Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pop music

Active discussions
WikiProject Pop music (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Justin Bieber RFCEdit

Hi, I would like to notify the wikiproject that there's currently an RFC underway at Talk:Justin Bieber#RFC: Describing Bieber as to how to describe the talents of Justin Bieber. Your participation is welcome.--NØ 10:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Song pages & chart positionsEdit

When going on the German Wikipedia for fun, I noticed that pages about songs not only included chart positions from each country, but also the amount of weeks the song has been charting for. The English Wikipedia should also utilize this tool. I know it sounds like a crazy idea to go back to so many song pages just to implement another factor of chart information, but if they're going to show the highest the song has ever been on a significant chart, it would only make sense to put a note after the number like (Charted for 13 weeks) or something. To put this in a sensible way, only including the peak information creates this false illusion that any song that has peaked higher than any other song was collectively more popular than that song. In reality, (for example) the BTS song "Life Goes On" reached number 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, and the Imagine Dragons song "Radioactive" reached number 3 on the same chart, so one may think the former was more popular than the latter, if they hadn't known beforehand that 'Life Goes On' had only spent 3 weeks on the chart, and 'Radioactive' spent 87 weeks. I don't want to sound passive aggressive, but this is something we should really consider, and if it still 'doesn't make sense,' then there's really no reason to even include the peak positions on the pages in the first place. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I've the impression, with the exception of UK/US, they have implemented this with German speakers territories, which is ad hoc for them maybe. Could be excessive with other countries and with a broader readership as with English Wikipedia if we cherry pick only few countries as well. Instead, like it happens with mainly Albums/DVD we can implement without problems chart positions in different years, e.g Back in Black peaked at 1 in France during 1980, and reached the 126-position on 2012 in same terrotory. Some users seems to avoid this, while others like to implement this. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Is this going to be automated in any way? Because it's going to be a lot of work for editors to review the charts worldwide every week to add another week onto the chart log for every song and album on every country's chart. This is especially true for albums like Queen's Greatest Hits which spend hundreds of weeks in the album chart, and leave and re-enter the charts over several years. Are you volunteering to do this? Many countries' charts don't have archives, such as Greece or Colombia, so it won't always be possible to determine a song or album's first or last week on the chart unless that week was archived, so a total week count will be impossible.
Also, what "false illusion" is being created? "Life Goes On" reached no. 1, "Radioactive" reached no. 3. These are facts, and no degree of popularity is being implied, that's a subjective opinion depending on the person. There will be people who will still argue that "Life Goes On" is more popular because it reached no. 1. Weeks on chart is no more an indication of popularity than chart position: streaming has ensured that songs regularly rack up 50 or more weeks on the charts, which before streaming was introduced was an almost unheard of figure. There's no way you can compare the popularity of a song in 2021 to a song in 2001, based either on sales, chart position or weeks on chart, because the way songs were sold and the way the charts were compiled were so different as to make comparisons worthless.
@Apoxyomenus: I don't like the use of Infodisc for any chart positions or for sales figures – it's already listed at WP:BADCHARTS for the former. The issue is that this is not the IFOP chart position – as Infodisc explain on their history page [1], their chart positions before the official SNEP charts were launched are based on a "synthesis" (their wording) of various radio and magazine charts blended together. Their sales figures are also their own estimates, not official sales figures. But it provides a good example of the problem with Back in Black and other older albums... their "official" chart positions and weeks on chart will be negligible, because the majority of sales happened before the chart even existed. So this gives another false impression as Trevortnidesserped suggests, because it will look like the album was never popular there. Richard3120 (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: While Infodisc is listed under WP:GOODCHARTS for sales/certifications, I also avoid add peaks positions from that website as was suggested in WP:BADCHARTS. Anyway, maybe the French example of Back in Black wasn't enough good. I know there is numerous reasons why an album charted again on record charts beyond the original releases, one of the most obvious will be when an artist passes (and we see