Talk:Jennifer Lopez discography/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Please stop the slow edit war and discuss here at the talk page...

There are two editors, Ending-start and Alptns90 who have been reverting each other now which has to stop. The way it's suppose to work with bold,revert,discuss is simple. Since both of you have done the first two, which is bold and revert, the only thing left if for the two of you to come to this talk page and discuss the matter. Please do now discuss why you think it should be one way and not the other. If necessary you can use the DR process available. Please do not continue the way you both are since nothing good comes from edit warring. Thanks, I look forward to seeing what is said about this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss. This user is vandalizing the page. Removing two official singles, adding a featured single that was never a single, and adding several other charted songs that have no pages, or sources. On top of that, this user is not giving any explanation to why, and has not replied to anyone's comments about it on their talk page. ℥^nding·start 15:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez Singles

Jennifer Lopez singles list, I want to be corrected. However eo is interfering. Please help me. Thank you.

Jennifer Lopez Singles Chart: http://www.musicvf.com/Jennifer+Lopez.art

“Let’s Get Loud” UK’s chart: http://www.musicvf.com/song.php?id=21251

“Alive” US Hot 100’s chart: http://www.musicvf.com/song.php?id=21259

“Walking On sunshine” Us Dance’s chart: http://www.musicvf.com/song.php?id=86410

“Cherry Pie” UK’s chart: http://www.musicvf.com/song.php?id=21266

“Control Myself” Us Dance’s chart: http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100#/song/ll-cool-j-featuring-jennifer-lopez/control-myself/7946212

“Que Hiciste” UK’s chart: http://www.musicvf.com/song.php?id=71059

“Mile In These Shoes” Finland’s chart: http://finnishcharts.com/search.asp?search=jennifer+lopez&cat=s

“Louboutins” US Dance’s chart: http://www.billboard.com/#/charts/dance-club-play-songs?chartDate=2010-04-03

"On The Floor Ireland's chart: http://irma.ie/aucharts.asp

"On The Floor France's chart: http://www.chartsinfrance.net/charts/singles.php —alptns90 (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

well for starters, musicvf.com is a VERY unreliable source. let's get loud did not enter the UK top 200, let alone reach number 5! the cherry pie position is also fake. however, the qué hiciste position is correct, chartsplus confirms it did reach 162. it also confirms the album como ama una mujer reached 131. Mister sparky (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping Mister sparky. alptns90 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Louboutins

Is "Louboutins" actually a single or just a promo single? i think it was meant to be a single when she was still at Deaf Jam but since she moved to a different label hasn't it been described as a promo single? Also due to ut's poor performance is it even definate that it will be on the album? --Duphin (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm into You

I'm Into You is No. 101 on the Billboard Hot100 (No. 1 on the Bubbling Under..) --79.216.171.164 (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Source? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

On The Floor Germany

Next to the No. 1 position of On The Floor in Germany, there's a link that directs you to a screenshot of this page. But if you compare the two of them you'll see that the screenshot isn't the original one because Germany is edited in it which isn't featured on the actual page. So please delete the link!

--79.216.152.102 (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Certification

On The Floor is Platinum in the USA SOURCE--79.216.154.67 (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Markets in the Singles Table

Previously we had an incorrect market order, see it here, which I have corrected and also made some changes in markets/countries. I took out US Dance chart, which is not a sales chart. I also took out New Zealand and Ireland and inserted Austria, The Netherlands and Sweden. The reason, I replaced New Zealand and Ireland with the Netherlands and Sweden is because both of the latter markets are much bigger markets, see Global music industry market share data for sizes of the markets. As far as number of Top-5 positions go, this is what they look like below:

• Ireland: Three top-5 positions, two of which are No.1s.
• New Zealand: Seven top-5 positions, three of which are No.1s.
• The Netherlands: Eight top-5 positions, one of which is No.1.
• Sweden: Three top-5 positions, one of which is No.1.
• Austria: One top-5 position, which is No.1.

