Talk:Lena Meyer-Landrut discography

Should it stay or should it go?

I really don't care, but don't you think, that this article will be deleted or redicted? For example: Alexander Rybak discography. I'm from Latvian wikipedia so I don't know how to corectly wryte about this kind of things, so I'm sorry, if there's somethig wrong. Thank you!--Edgars2007 (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of Source

Is that finnish chart right? I don't know if the source is reliable, as I don't speak finnish (if that is a language). But for some reason, I don't know whether it's true... AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the official source for that chart, yes. The Wikipedia article for the official Finnish singles chart Mitä hittiä links to this page. The source in this article is the section on Meyer-Landrut on that page and basically says "Placing: Week 22/2010, Position 1." Janfrie1988 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table limited to 10 entries?

AtomicMarcusKitten has claimed in his edit summary that chart tables shouldn't have more than 10 columns. Is this really true? I haven't found anything at the corresponding MOS and even in the featured list Tokio Hotel discography there are up to 12 columns. Besides: I don't think it is a good excuse to take out chart positions because they "didn't do justice" to a song. Janfrie1988 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hahahahahahaa!!!!! I'll admit, I was wrong about the didn't do it justice! But 10 is the maximum! Trust me!!!!!! Anyway, why do you want them all on? It just looks messy. Anyway, that's the last time i'm going to edit it now, as it's seriously starting to annoy me. So go ahead, sooner or late someone else will change it. I assure you. AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like to trust you but I would trust a source even more. Who says 10 is the maximum? Is it somewhere in a MOS and I just didn't find it? Again: There are lots of important discographies that feature more than 10 columns. Besides the featured Tokio Hotel discography there are the Michael Jackson singles discography and the Beatles discography, for instance. What is the source for your claim? Janfrie1988 (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, I cannot find any sources. Sorry if it seemed like I was having a go at you! I just remember adding countries onto artists page, and people started to slaughter me for it, saying 10 was the maximum! They said it has to be 10, so I just took their word for it. But I looks at other discography pages, and they're often 10 or under. Add them if you like, I don't mind :) AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for apologies :). I was just wondering. I have never heard of this rule and quite frankly do not see the sense in it. It almost seems manipulative to me to only list "good" chart positions. Of course it makes sense to restrict the number somewhat as numbers of 25 or so would probably mess up the layout on low resolutions - but 11 or 12 aren't even a problem on 800x600... Well, maybe one of the more experienced users can explain? Janfrie1988 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good :) And yeah, hopefully someone will help us out! And I don't know what "manipulative" means, but apparently it means i'm controlling others to my own advantage. If so, I did no realise, and I am again, sorry. Although, to list the "good" chart positions would make more sense, I think that's what everyone does. It would make more sense to list a place in Ireland that's #2, then a peak in spain of #35. Also, If she gets a place in the UK, US or Australian charts, usually people will put that up, even if it's a bad peak. I guess people do this as these countries usually get the most sales from singles. However, I really don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomicMarcusKitten (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean you but the decision only to list good positions when I said "manipulative" ;). Maybe the word was a bit strong. What I meant to say was: It seemst to me more like PR for the artist than neutral represantation when the "lower" chart positions are left out just so that the table "looks better". If these tables are actually limited to 10 (or around ten) columns it would indeed be interesting to know what criteria apply for inclusion and if those are more or less subjective or codified somewhere. Again, there seems to be nothing on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (record charts). Janfrie1988 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as though you were mostly right, AtomicMarcusKitten. See the Discography MOS. However, it says approximately 10 columns, so it isn't 10 columns sharp. We have 14 chart positions for "Satellite" now. I think besides the Czech one (which is just an airplay chart) it is fair to include them all for the time being. If the number grows, we will have to sort out some of them. The MOS says there are "no set inclusion criteria" but the relative success in charts may be "a good rule of thumb". I don't know what to think of this. Still smells like PR to me - but it seems to be the consensus. Janfrie1988 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that sounds cool :) Add them if you want :D And wow! You're use of vocab is amazing!!! XD I don't understand any of it, so I keep having to search what the words mean :L —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomicMarcusKitten (talk • contribs) 18:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion priorities for chart table