examples such as MJ or Whitney Houston). Also because the component weren't compiled by the same data provider. Citing an example, we can see Hitlisten in Denmark thus a "x" album could have a peak position compiled by Hitlisten in Hung Median while Music & Media citing IFPI could have another (and yesteryear) position for that album. Also, because simply an album keep charting/selling and no matters if the artist pasess or still alive. In any case, maybe a general print of this could be The Dark Side of the Moon (FA), as we can see the same weekly components from several countries such as Belgium, Italy or Poland in multiple years.As Pink Floyd's album, there is recent releases in this century with the same chart trajectories in multiple years. Beyond a counter-suggestion, I've a question: that's allowed? --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@Apoxyomenus: Personally, I really don't think we should be using Infodisc for sales – you can see on their page of "best-selling singles of all time" that it says at the top of the page "Estimation par l'équipe d'InfoDisc à fin 2018" ("Estimation by the Infodisc team up to the end of 2018") [2]. This is the same for all the sales figures on the website. So the sales figures are only estimates by the three people at Infodisc, and they are not official or verifiable in any way at all. The only thing I think Infodisc should be used for is for certifications, and I think this should be stated very clearly at WP:GOODCHARTS/WP:BADCHARTS.
No, the example of Back in Black was a good one... it shows that if you only include the official chart position and weeks on chart from 1984 when SNEP started, you won't have a good idea of how popular the album was before the official charts started. You are right about the problems of using different chart providers for many countries – many of the charts in old issues of Billboard and Music and Media are supplied by one person, or one radio station, and they are not the official charts of the time. What you say about Dark Side of the Moon is also a problem... do we show chart peaks from different years, or the highest chart position at any time since release? This is an issue which affects mainly songs which are hits at Christmas every year – one option is to show the peaks every year, like at "Fairytale of New York", but then the list will become very long over time. Or you show just the overall peak, like at "Last Christmas", but then it doesn't tell you that it didn't reach no. 1 in the UK until 36 years later. Richard3120 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Good explaination and true about data supplied in both Billboard/Music & Media. Sometimes they cited the "source" (IFPI or "the person" e,g) but I guess worse is nothing and was the only way to do that before the official components of many of those countries/system we know now. In addition, accuracy will be never 100% and many of today data provider doesn't coverage 100% of a country/region as well. With chart positions, I guess will also depends on each point of view and how readers look it, expert/non-experts. At least, I know songs as you pointed out have those issues with among other things, Christmas season and one of the problems is many components are based on "airplay" instead "sales" (sometimes combined). Official albums charts as far I understand, are based on sales/shipments. Maybe in a contemporary album release, a reader/fan could easily identify the main/highest position came during the original release but "that album also charted in the following years" which could be at same time a less extensive list compared to its original release due doesn't apply to every listed country. A direct/indirect indication that a record keep selling despite the main sales came in its original release. While I've the impression there is no indication how to proceed with these, unless I overlooked it in some part, I would prefer (doesn't mean I'll) to implement this than have a long list and lists of critics like with Future Nostalgia or Folklore since opinions by critics lists are subjetive but none less important. Are fine, ofc, but just the treatment applied into it as the same that we will never have every single review from Metacritic (Rotten Tomatoes in films) in the prose. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFCEdit

 

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Amy Grant discography up for Featured ListEdit

Amy Grant discography, a high-rated list in this WikiProject, is up for featured list. Discussion is ongoing, and any input is welcome. Toa Nidhiki05 20:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Is Michael Biggs notable?Edit

Should Michael Biggs have his own Wikipedia article he was a member of the major pop band in Brazil called Turma do Balão Mágico and the was an actor on the television show Balão Mágico. Dwanyewest (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If that's all he's done, then no, he isn't individually notable, because the pop group and the TV show were essentially the same thing... the TV show's cast made a few albums based on the show's popularity. You would need to show that he's had some separate notability outside of the show/group. Richard3120 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Pop music".