Talk:Leona Lewis discography

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leona Lewis discography article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Discographies

This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.DiscographiesWikipedia:WikiProject DiscographiesTemplate:WikiProject DiscographiesDiscography articles

Leona Lewis (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Leona Lewis, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Leona LewisWikipedia:WikiProject Leona LewisTemplate:WikiProject Leona LewisLeona Lewis articles

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Charts

whoever is changing the charts to suit themselves - would they please stop Dt128 (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Better In Time I noticed was put in as a peak #9 on the US Hot 100 when it was actually at #11. As much as I would have liked it to be higher, that's not what it was and people shouldn't change them. That was just one that stuck out when I saw it so I changed it back to its correct position.

Hehe, so true.Dt128 (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is changing total album sales, stop. Spirit hasn't sold 7 Million copies. Current estimates put it at just over 6.2 Million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XmusiclivesX (talk • contribs) 19:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have the chart positions of 'I Will Be' been added to countries besides the US and Canada? It wasn't released in any other country and those positions will be due to fans downloading the song digitally. None of them are noteworthy for inclusion (e.g NZ: #199) and make it appear as though they were huge flops or something. Also the NZ position for Run - should it be included even though it didn't chart within the Top 100 (as that's the limit of the 'official' chart?) Omnisci88 (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism; reverted. Anemone Projectors 19:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Run Australian Posiiton

Run did chart at #78 on the ARIA Australian Singles chart, so stop deleteing it proposing it didn't. Billy4kate, (talk)

Footprints

Why has is been removed from the singles part? Its just as much a single as any other Leona track, and if 'I Will Be' stays there, then so should Footprints, seeing as their both regional only singles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.39.114 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree Dt128 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singles table

hey guys, just a couple of points i wish to put up for discussion about the singles table.

the guidelines state that generally only about 10 countries should be listed, this one has 17! so i'd like to suggest cutting them down to UK, AUS, CAN, FRA, GER, IRE, NL, NZ, SWE, US to make it a nice round 10. also if we want to promote this article to FA status they have to be cut down anyways.
to remove just stand up from the singles table and move it into the other charted songs table. as it isnt primarily a leona lewis single.
adding the certifications to the singles table

please let me know what you think :) if nobody has any objections or feedback then i'll go ahead and do it but will still be up for discussion Mister sparky (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree the certifications should be moved to the singles table, and that we should list fewer charts. Which guidelines are you looking at? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your choice of countries apart from France which isn't used in the article. I suggest Austria instead. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and "Other charted songs" are for songs that charted but weren't actual singles. "Just Stand Up" was a single so should stay where it is. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey, the guidelines i looked at were at MOS:DISCOG, i know they're only suggestions but it does make it look tidier and less crowded. and okay Austria. i have just looked through acharts.com and it seems the only song to be a success in france was bleeding love. Mister sparky (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

was also thinking about the European Chart if a reliable source can be found Mister sparky (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The European Singles chart can be sourced at http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/searchResult.jsp?exp=y&Ne=4&inert=25&Ntt=Leona+Lewis&Ntk=Keyword&an=bbcom&nor=10&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&N=37+4294126178#pos25 . It's usually best to click down one more level and provide a reference for each individual song. Remember that the other European chart, the Euro 200, is on WP:BADCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 18:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey thanks kww :) what do you think about the other proposed changes? Mister sparky (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No strong opinion. As always, if you trim, make sure that you trim the redundant US charts before trimming countries.—Kww(talk) 23:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i will make the changes then. but its still up for discussion Mister sparky (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks absolutely terrible now. Well done for ruining it. Adi39 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and why do you think it looks terrible? it can still be altered if other people agree. but hardly anything changed Mister sparky (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's improved by the minor changes that have been made. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single certifications

The following single certifications were removed from the article due to being unsourced. I'm posting them here so sources can be found.