The number of peaks for the singles table is getting out of control, the number should not surpass 10 or 11 maximum per MOS:DISCOG#Per-release. I suggest we remove the list notable markets from the table first. In other words, markets with lowest platinum-award-level such as Ireland (for example) with its platinum at 15,000 should be removed first, see this for sizes. Next I would remove Austria with its 20,000 platinum level. Or this could be done by keeping the markets wherein the single "Satellite" has had a better peak, I personally keep the larger markets regardless of the peaks, however.--Harout72 (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! that's what i meant by people putting us, uk and aus charts up even if they're bad. ~Because they have high platinum awards.... but yeah, i agree with you!! :) AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I think "out of control" may be a bit harsh for 13 columns when MOS:DISCOG#Per-release says "approximately 10" and not "10 or 11 maximum". However, I agree that we will get into trouble once chart positions for the UK and Australia are verified. Should we compromise and say 12 for the time being? Personally, I think we should base our inclusion criteria on more complex grounds than just "biggest market", etc. I also think that just listing the highest peaks would be too simplistic. Some thoughts: First of all, #1's should always be included. Secondly, Germany, Austria and (partly) Switzerland all belong to the German speaking market. They share similar media and to some degree even a common public sphere. I think for a German, Austrian or German speaking Swiss artist chart positions in these three countries should always be listed. Furthermore, some markets are just too big to be neglected, so if Meyer-Landrut should chart in the US, UK, France, Japan, etc. at any point I think the position should be included regardless of what it is. For "Satellite", which is a Eurovision song, after all, chart positions from non-Eurpoean countries are imo also very interesting (Australia, for instance), as well as the European Billboard position. If we have slots left, I think we could fill them up with the highest peaks.

So, summing up: I would suggest our priorities to be, in this order, #1s, Ger, Aut, Swi, US, UK, Fra, Jap, Aus, Eur, highest peaks. For our current situation (assuming we get chart positions for the UK and AUS within the next days), this would mean to include: Ger, Fin, Nor, Swe, Aut, Swi, UK, Aus, Ire, Den, BEL (Fla) and EUR. Everyone okay with that? Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the table should have more than 11 markets. While, the policy's statement on Peaks is not very specific, approximately 10 peaks should mean 9 or 10 or maximum 11. See other discography pages like Madonna's, Pink's for example. And keeping Ireland on the table-which represents a lot smaller market in comparison with Spain's may be OK for the time being, but if "Satellite"'s position in Spain rises higher than No.10, Ireland should be replaced with the latter, perhaps should be done now, since keeping higher peaks on the table is viewed as too simplistic. However, Keeping GSA region's markets on the table sounds like OK, since I too believe all three do keep up with each other's media.

To make it brief, I'd say let's work with 11 peaks only (both now and later) by keeping GSA region's peaks, European continent's peak and 7 other markets: the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Belgium (only pick one), Denmark and Spain (instead of Ireland). Later when we have positions available for US, Japan, UK, France, Australia, Canada, smaller markets on the table should be replaced with those. But the sizes of the markets, i believe, should always be taken into account.--Harout72 (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be taken into account, but not exclusively. In some cases it might even be preferable to include a group of relatively small markets to document an unusual success in a certain area. In our case this seems to apply to Scandinavia, and at least to Nor, Swe, Fin, so I would be very hesitant to take those out even if Nor and Fin may be similar in size to Ireland. As for "market size" vs. "higher peak", I would mostly prefer higher peak (except for the stated very big markets or if the peaks of smaller and bigger market don't differ significantly, or if the peak in the bigger market is a top 10 peak). Just Imagine a table of positions around 40-70 in medium sized and big markets when there are top tens or even #1s in smaller markets. Four our situation this would mean that we leave Spain out unless "Satellite" reaches a top 10 position (+/- 3 or so) there.

Concerning the number of charts listed: I think 11 is reasonable for the time being. However, if for said reasons (documenting unusual success in a certain area, not excluding GSA and very big markets, not excluding a significant amount of #1 positions in favour of significantly lower positions) the number should rise above 11 (let's say to 12 or 13), we should certainly include them. There are also discographies with more than 11 charts on display, for instance the featured Tokio Hotel discography.