Although, both the Netherlands and Sweden have one No.1s, it should be noted that due to both of those being much bigger markets, they both generate more sales with No.3 position (for example) than New Zealand or Ireland can with No.1 position. If editors wish to replace Austria with Ireland or even New Zealand, that's ok but we'd lose the consistency that we currently have throughout the entire page as the album-tables have the same markets. Please discuss before making any changes. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

comment, Discogs should be ordered and placed according to the size of markets + the relative popularity of the artist. IMO Austria is a tiny market and should be replaced with the next largest market of the four listed... my guess would be New Zealand or Ireland. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Austria is a bigger market than Ireland and Ireland is a bigger market than New Zealand. See here, Austria generates some 3 million more units annually ($138 million more in retail value) than Ireland. And Ireland in its turn generates some 1.5 million more units annually ($18 million more in retail value) than New Zealand. But Lopez has only one top-5 in Austria which is No.1, and has one other top-10 (No.7), whereas Ireland has two No.1s, one No.4, and four other top-10s. So, it seems that Lopez may have sold more singles in Ireland than in Austria, even though, Austria is a bigger market. If no objections, I will replace Austria with Ireland.--Harout72 (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Austria is a small market and bigger market in New Zealand. In addition, Jennifer Lopez has been more successful in New Zealand and Ireland. Netherlands and Austria have been less successful. For him, New Zealand and Ireland is more accurate to take place.alptns90 (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Austria is a bigger market, see it here on page 23, it is from the IFPI annual report. But as I have discussed above, it could be replaced with Ireland which is a smaller market than Austria but has more higher positions for Lopez. New Zealand should be left out as it's even a smaller market than Ireland.--Harout72 (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

[1] Quite indepedent of the ordering of the markets, this edit changed some numbers. In particular, it changed the SWI peak for "If You Had My Love" from 5 to 9, switched US #1 peak from "Aint It Funny (murder remix)" to "Aint It Funny", and left the 2 for "Alive" in the second column although the header changed from US Dance to AUS. The numbers from the earlier version appear to me to be correct. Since I saw other numerical changes (eg, "Hold You Down" lost the #6 for UK), I do not have much confidence in the singles numbers after that edit. My restoration of the better-vetted version was undone without addressing the problem. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Austria maybe a bigger market, but I think success should be handled according to the state. Jennifer Lopez has been more successful in New Zealand and Ireland. Austria and Netherlands have been less successful. I think it is more accurate than having success according to the state.alptns90 (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

[2] Restoring factual errors, especially after they have been explicitly pointed out, does not seem to me to "improve the article dramatically". Please explain. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, I have corrected the Swiss position for "If You Had My Love" and removed Australia's position for "Alive". I also inserted UK's no.6 position for "Hold You Down" and provided an additional source for that as ChartStats does not contain it. But I can't seem to find the position for "Aint It Funny (murder remix)" in the source that previous revision was supported with. Where do you see any positions for that?

alptns90, I initially said above that we could take Austria out and insert Ireland, but since we'll be able to support only Ireland's singles positions with The Irish Charts and Hung Medien doesn't have positions posted for Ireland, we'll lose the consistency throughout the page. So I'd agree to replace Austria with New Zealand as Hung Medien does seem to have all the positions for NZ. The Netherlands; however, is a considered a medium size market which should not be replaced with either Ireland or New Zealand, and there is no reason to do that as Lopez has eight top-5 positions there with her singles.--Harout72 (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think instead of Austria and Sweden, New Zealand and Ireland should be. New Zealand has seven of the top 5. Ireland have three of the top 5. Austria has only one top 5. He would be more accurate to take place in New Zealand and Ireland.Alptns90 (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

When a page is substantially changed in a way that introduces multiple numerical errors onto the page, the entire revision is suspect. The previous version was mostly verified (although I can't guarantee there was no sneaky vandalism), and I saw 3 changes in your revision that I consider verifiable errors. Fixing those positions that I specifically mentioned does not address the concern. Furthermore, if you read the source you yourself just linked, you will see "Ain't it funny Featuring Ja Rule" with a peak of #1. And Chart Stats does have a UK #6 for "Hold You Down". Gimmetoo (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Alptns90, both Sweden and Ireland have three top-5 positions the former of which is a much bigger market generating some 7.8 million more units annually ($74 million more) than Ireland, see page 24. I have already replaced Austria's singles with New Zealand's.