"A Moment Like This"

UK: Platinum

"Bleeding Love"

Australia : 2× Platinum

Austria: Gold

Germany: Platinum

Sweden: Gold

UK: Platinum

U.S. digital: 3x Platinum

U.S. mastertone: Platinum

"Better In Time"

Australia : Gold

Germany: Gold

AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Echo

This is her second album, why can't this be included in the discography? I don't see a problem with it as long as the release date is included in the table. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a discography, listing official releases only. Echo isn't even close to being released, neither has it charted. I suggest that it be mentioned in the lead instead. Dt¹²⁸ SpeakToMe 21:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best Kept Secret

Why can't Best Kept Secret be included? Allmusic lists it as an album, I've seen it in retailers in the US, so why can't it be included here? Dt¹²⁸ SpeakToMe 14:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i always thought it was just a demo, thats probably why. but i could be wrong Mister sparky (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a demo (although it is made up of demo material), it's listed as a "Compilation album" on Allmusic [1] and is available for purchase on iTunes, and in music retailers. I see no reason why it can't be included. Dt¹²⁸ SpeakToMe 15:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It is an unofficial release, although you can get it on iTunes in the UK. I don't know why, when Simon Cowell and co tried so hard to stop any of her other work being released. But that doesn't stop it being unofficial. It should never have been made available in my opinion. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was still released, which is my point. Dt¹²⁸ SpeakToMe 17:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that make it official? I don't think it does, but I don't really mind that it's been included. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused what you mean by "official" in this context Dt¹²⁸ SpeakToMe 20:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't released with Leona's knowledge or consent. Just an old management company trying to cash in on her success. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Private Party" and "Dip Down"/"Joy"

As we are listing Best Kept Secret here, should we also include these two EPs released from Best Kept Secret? I think we should. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we did, that would mean also including Remixes: The Platinum Edition Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 17:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure Allmusic can be used to actually build a discography. Is this remixes record actually available to buy? "Private Party" and "Dip Down"/"Joy" are both on iTunes along with Best Kept Secret. If it actually has been released, then I have no problem with it being included. Actually I know discogs can't be used to source but I'm not sure about Allmusic. It probably can be. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic is a highly reliable source, much of Billboard's web content is "borrowed" from the site, for example. Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 19:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I must have been getting mixed up with a recent discussion about Discogs. So where can I buy this Remixes: The Platinum Edition? :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of unofficial albums/EPs

I have removed these as they go against Wikipedia's discography guidelines: Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style - see under "What should not be included" where it lists "unofficial releases of any kind". These releases were released without Leona and Sony's consent or co-operation. Had Leona willingly released them prior to signing with Sony, their inclusion on this article would have been justified.

In a similar situation, Christina Aguilera's Just Be Free (an unofficial album released after the success of her debut album) is not included on the Christina Aguilera discography page. Peter2012 (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my argument before but other people argued that they were official. See above, #Best Kept Secret. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Best Kept Secret is available to purchase, does not make it official. Similarly, Madonna made recordings before signing to Warner in 1982, and years later they were released without her consent to cash-in on her worldwide fame. These unofficial albums are not included on Madonna albums discography page. I have already mentioned the Christina Aguilera example. Leona is no different. Peter2012 (talk) 3:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up for good. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Charted Songs

Shouldn't there be a section for songs that have charted but not been released as a single? I think there used to be but now it's gone. Her cover of Stop Crying Your Heart Out charted at #29 without being officially released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.49.53 (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there shouldn't be (MOS:DISCOG). AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er yer i think there should be. Mariah does, Beyonce does, Rihanna does, even Alexandra Burke does! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because those articles include something, doesn't mean this one should. Anemone Projectors 16:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, but I might remind you that you said "Oh and "Other charted songs" are for songs that charted but weren't actual singles." in a reply on the "Singles table" section. Mixed messages here :-) Personally, I think it's interesting info for fans, and as they make up the majority of people who visit this article... Just a thought of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.49.36 (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a year ago, things change. Plus, I don't think I was endorsing an "Other charted songs" section. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site. Its articles do not exist for fans. Anemone Projectors 17:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things here being your own personal tastes? Fair enough :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.49.36 (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe :-) I suppose if everyone wants other charted songs, we can put it back. The songs are "Forgiveness" (46), "Whatever It Takes" (61), "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face" (73) and "Stop Crying Your Heart Out" (29). Anemone Projectors 22:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And "Misses Glass". So I caved, and added it myself! Anemone Projectors 22:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! :-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.49.36 (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you're so happy. Anemone Projectors 20:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think they should definitely be included, in a time when the word "single" doesn't really mean anything anymore. people download what they like and if they chart, sometimes highly, proves how popular they are. and some recently promoted FL's include them. Mister sparky (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please could someone change the certifications part int oa seperate table?Jagoperson (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should be in the same table. See MOS:DISCOG#Samples. anemoneprojectors talk 11:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know they are with the albums but not with the singles. Look at Rihanna discography Jagoperson (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are with both albums and singles, if you look again at the link I supplied. We are just following the MOS. anemoneprojectors talk 10:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the way the certifications are displayed in the Rihanna discography is quite good and am willing to change my mind on this. Does anyone else support this? anemoneprojectors talk 17:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! I agree with you and Jagoperson. I think that it is clearer to read it in the way it is displayed in Rihanna's discography. RihannaBase (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support.RihannaBase (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support.Jagoperson (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I fail to see how it improves the article in the slightest, surely the certifications should be listed with their respective releases and their chart positions? Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 14:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - it is much more tidy x 95.147.183.249 (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I'm in two minds. I do think it looks neater, but then again I think we should follow the Manual of Style. Also, I do agree with Dt128 that they should be listed with their respective releases and chart positions. It's a discography, not a... certificationography(?!) anemoneprojectors talk 20:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is for the benefit of others, and it is much clearer with the layout for Rihanna discography. Rihanna discography is a listed, semi protected page, so I am sure if there is something wrong with the layout, it would of been changed by now! More supporting than opposing. I think you should go for it x Jagoperson (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More supporting than opposing? Actually, I've been informed that RihannaBase, Jagoperson and 95.147.183.249 are all the same person running sockpuppet accounts. And anyway, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We're sticking to the MOS and that's that. anemoneprojectors talk 21:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people keep saying this?!!? I have one account but RihannaBase if my friend's account! He has a right to say what he thinks as wellJagoperson (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Inaspettata (Unexpected)"

