Talk:Number 1's (video)

message: :My points for changing things.
Her number-one singles since the release of the DVD include "Thank God I Found You" (2000) and "We Belong Together" (2005).
Mel butchered the meaning behind this phrase. It was supposed to indicate that these singles are not on the DVD because they went to #1 after the DVD was released. Here it just says that she's had two #1 singles since the DVD was released. Well, ok, kind of the same thing, but I edited the article to add more clarity.
:In the article, #1 singles needs to be put in based on the Manual of Style which states 
Numbers may be written as words or numerals. Editors should use a consistent guideline throughout an article. A number should not appear in both forms in the body (excluding tables and figures) of the same article. However, it is considered awkward for a numeral to be the first word of a sentence: either recast the sentence or spell the number out.
:Finally, why in the world does Mel keep changing "Heartbreaker Remix" to the 15th track? I told him in my edit summary, but apparently he ignores other people and just does what he feels like. Like I said in the edit summmary, that video is NOT the 15th track. After the 14th track, the DVD resets. To access the "Heartbreaker Remix" you need to go to another screen, but in no way is that 15th track.
#Er, they mean the same, but you're saying that I "butchered the meaning"? The version that I edited was clumsy and convoluted; I made it clearer.
#:No, you made it less clear. Your statement just declares that she has just had two #1 singles since the DVD came out. It's not that big of a deal, but I'd like it to something that can indicate that those videos are not included because they came out after the DVD.
#::It seems clear enough to me (unless readers are going to see that the songs reached number one after the album/DVD, but still expect the videos to be included), but how about:
#:::"Her number-one singles since the release of the DVD, whose videos are therefore also not included, are "Thank God I Found You" (2000) and "We Belong Together" (2005).
#::I think that it's unnecessarily labouring the point, but in the spirit of compromise...
::::Well, didn't you get confused over the retirement of "Behind These Hazel Eyes"? I didn't see anyone could get confused by that. Anyway, how about this one..
"As the DVD was released in late 1999, the videos for "Thank God I Found You" (1999) and "We Belong Together" (2005)are not included here. 
#We avoid abbreviations where possible (except in tables), and we don't use "#" but "no" when an abbreviation for  "number is needed.  It's also vastly preferable to use English in text; every style manual says that numbers under ten should be written in full, and most (aside from print-media journalism with its space problems) says that humbers under 100 should be so written.
#:We should avoid them when possible; this is not one of those times, since when we're dealing with popular music where chart stats are very important, especially in a DVD that is even called #1's! I'd agree with you if you just were talking about some non entertainment field where numbers are not important, but here they are. "Every" style manual may say that, but the Wikipedia manual says that we are allowed to use these numbers in numeral form. 
#::The title is illiterate, but that's no reason for us to be; we don't have to use greengrocer's apostrophes just because a pop-singer or her record label use them, nor do we have to go along with their choice of typography.  And articles look better when they're in English, rather than being peppered with numerals like pseudo-maths.
#:::Articles usually look better in English, but not here. We're dealing with something in which numbers are very important. If this was an article about a baseball player, I'd want to see his stats written out as numbers, not words. If this was an article about math, I'd want to see things written out as numbers, not words. The same applies here. And just because you dont like this music, as youve mentioned before, does not mean that these are "psuedo-maths". Several people who edit these music articles have no problem with it, because they understand music, and we never had a problem until you came. Like if I didn't understand an entry about math, and edited it to spell out numbers because I thought it would be better English, all the math editors would probably cause a ruckus with me. In any case, the MoS says we can have stats as numbers, so I'd like to go for that.
#::::First, you've put your finger on the problem: for some time, it seems that articles on pop music have been written by fans for fans.  Wikipedia isn't a fanzine, though; it's an encyclopædia, with a uniform style , policies, and guidelines — articles must look right to and be clear for anyone, not just those used to reading music journalism.
#::::Secondly, calling it pseudo-maths has nothing to do with my opinion of the music, but of the use of numerals.  Leave numerals for maths, and use written-out numbers in English.
#::::Please try to comment using proper formatting; you keep interpolating comments so as to change the numbering of my original comments, making it look silly.  It's really not hard; I've corrected it again. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: first section