Jump to content

Talk:CeCe Peniston discography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former FLCCeCe Peniston discography is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 5, 2011Featured list candidateNot promoted

Cleanup tag added

[edit]

This is an excessive list filled with a lot of unnecessary info, definitely goes against WP:DISCOG and featured lists, WP:FLAG for decorative flags, along with several other formatting issues (titles not formatted properly and WP:OVERLINK). I suggest this page be brought to uniformity with discography pages promoted to featured lists. Per WP:NOT#IINFO, a lot of this simply isn't needed (in particular a bunch of the columns, such as "peak date" and weeks-on-chart). - eo (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection, some of the tables need to be combined when this article is redone - US should not be separated from "international" charts per WP:NPOV and given such precedence and focus over other countries and headers need fixing per WP:CAPS. Lots of problems here. - eo (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redone - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benuliak (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 September 2010

work in progress

[edit]

Please see the work in progress and comment/discuss items that should be changed before it is placed into its main article: (wikilink removed, completed work to main article 25 September). The following items have been modified/fixed:

  • Intro rewritten, wikilinks fixed.
  • All decorative flags removed.
  • Unneeded columns in tables removed (e.g. if it contained only dashes)
  • Per WP:DISCOG, only 10 columns max. I've removed a US component chart and other countries where she had minimal chart activity.
  • Certifications moved into the albums and singles tables.
  • Headers and subheaders corrected.
  • The amount of extra/repetitive/contradictory code was staggering, this has been cleaned up (we're talking tens of thousands of extra characters, vastly reducing article size).
  • Repeated citations combined with <ref name> tags.
  • Proper formatting of song titles (quotes) and album titles (italics).
  • Live appearances removed, these are not really notable and do not belong in a discography.

Have I missed anything? - eo (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completed overhaul now in place. - eo (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on CeCe Peniston discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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:Offline 08:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CeCe Peniston 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on CeCe Peniston 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

There are a few things I was hoping to change but I don't think that will be happening with the User:‎Asileb constantly reverting my edits, despite my good intentions for my edits. The first problem is the confusing edit of the Singles. The song "Keep Givin' Me Your Love" is claimed to have went number 1 on the Hot 100 but there is no record of that. A note states it "denotes Bubbling Under 100 instead", but if this is the case, shouldn't the number "1" be changed to number "101" under that [100] column or just have a " — "? Because right now, that edit is promoting false and confusing info. The second issue is the abbreviation "DCS" for Dance Club Songs, which I edited to "US Dance" to make it easier on reader to understand the chart meaning, but it was again reverted by User:‎Asileb. In the page's history, the user commented "No need. The columns have equal width and the abbreviation are used in all the tables.", which seems to imply a bit of Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Actions. I revised his edit and said "It's a well-known standard to write the word out so readers know what it is. It has nothing to do with perimeters." as when I changed "DCS" → "Dance", none of the columns/rows/perimeters overlapped. The last issue is the overuse of different color codes on this page. Why are there different colors for??? Horizonlove (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the Hot 100 chart includes 100 positions, not 101 positions or more. And that would be the "false information" in Horizonlove's vocabulary. Asileb (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's more misleading to imply that the song was #1 on a chart that it clearly wasn't. Second, from Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, "From August 28, 1961 to August 24, 1985, the chart positions were numbered starting with number 101". It's not strictly accurate to describe it as #101, but it's far more accurate than describing it as #1. If you object strongly, you can add a separate column for "bubbling under", or remove the listing entirely. Being the 101st most popular song in a given week isn't particularly notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, the table doesn't imply that the song peaked at number one on the chart. Secondly, the song was released ten years after your so-called "numbering starting with number 101" for Hot 100. There's no reason to add a separate column, if the original editor already explained it using a very clear legend in the article. Asileb (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely does imply so. It says "1" with a highlight that isn't explained until later in the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely does not imply so, and the highlighted notes are explained in the same table of the article. Anyway, if someone is concerned about it as you seem so, they must adjust all the table to it, not only one chart position while leaving the original legend behind. And that's what concerns me for a change most here. Asileb (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to wait for other comments, but I'd be happy to add a new column for "bubbling under" as a consensus proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per Billboard_charts#All-genre : "Positions do not directly correspond to positions 101-125 of an extended Hot 100, but many sources use this notation". Power~enwiki (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with User:Power~enwiki as it does imply that the song peaked at number one on the chart, which it didn't. However another issue that I'm now aware of is the fact that song did not chart on either charts. The source that is given says nothing about the song, nor is it mentioned in the article. So a dash ( — ) needs to go there. But if actually charted on the "Bubbling Under...", I'm asking Asileb to WP:PROVEIT. Only then will I stop calling it misleading or false. Horizonlove (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you can search Billboard Magazine on Google Book Search. [1] is the link, Mar 11, 1995 is the date it was #1. The article already has a general reference to the magazine, it doesn't need specific links for each data point. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok great, thank you! So they had her credited under "Ce Ce", not "CeCe". And again, I agree with Power~enwiki. Horizonlove (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck are you talking about? The article has a clear source for each chart including Bubbling Under (ref. no. 50), so either open your eyes, or stop making false statements yourself.
@Power~enwiki:, there is neither reason, nor option to add a column for an additional chart, especially for not that notable as you said, and with two entries only. The standard number of the music charts is to use 10 in discography lists, which has already been reached, and that is very likely why previous editors used the color legend instead. The table looks just fine as it is, and is well referenced. Shall I have time next week-end, I can adjust the legend to notes for a change, but it is one and the same thing either way. Asileb (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - @Asileb: I searched for "CeCe Peniston" and only got one result from that page. But whatever, because Power~enwiki posted the link showing the chart position and the article also spelled her name as "Ce Ce Peniston" which gives another result that I did not see. So yeah, it did chart at number 1 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100. Anyway, since the standard for Wikipedia is 10 charts in a column as per WP:DISCOG, you need to either to do one of the following. Replace the number "1" with "101" or just replace it with a dash ( — ) in that spot. Because as we both stated, it implies that the song was #1 on a chart and it clearly wasn't. Keep in mind, that User talk:Power~enwiki isn't on anyone's side. He's being very neutral about this and he's right. Horizonlove (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Asileb (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:CeCe_Peniston_discography&oldid=1200720162"