Biagio Antonacci is currently in the top 10 in Italy with his current single, so when the next one is released, I'm sure it will be a hit there also (ignoring WP:CRYSTAL of course). Should we consider adding Italy as a column in the singles table? From what I can see, three of her songs have already charted there (BIT #4, BL #2, FM #9). Anemone Projectors 22:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it appear as as featured single? Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's Biagio Antonacci & Leona Lewis, not Biagio Antonacci featuring Leona Lewis. Featuring is if she's not the main artist, but in this case, they are both the main artist, like Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston on that song they did, for example. Anemone Projectors 01:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... i see. However now it looks like Leona's third album is called "Inspettata". Have we listed the song as its supposed to be according to the MoS for discographies? Also is it actually being released as a single? Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was her third album, it would be listed in the albums sections. But I am hoping we can have an article for the song as it will help to clarify the situation. It's not mentioned in the MOS. I'm trying (and failing) to think of someone else who has released a duet (not "featuring") that wasn't on their own album, but all Whitney Houston's duets are done this way, as are Mariah Carey's, as are Westlife's, Will Young's... But like I said, Featured singles is for where Leona isn't the lead artist. It's not a duet but if "I See You" had been a single, it would also be in the single's table, with the soundtrack listed as the album. Would people think the soundtrack is her third album? Anemone Projectors 12:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, it is being released as a single. They made a video for it last week. It's Italy only so harder to find a source, but once it charts then the chart could be the source, or another iTunes link if it's available there. Anemone Projectors 12:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can i suggest its removed until we have any credible source which is explicitly stating its release date?Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ok, move it back to other appearances for now, because I can't find a reliable source. Once it's released, it'll chart in Italy so we'll know. Anemone Projectors 22:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah for the time being. Im sure will the album going number one in Italy this week we'll hear of the song charting soon and i'm sure an article for the song will soon follow.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of his albums have articles on English Wikipedia, let alone his singles. His singles aren't even mentioned in his discography on Italian Wikipedia. His last single isn't that long out, is it? I guess we'll just have to keep an eye on the Italian charts. I wouldn't mind an article for the song so the Leona Lewis chronology in the infoboxes can link up but I think it would only be a couple of paragraphs long and not worthy of an article. Anemone Projectors 23:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The album only came out in april i think. i've done a quick scan of the web and not really anything about the single. an article might be too much to ask. I dont think we have a source for a release date yet either. We could pip the link in the infobox so it says "Inaspettata (Unexpected)" then at least the infoboxes are navigationable?Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could do that I guess, when the time comes. Should we remove the single for now from the "I Got You" infobox as well as from here? Anemone Projectors 00:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah perhaps that's best for the time-being. Then we could pip the link like suggested above.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd prefer to pipe it ;) Anemone Projectors 01:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.teamworld.it/news/3323/leona-lewis-duetto-con-biagio-antonacci-per-inaspettata.aspx of course it's in Italian --♫S manu! 14:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That confirms that a video has been filmed in London, so it's more reliable than Leona's twitter (where I got it from!). Not really confirmation that it's a single, or is it? Anemone Projectors 16:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The video has now premiered (and is on YouTube). I don't think this changes anything yet, though. Anemone Projectors 23:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Crying Your Heart Out

