Talk:Between the Lines (Stone Temple Pilots song)

Alternative Songs chart

I wanted to explain why I think the Billboard Alternative Songs chart is not needed on the Between the Lines article.

1. According to Alternative Songs, "The [alternative song] chart is based solely on radio airplay and is a component chart of the Hot 100."
2. According to WP:Record charts, "It is not recommended that Billboard component charts are used in tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart..."
3. Finally, according to WP:USCHARTS, "If a song has not charted on Rock Songs you may add any of the following-->" and this information is followed by the suggested Alternative Songs component chart.

Because "Between the Lines" did chart on Rock Songs, then the Alternative Songs chart should be removed from the table, as is suggested by all the above examples. Let me know what you think (any editors may contribute); I would like to remove the Alternative Songs chart, but am hoping to avoid warring. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the alternative charts again since no one is commenting here. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm against u removing the Alternative Songs chart from this page because like I said, there are 3 rock charts.David1287 (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

David, you didn't read what I wrote. It is against Wikipedia policy to have the alternative songs chart on the article because it is a component chart and also because the song charted on the Rock Songs chart. So the alternative chart has to be removed. But if your interest lies in quantity rather than quality (three charts looks better than two), then I have more important articles to spend my time on. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There has been no objection so far, and I've found every bit of evidence to prove Alternative Songs must be removed since it is a component chart of the Rock Songs chart. The fact that editors of other song articles disobey Wikipedia policy or are too lazy to care is no excuse for this article to follow suit. Any serious editor on Wikipedia would approve of the removal of the AS chart. As I explained the first time I removed the chart in the edit summary, and as I have explained again in the more recent edit summary, the proof for my edit can be read about at these locations: WT:Record charts#Billboard_Alternative_Songs, WP:USCHARTS, and WP:GOODCHARTS. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

U don't understand. there's the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks, Rock Songs, and Alternative Songs. u can see them in every band's Wikipedia page. There's no point in removing the Alternative Songs chart from this song's wiki page. u're ruining the basic concepts of this whole thing.David1287 (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Both of you have officially been warned for edit warring (Keraunoscopia, on your talk page, David1287, on mine, in reply to your message). Please stop reverting each other and form a consensus before further actions. If you must, request a third opinion, or leave a note on the record chart guideline talk page. — ξ^xplicit 18:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that WP:Record charts and WP:USCHARTS are not policy, they are guidelines and reverting will not be considered vandalism (as was said in an edit summary), but edit warring. SpigotMap 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

As a neutral party, I would recommend this chart is not included in ther article, per the three guidelines cited. Although these are not policy, they do enforce a certain standard and consistency in articles. No valid reasons have been presented in favour of retaining the chart listing—Welshleprechaun 18:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• David1287 (talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hours for continued edit warring, despite my warning. — ξ^xplicit 19:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I, too have been asked to give my opinion. It should be pointed out that Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide is a brand new Guideline, not yet finalised. That said, edit warring over a componant chart seems a little over top. Furthermore, if the song has charted on one of the main charts, then including a component chart seems redundant, IMO; indeed, I think that's what the new guideline is attempting to clarify. I am not familiar with the US charts, however, so the opinion of those that are would be useful. For the moment, though, two independent editors have now given their advice: both Welshleprechaun and I concur with Keraunoscopia. Welshleprechaun's recommendation should have been enough on its own, IMO, along with the warnings given by Explicit --Jubilee♫clipman 03:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't requested to give my opinion, but since Julibeeclimpman asked for those who are familiar with US Charts to through in their opinion, and I am familiar with US charts, I will gladly give my opinion of this situation. Yes, the Alternative Songs position should not be included alongside Rock Songs positions barring two exceptions: 1. The song peaks noticably higher on Alternative Songs than it does on Rock Songs (for instance if a song peaks at #7 on alternative but #32 on Rock. However if the chart positions are for example, #8 on Alternative and #9 on Rock, the Rock peak should be shown instead) and 2. The song peaks at #1 on Alternative. I believe that regardless of the new guideline, if a song peaks at #1 on any chart, that position should be included. The only place where I believe both charts positions should be shown regardless is on an artist's discography page. The chart peak for "Between The Lines" on both Rock and Alternative can be found on the singles table on the band's discography page. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

robbie 19:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC) You can't just stop recording the alternative track data. It is much more comprehensive than the Rock Songs chart and really tracks alternative radio play unlike the Rock Songs chart. Alternative charts has been around since the '80s and Rock Songs since 2009. It is much more important to continue to record alternative chart data for future use. Are you going to delete alternative songs from every page that has it recorded already, that seems pointless. If anything we should stop tracking the Rock Songs chart because it is so generalized and unimportant, but thats just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuggoo (talk • contribs)

I don't know who you're referring to by "robbie," but if you think you have a valid argument, you should take it up over at Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts, because a consensus was reached here for this article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Reception

If anyone's interested, these short reviews of the song can be found here and summarized in the article:

1. Arab Times Online
2. Lehigh Valley

– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I added them. Thanks for finding them. Tezero (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks

According to WP:USCHARTS and corroboration in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#consensus_concerning_a_song.27s_wiki_page, I removed Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks because it is a component chart to Rock Songs. See also discussion on this talk page regarding Alternative Songs. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone did it again, removed Alternative and Mainstream Rock (the peak was wrong anyway), and added Bubbling Under Hot 100. We really need to protect the page!!!GD1223 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Hot 100

The song has charted at #58 on the Canadian Hot 100 according Billboard's Rock Songs web site here: http://www.billboard.com/charts#/charts/rock-songs. Just look in the right hand space, under the Alternative Songs peak (NOTE: not including that peak!!!)GD1223 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, to add, did the song make on to the Bubbling Under Hot 100, I won't add it until a source is found. Thanks! GD1223 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

again..

Again, don't add the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks and the Alternative Songs chart positisons, PLEASE SEE ^^ABOVE^^ AGAIN!!!GD1223 (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Between the Lines (Stone Temple Pilots song). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100517040208/http://www.billboard.com:80/ to http://www.billboard.com/#/column/chartbeat/chart-highlights-pop-adult-pop-latin-songs-1004091755.story

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Between the Lines (Stone Temple Pilots song). 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/20100801033327/http://simsdirector.com:80/video?stonetemplepilots_betweenthelines to http://www.simsdirector.com/video?stonetemplepilots_betweenthelines

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) 05:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Between the Lines (Stone Temple Pilots song). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.simsdirector.com/video?stonetemplepilots_betweenthelines
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadrunnerrecords.com%2Fblabbermouth.net%2Fnews.aspx%3Fmode%3DArticle%26newsitemID%3D136977&date=2011-06-08 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=136977

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) 05:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)