Gimmetoo, I'm just trying to understand, what would address the concerns in you opinion? Leaving incorrect alphabetical order like the older revision had or leaving US Dance chart sitting on there which had no business whatsoever? And you still have not pointed out where you see the US position for "Aint It Funny (murder remix)". The page still needs more work, the certifications of Argentina, Brazil, Russia and Spain should all be removed as we don't have chart positions for any of those, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Per-release (bullet 8).--Harout72 (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I edited in alphabetical order. But it was changed. New Zealand certainly should be included. Because there are seven of the top 5. U.S. Dance chart should be included because it has nine No. 1. Equal to Ireland and Sweden, but Ireland seems to be more successful. For him, I think Austria, Netherlands and Sweden to be unnecessary.Alptns90 (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point, Harout, you need to revert back to the better-vetted table of singles peaks. Then, if you want to change the markets represented, you need to do it in easily-verifiable steps, ie add a column, then delete a column, so that we can verify the numbers are not changed again. Another alternative is to individually verify each number and add a specific in-line citation for each and every number in the table. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

All positions in the singles table have been checked one last time, one by one comparing to the sources, I had to correct a few, everything seems fine now. The current markets in the singles table also seem to be the markets we should have. We don't need the US dance chart regardless of how many No.1s it has, it's not a sales chart.--Harout72 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There are also other singers. For example, Beyoncé: U.S. R & B and Madonna: U.S. Dance. Sweden is removed and US Dance put. Because, thirteen top 5 in U.S. dance and three top 5 in Sweden. For him, U.S. Dance should be. The problem disappears.Alptns90 (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Alptns90, I don't know how else to explain this really, the US Dance chart is not a sales chart, every discography doesn't have to be the same, we don't have to copy what is being done on others. In fact, they should not have the US Dance chart either as there are enough sales charts (enough markets) to cover.--Harout72 (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

According to them, that may be Jennifer Lopez. Unnecessary in Sweden. Because, it is more successful than US dance. Absolutely shoul be U.S. dance. Alptns90 (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Then remove them (Beyoncé: US R&B and Madonna: US Dance). I believe you. But, if you don't remove. You can not remove. At that time, I'm remove in Sweden. U.S. Dance put.Alptns90 (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO... every artist should use their main country of origin chart + 1 country of origin genre. For Lopez her biggest and most successful US genre chart is dance, she's primarily a dance-pop artist so the inclusion of Dance is IMO important to her discography. She has eight or nine number ones on this chart but relatively few on any other chart included. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Lil_℧niquℇ №1, It was very explanatory. Thank you.Alptns90 (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Certifications

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Per-release (bullet 8), we are to keep only certifications of those markets the positions of which are in the tables. Therefore, I have removed certifications of Argentina, Brazil, Europe, Ireland, Russia and Spain.--Harout72 (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Dutch charts for singles

The Hung Medien Dutch charts for singles was recently replaced with this. How does one verify the positions with that source?--Harout72 (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You can check the ones related to Jennifer Lopez. For example, "If You Had My Love" for this. You can check them all.Alptns90 (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Where are the positions? And what makes it more reliable than Hung Medien?--Harout72 (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The positions aren't archived in a nice little sheet like Hung Medien does for the Megachart 100, but if you click each link, a chart with the position for each song is displayed. The Dutch Top 40 chart is the chart recommended by WP:Record charts, as it is a combined airplay/sales chart similar to the Billboard Hot 100. From WP:GOODCHARTS: The Single Top 100 is a component of the Dutch Top 40, and should be used only if the single did not chart on the Dutch Top 40.—Kww(talk) 08:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Harout72, look to the left of the page, you'll see. Lopez For them, click on the arrows then see graph on the left side of the page.Alptns90 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I see, good to know.--Harout72 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WTF the albums sales is a big bug....