I have added 'Stop Crying Your Heart Out' to the discography, but I've also messed it up a bit. Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.19.38 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because it hasn't been released as a single. No third single from Echo has been announced. Album tracks that chart aren't listed because they're not individual releases. Anemone Projectors 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That contradicts what u said to me earlier because several other singers have a Other Charted Songs section which have not been released. 11:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)calvin999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs)

No, it's exactly the same as the reply I gave you yesterday. Just because other disocraphies include something doesn't mean this one should. They are still not individual releases. Anemone Projectors 18:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 million sales?

According to [ http://toyaz-world.net/?p=9051 ] Spirit has now sold 3 million copies in the UK. I don't know if you would class this as a reliable source? If you do however, wouldn't that also mean Spirit has a 10x platinum certification in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.49.36 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not a reliable source, it's a blog. And Spirit is only certified 10x platinum if the BPI website says so. Anemone Projectors 17:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Deluxe Edition & Tour DVD

I just read an article in the Mirror: [ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/07/25/bleeding-lovelorn-115875-22438338/ ] The main points are:

"This week she went into the studio with super producer Dallas Austin to start work on tracks for a deluxe edition of Echo to be released with her tour UK DVD before Christmas."

&

"Meanwhile Simon Cowell has laid down a deadline for her next album. I hear he wants her third studio album by next summer so she can sing live on US X Factor in the autumn"

Reliable? (I know the second part is mostly speculation but...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.49.36 (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for confirmation of release before adding anything to this article. Anemone Projectors 15:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the tour DVD/CD has been confirmed in Music Week. Does anyone know anything about it? Anemone Projectors 16:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently called Leona Lewis The Labyrinth Tour – Live at the O2 Anemone Projectors 16:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything concrete on music week but a good friend of mine has confirmed the tour dvd (he works at HMV) and has said they're expecting Echo - Tour Edition to be released alongside with the original CD + 2 new dallas austin-produced songs and a trimmed version of the tour DVD. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was given this link (http://cde.cerosmedia.com/1V4c8d92532a276012.cde/page/22) - can you access that? Anemone Projectors 16:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No but if you search http://www.musicweek.com/search_results.asp, it shows you a small preview of all of the latest articles etc. The link you've been given is to the subscription only content. It is unlikely to be true because it is on page 22 of the search results. The page in question is most likely the earlier reports in The Mirror about Lewis working with Austin on new tracks for the release. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I wasn't sure if you had a subscription. Well we'll just have to wait for a better confirmation. Anemone Projectors 17:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, i used to at one point but then the website went all spaz so i dumped it. But you can still work things out and search for snippets etc. and nothing has yet been confirmed. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a scan of the magazine [2] Anemone Projectors 17:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That can definately be added as a non-clickable link using {{cite journal}}. the article says it is due November 29, 2010 with 10 hits on CD and 90 minutes on concert DVD. (it looks like they're gonna drop a songs from the original one) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CD may be an audio-only version of the DVD. Anemone Projectors 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding Love US certification

You can see in the source that it is certified 4xPlatium in the US. I do not know why someone changed it to Platinum. —comment added by wik4tune

Replied here Talk:Bleeding Love#Bleeding Love US certification. Anemone Projectors 15:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singles

It says that Inaspettata has been released as a joint single in Leon'a singles charts section, but is there any point in having there if it doesn't show any chart positions? At least add Italy in so we can see it charted there, as it did.calvin999 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did it chart in Italy? I can't find any evidence. Three other singles appear to have charted in Italy though. We're supposed to limit to 10 charts but if "Inaspettata" charted in Italy I would hope we can make an exception. Anemone Projectors 17:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inaspettata should be put under other charted songs, i dont think it has been released as a single. --217.152.60.66 (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a single, but if it wasn't and it didn't chart then it's not "other charted songs", it's "other appearances". But it was a single. –Anemone Projectors– 12:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footprints position

