit... over the top. I apologize, however, because I doubt that I'm ever going to find an album information box appealing. Rant ends here. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart and singles history

message: ====Old version====
Billboard Music Charts (North America) - album
 1994	The Billboard 200	                No. 12
 1994	Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums	                No. 2
Billboard (North America) - singles
 1993	Half Time	        Hot Rap Singles	                     No. 8
 1994	It Ain t Hard To Tell	The Billboard Hot 100	             No. 91
 1994	It Ain t Hard To Tell	Hot Rap Singles	                     No. 13
 1994	One Love	        Hot Rap Singles	                     No. 24
 1994	The World Is Yours	Hot Rap Singles	                     No. 27
 1994	It Ain t Hard To Tell	Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks     No. 57
 1994	The World Is Yours	Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks     No. 67
 1994	It Ain t Hard To Tell	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales   No. 3
 1994	One Love	        Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales   No. 6
 1994	The World Is Yours	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales   No. 6
 1995	One Love	        Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales   No. 34
====New version====
Title                  	Information
Illmatic               	
*The Billboard 200 #12
*Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums #2
"Half Time"            	
*Columbia single 74777, November 12, 1992
*Originally issued as a single for the Zebrahead soundtrack
*US Hot Rap Tracks #8
*Music video
"It Ain't Hard to Tell"	
*Columbia single 77320, 1994
*US Billboard Hot 100 #91
*US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks #57
*US Hot Rap Tracks #13
*Music video
"The World is Yours"   	
*Columbia single 77513, 1994
*US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks #67
*US Hot Rap Tracks #13
*Music video
"One Love"             	
*Columbia single 77683, 1995
*US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks #6
*US Hot Rap Tracks #24
*Music video
(I would list the music video directors, but I've no idea who they are.)
I also used it on the following album pages: Psychedelic Shack (album), Cloud Nine (Temptations album), Masterpiece (Temptations album), All Directions, The Temptations with a Lot o' Soul, and What's Going On. (I also introduced a chart for formatting the tracklist information; we can discuss that too).
It works out great: if there's anything to pick up on the singles themesleves, it can be done i nthe album article prose, and then only the major (major) important songs will need albums. For example, I used the charts while working on Psychedelic Shack (album) and, lo and behold, I found I had no need for the Psychedelic Shack (song) article anymore, so I merged them.
Thoughts? If you think any of it is too much -- like the catalog numbers maybe -- let me know. Also, does anyone think it could be better formatted? --FuriousFreddy 16:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it looks really good. I used a different format for the charts at the Be Not Nobody and Harmonium (album) articles, but I think that your version is better at including information other than chart positions. Extraordinary Machine 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure whether I like the information box that FuriousFreddy has prepared. However, I don't like any of the album boxes that are being displayed on Wikipedia. Perhaps the catalog numbers should be removed because I must admit that their presence in the boxes are a bit... over the top. I apologize, however, because I doubt that I'm ever going to find an album information box appealing. Rant ends here. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Example 2

message: Title                  	Information
Illmatic               	
*The Billboard 200 #12
*Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums #2
"Half Time"            	
*Columbia single 74777, November 12, 1992
*Originally issued as a single for the Zebrahead soundtrack
*US Hot Rap Tracks #8
*Music video
"It Ain't Hard to Tell"	
*Columbia single 77320, 1994
*US Billboard Hot 100 #91
*US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks #57
*US Hot Rap Tracks #13
*Music video
"The World is Yours"   	
*Columbia single 77513, 1994
*US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks #67
*US Hot Rap Tracks #13
*Music video
"One Love"             	
*Columbia single 77683, 1995
*US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks #6
*US Hot Rap Tracks #24
*Music video
(I would list the music video directors, but I've no idea who they are.)
I also used it on the following album pages: Psychedelic Shack (album), Cloud Nine (Temptations album), Masterpiece (Temptations album), All Directions, The Temptations with a Lot o' Soul, and What's Going On. (I also introduced a chart for formatting the tracklist information; we can discuss that too).
It works out great: if there's anything to pick up on the singles themesleves, it can be done i nthe album article prose, and then only the major (major) important songs will need albums. For example, I used the charts while working on Psychedelic Shack (album) and, lo and behold, I found I had no need for the Psychedelic Shack (song) article anymore, so I merged them.
Thoughts? If you think any of it is too much -- like the catalog numbers maybe -- let me know. Also, does anyone think it could be better formatted? --FuriousFreddy 16:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it looks really good. I used a different format for the charts at the Be Not Nobody and Harmonium (album) articles, but I think that your version is better at including information other than chart positions. Extraordinary Machine 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure whether I like the information box that FuriousFreddy has prepared. However, I don't like any of the album boxes that are being displayed on Wikipedia. Perhaps the catalog numbers should be removed because I must admit that their presence in the boxes are a bit... over the top. I apologize, however, because I doubt that I'm ever going to find an album information box appealing. Rant ends here. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New version