The album "J.Lo" sold more of 11 millions... "Como ama una mujer" more o 1.500.000 millions and.. "this is me then" and "on the six" sales are so small here...

The total of albums sold of JLo are more on 50 millions... and here is only 28,45 ..

who are wrong with this page?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.39.56 (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Albums? Lopez has sold some 50 million records (albums, singles and videos combined).--Harout72 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Positions for "Ain't It Funny"

We don't have a single source that states that the listed positions within them for "Ain't It Funny" are for the remixed version. By placing those existing positions in the boxes of "Aint' It Funny RMX" will violate WP:Verifiability as the sources do not support positions for "Ain't It Funny RMX". The remixed version seems to have released as a single in UK (peaked at No.4), In Germany (peaked at No.18), in Switzerland (peaked at No.7)--Harout72 (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly at least one of us is misreading the sources. Billboard says "Ain't It Funny" ft. Ja Rule peaked at #1. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Disputed accuracy

Persuant to repeated issues with the accuracy of this page, including the threads above for "Ain't It Funny", and now "I'm Into You" [3] [4], I am tagging the page for disputed accuracy. Gimmetoo (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I can assure that the content of the source has changed. At the time when I verified it and removed it here, it would re-direct it to a weekly page for the Canadian Hot 100, I'm quite certain the site was experiencing technical issues at the time. Problem of his kind, actually, I have seen once before with Billboard's site, again for Canadian position on "I'm into You" on April 28, 2011. During the morning of the same day, the source contained the position, then some six hours later it didn't, noticed it, removed it.--Harout72 (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't be removing sourced content here when a site has "technical issues". Who knows how many times you've done that before? I am restoring the tag. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for any negative assumptions, my intentions are always to keep wikpedia free of poorly sourced and unverifiable information. It takes a prophet to know whether the site is experiencing technical problems or not when you click on the source provided and it takes you to page(s) other than where the related information lies.--Harout72 (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Intentions are one thing, actions are another. I've seen people here remove sources to printed material because they couldn't look it up. While that's not entirely true (people can go to a library), that approach to WP:V is pretty similar to what you did here. Do you think that's a reasonable approach? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any relevance in your comparison as I was able to view the content in the source provided, but it lacked the info listed in the table at the time. I don't know who's removed sources to offline scanned information, but if they are claimed unverifiable by majority of editors, then removal is reasonable.--Harout72 (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OMG

The edition of the article that are you doing now it's mess. I already explained you on the talk page, references = MESS, including works, publishers ... Some sources are DUPLICATES! For example the Swiss certification. What is wrong with you and all the reverts. The article could be chosen for FL, but not at this way. And don't revert it, otherwise, I will use an admin here and block you ! Tomica1111 (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The way the Swiss certifications are now simply cannot work, all of them are supported by 2007 page. Whereas, each album needs a separate source as it was before. Lopez's Swiss certifications are not all posted on 2007 page. You should report your own actions to an administrator as you have already violated the 3RR.--Harout72 (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

U2 can report yourself. And don't revert, while I'm repairing the article ! 23:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Germany

On The Floor is 3x Gold in Germany... http://www.musikindustrie.de/gold_platin_datenbank/#topSearch--79.199.27.104 (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The source you provide does not link to anything about this album. Topher385 (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ain't it funny again

[5] This version combines Ain't It Funny and Ain't It Funny#Murder_Remix. They charted separately and combining them is misleading. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

On the Floor multiplatinum

on the floor sold 3 million copies in US. http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?content_selector=gold-platinum-searchable-database — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.175.191 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm Into You

... is No. 16 in Germany, not No. 18! --79.199.19.194 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Love?