I have a few questions about Footprints' position in the Singles table and wondered if someone could help. Why is it listed before Better in Time? Did it chart somewhere before Better in Time did? Also according to the Footprints article, it also charted as a double A side in German and the European chart, yet on this page it says it hasn't charted in Germany and the individual downloads position for Europe is given, shouldn't there be some consistency? Or is there maybe some other way it could be displayed to show the double A side positions, and individual downloads? It also looks a bit like Footprints is certified silver, but I do see it has been displayed as well as possible. I tried looking for another discography with a similar situation but can't find one. Sanders11 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to do a bunch of fixes myself:

I put Footprints below Better in Time since that seemed more logical
The certification for Better in Time in Germany doesn't mention Footprints so I'm presuming it wasn't a double A-side that charted there
I added the certifications for countries that are shown and took out the ones for countries that are not
I put the page into the format used by recent discographies which reached FL, so moved a few things about and changed a few widths here and there
I removed EU from the Singles section for two reason, that chart stopped running six months ago so future releases won't chart there, and it seems wrong to list a bunch of European countries and the European chart, it's almost like listing it twice. I replaced it with Switzerland, easily one of her most successful countries.
I tried to improve the references a bit, but still struggled to find references for the unreferenced parts

I will update the lead in the next few days most likely but just wanted to get this updated. Just let me know if I've done anything wrong! Sanders11 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Run as an "other appearance"

Even though it's the original live version, "Run" was still released as a single, so I'm not entirely sure this belongs there. Can someone check? I don't have time to check the guidelines myself, sorry. –Anemone Projectors– 14:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah to be honest I put it there but wasn't entirely sure whether to or not, a few other discographies had an equivalent Live Lounge appearance but I can't off the top of my head think which. I'm also not convinced Inaspettata is in the correct places but I couldn't find any sources at all about it so I'm not sure where that should go either. Sanders11 (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too don't think Run belongs here.. As it appears on her studio album. And I agree with you about Inaspettata too. Also, she co-wrote for someone, and that appears in "other appearances".. but I don't think that belongs there at all. I mean, people like Lady Gaga have wrote for loads of artists and that doesn't appear on her discog. :S MusicFan94 (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The song she wrote possibly belongs there, I think I read in the wikipedia discography guidelines that it was ok, or I saw it on someone else's, someone really famous like David Bowie (not sure exactly who it was). Inaspetatta probably doesn't belong there either as it was a single, but that's already not there. –Anemone Projectors– 14:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts

The article has switched back and forth a few times without much reason. Can we please discuss the issues here and decide on the best action rather than reverting one and other? Changing the proportions of the tables and similar aesthetic issues doesn't particularly bother me one way or the other, but I think the titles for the tables are excessively long in their current form. And I fail to see any factual errors that have changed between revisions so don't understand that reasoning, most of the changes have been to ref names which seems rather pointless to me. Sanders11 (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well me and anemoneprojectors have sort of discussed it now.. he said he'll sort it when he's back from his break or something.. but all these FL discogs have this same layout: Lady Gaga discography, Kesha discography, Kelly Rowland discography, Hilary Duff discography, Sugababes discography, Rihanna discography, Spice Girls discography, Pussycat Dolls discography... so i don't get what you mean about the tables being excessively long? :) and also, there were false certifications.. about 4. And lastly, I correctly sourced a lot of info. MusicFan94 (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, there were so many changes was hard to spot the change in certs. I would advise in future if you're going to make 100 edits in quick succession that you summarise your changes on the talk page so people don't get confused by all the changes and it makes it clearer what the differences are. By excessively long I mean the likes of "List of singles, with selected chart positions, showing year released and album name", the tables are fairly self explanatory and I personally don't think that is of any use to readers. That issue came up here which is why Rihanna's discography has shorter ones. Also you changed IRL to IRE, despite IRL being used on several of the discographies you have cited. I think making the "Title" column of the tables wider like it was would be better so that "The First Time" isn't split over two lines. Also in your changes to the references you have made them into two different styles of dates rather than keeping them consistent with the current refs, and you have changed some of the refs incorrectly, for example the BPI certification ref is meant to have instructions for searching the database as clicking the link doesn't take you directly to the certification being sourced, but you have removed them. Sanders11 (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry, I was just trying to tweek and update the article.. and considering most were small edits, i'm not going to summarise for every single one. But I will in future IF necessary. And I'm not sure, most discographies have the 'excessively long' titles.. although, i've always disagreed with them myself, personally. And to be honest, changing IRE to IRL is no big deal, it's 50/50, I don't know why I changed to IRE, I've just always found it more logicial.. lol. it's like, people write NLD or NL.. i prefer NLD, and same with NZ and NZL. And many discogs have the single repeated over two lines, or title of a song, personally, i don't think it matters at all. If you change it for just the "other charted", the article will look inconsistent and tacky. Furthermore, if you extend all of the titles, it will look ridiculous for some one worded songs like "happy". and ok, fair enough, sorry i removed that from the BPI source. Oh, and all edits i made, i had the date like 2011-01-02 (eg), i never took into account other refs, so sorry! Oh, and lastly, although this isn't really a problem, i don't understand when you do "<ref name=" you do quotation marks? MusicFan94 (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha it's okay, I wasn't meaning to sound critical, I was just wanting to know where you were coming from. Some of the changes are good, like making the peak positions appear in a row instead of seperate rows, that's really helpful. I agree most of the things it doesn't matter which they are which was why I wondered why they had changed :) I didn't think that Happy and the other short titles looked ridiculous before but I'm not going to change it back. And I have no idea why I do quotation marks actually, I think when I was learning how to do refs other people used them and I've just copied them and now do it by habit! Sanders11 (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to read all this but I did revert myself and will see what I can do at a later time when I get time. As for quotations in refs, this is standard, and usual, and when using the cite button on your toolbar, it puts quotation marks in. They're not needed but they're usual. Same as the difference between rowspan=2 and rowspan="2". The marks are usual. –Anemone Projectors– 15:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put Hurt?