To sum up: I would support your list of 11 (GSA, Eur, 7 other) with the exception of favouring Ireland over Spain for the time being. I also think that Wallonia (3,5 million people) should go before Ireland (4,5) and Flanders (6). However, I think that Ireland and both Belgian charts are hot candidates for being taken out once new positions arrive (in big markets or better positions in medium sized markets such as Spain). After these I would probably take out Denmark, then the Netherlands. After that we'll see.

Small postscript: Make no mistake: AUS and CAN are not too big populationwise, both are e.g. smaller than, say, Poland and Spain and significantly smaller than Italy or South Korea, for instance (all of whitch are comparable in per capita purchasing power). Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like we are on the same page for the most part, let me just point out that the size of a music market is not necessarily determined by the size of a population. The size of music markets are based on two factors, Population and Economy. In other words, just having a big population with weak economy does not mean large market. That said, Australia (platinum=70,000) can generate more sales with a position like No.10 vs Poland (platinum=20,000 for foreign artists) with a No.1 position, although the former has a smaller population. In the same vein, Canada with position No.10 can generate more sales than South Korea with position No. 2. I hope I'm making this understandable.

I also agree that Ireland is ok to keep on the list for now vs Spain (for example). Perhaps, this herecould be something to refer to when larger markets' positions become available. As for stretching the number of markets to 12 or 13, I'm afraid it may not be a good idea. I'm sure administrators who normally edit Discography articles will remove them immediately, anyways. I also think we should be able to deliver the reader a clear picture as to how Lena's doing in overall world with 11 positions only. I don't think, it's necessary to have all Scandinavian positions, I'd say Sweden is the key market in Scandinavia, the rest could be replaced with whatever seems more important. Let's wait and see how she does in larger markets.--Harout72 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an afterthought on music markets: I think besides population and economic situation also other factors may play a role. Cultural acceptance of copyright violations (as in Russia, for instance) may have a distinct averse influence on sales in a country. Also, while I think that the certifications table might be a rule of thumb, it is not perfect also. For instance, it might just be harder to obtain a certification in one country than in another, with the certification numbers saying nothing (or fewer than we think) about the size of the actual market. I doubt, for instance, that France's market for singles is only half as big as Germany's. Janfrie1988 (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much how some developing markets such as Russia determine their certification-award-levels :), and what may affect their sales. As for most (if not all) developed markets, based on my long observation, they all seem to have been at the top of their game when it comes to adjusting their certification-award-levels (ever since the music piracy began in 1999). Most have reduced their certification-levels due to declining record-sales. The French (for example) have adjusted their certification-award-levels for albums/singles twice in the past decade. The last time they amended the levels for singles was in July 2009, the levels were brought down to Platinum=250,000 and Gold=150,000 from Platinum=300,000 and Gold=200,000, see this if you're interested. Germany's award-levels for singles is at Platinum=300,000 and Gold=150,000, not a big difference in comparison with that of in France.--Harout72 (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Charted Songs

We seem to have editors who keep inserting unsupported positions for the songs "Push Forward", "Maybe", "A Million and One" and "Mama Told Me". If there are available positions for those songs, please provide sources for them because there are three sources for Germany alone 1, 2, 3 none of which contains any positions for the mentioned songs.--Harout72 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stardust 2012 Single

The page says 4 singles(Satelitte/Touch A New Day/Taken By A Stranger/What A Man) when infant there are 5(sattelitte/touch a new day/taken by a stranger/what a man and Stardust (Confirmed yet unreleased.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BellaFan262 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Promotional single

She has a new promotional single To The Moon from the album Stardust.--Bella##Fan##262 (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It’s no real single, just a pre-download album track, as well as ASAP and Pink Elephant. -- MacCambridge (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lena Meyer-Landrut 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128181723/http://www.hitparade.ch/awards.asp?year=2010 to http://hitparade.ch/awards.asp?year=2010

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) 21:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lena Meyer-Landrut 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) 16:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]