... Gold in Germany http://www.musikindustrie.de/gold_platin_datenbank/#topSearch Please add! --79.199.28.56 (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Done

Chart positions in the Netherlands

There are 3 songs, I'm Real, Ain't It Funny and Ain't It Funny (Murder Mix). They all charted in the Netherlands but there's only a -. Here are links to the positions:

• http://www.dutchcharts.nl/showitem.asp?interpret=Jennifer+Lopez&titel=Ain%27t+It+Funny&cat=s
• http://www.dutchcharts.nl/showitem.asp?interpret=Jennifer+Lopez&titel=I%27m+Real&cat=s
• http://www.dutchcharts.nl/showitem.asp?interpret=Jennifer+Lopez+feat%2E+Ja+Rule+%26+Caddillac+Tah&titel=Ain%27t+It+Funny+%28Murder+Remix%29&cat=s

(62.163.153.64 (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

There's a good reason for that. The Netherlands has two singles charts which we mention in music articles. This discography is using Dutch Top 40, which you can see and browse at http://www.top40.nl/ . Then there is the Single Top 100 generated by MegaCharts, and published at http://www.dutchcharts.nl/. The Top 100 chart is a component of the Top 40 chart so we use the Top 40 when songs/artists have charted there, the Top 100 only when they haven't. The links you've provided above are to the Top 100, which is why we've kind of ignored those chart appearances. Hope this helps. — JohnFromPinckney (talk)

Oh okay, yeah that's why. But they also charted in the Dutch Top 40. I have links from www.top40.nl with the weeks the songs reached it's top position: Ain't it funny, reached 2: http://www.top40.nl/index.aspx?week=32&jaar=2001 I'm Real, reached 3: http://www.top40.nl/index.aspx?week=46&jaar=2001 Ain't It Funny Murder Mix, reached 10: http://www.top40.nl/index.aspx?week=13&jaar=2002 I hope this helps. Boemhard (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 93.139.50.140, 23 November 2011

This article should be corrected and edited as it previously was. In the boxes for certifications, country names should be listed with permalink for the recording industry association that had given the certification for a single/an album instead of just listing the recording industry association name in the certification bracket. It confuses people (including me). Also, some countries' certifications are missing ("Como Ama Una Mujer" and "Love?" albums for example).

93.139.50.140 (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Can you provide some diffs that reference the version you would like? It's hard to know what you're talking about without being able to see the version you're referring to. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the changes implemented for WP:DISCOGSTYLE. There, quite some discussion and wrangling took place to try to solve the problem of multiple abbreviations (US, AUS, GER, etc.) meaning different things (and linking to different pages). There's a bit of a usability problem when we do that, because (get this) it confuses people when the same symbol means several different things (chart, certs provider, sales source). I'd like to see you give this newer way a chance; when you get used to it it should be less confusing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, i think this is just ridiculous. Wikipedia is supposed to be an easy-to-use online encyclopedia that any normal Jane and Joe can use and understand. Replacing the country's initials with the Record Association's initials contributes NOTHING to this article, and people who come here will not understand these initials, and it just adds the inconvenience of having to click on every link to even understand what country it is, unless you are some chart expert. Honestly, what is even the point? What does it contribute? And how does it make this article more understandable for any person???--Meluvseveryone (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for you to vent your personal opinions. — Status {^talk_contribs 00:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Um... excuse me? Doesn't matter, I am merely expressing what I believe is best for the article. And please will you at least address my concerns rather than insulting me? Ta ;)!--Meluvseveryone (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Still saying the same thing... — Status {^talk_contribs 02:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting what I believe is best for this article. I'm not venting my personal opinions, i'm sorry if you think i am.--Meluvseveryone (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2011

^^^ But isn't this discography article (I'm giving an example of a similiar artist' discography) far more simple and clear? Most of the discography pages are edited that way.

93.136.147.43 (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And they are slowly being changed. — Status {^talk_contribs 03:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Japanese chart positions

Is there a (good) reason why Japanese chart positions are not included? Isn't it one of the top markets in music? The article music industry has it as number two, while New Zealand and Sweden are not in Top 20. 82.141.74.205 (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)