At the moment Hurt and its chart positions are mentioned in three sections; EPs, singles and other charted songs. This is clearly not the best way to present this information so feel we should come to a consensus. I do not know the ins and outs of chart rules as to which it should be counted as, but the way I see it is the EP was ineligible to chart, Hurt charted due to it being promoted a couple of times rather than because it was a single. I suggest that Hurt: The EP should remain under EPs but without positions, it should be removed from singles and kept in other charted songs with the chart positions. Thoughts anyone? Sanders11 (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

chronology

Question but rather than splicing the discussion see Talk:Hurt:_The_EP#Chronology. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 in Germany??

Sorry to annoy some of you guys but Glassheart has never reached No. 1 in Germany! It was a few moments No. 1 on the itunescharts but not the official album charts! I think the wish was father to the thought here.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.10.192.24 (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official lyric videos

Should these be included? "Fireflies" has one. –Anemone Projectors– 13:45, 21 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Change of countries

Why have the countries used in the discography been changed with zero discussion? Those were amongst her most successful charts and have been replaced by minor charts including some she didn't even chart in, what's the point in that? Also I see no reason to delete the lead, by all means edit and improve it but what is the point of just deleting it when you have nothing to replace it with yet? Sanders11 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I agree. Well, the lead doesn't appear to have changed (oh, I see you restored it, good), but I don't think we need some of the charts - the UK R&B and Digital charts probably aren't needed, just the main UK chart. We've also lost Austria, Sweden and Switzerland, and gained France. This should have been discussed. France is probably fine, but we don't need the other UK charts. We can't list every chart on this page, so if someone thinks we're listing the wrong ones, it really should be discussed. –Anemone Projectors– 09:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a final table. I was thinking of removing France and replacing with Scotland. Also, Mariah's has US and US R&B, Nicki's has US, US Rap and US R&B, Whitney's is US and US R&B. Madonna only has US but I'm surprised US Dance isn't there. Usher has US and US R&B. There's nothing wrong with having several national charts. Echo topped three album charts in the UK, so I don't see the problem with showing it. Nicki Minaj's has three. — AARON • ^TALK 17:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding Scotland as well would make it worse. The discography page should show how an artist is performing around the world, what is the point of showing four British charts? Lets be honest noone cares about the UK Digital and R&B charts, the US component charts are far more notable. The ten charts should be the ten countries she has had most success, you've ditched the Austrian and Swiss charts which are among her most successful. If you lose those countries then you also have to remove their certifications which again reduces the valuable information on the page. There is also now a lack of consistency throughout the article, if you try and use the component charts on the singles table too it will look ridiculous since they didn't exist for most of her early singles. Compare how the page looked before and it shows how Spirit was her most successful album whereas now that's not so clear. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't justification, several of those lists you mentioned also contain more than ten columns and aren't FLs so doesn't back up your argument as far as I'm concerned. Sanders11 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that just because something is in one article doesn't mean it should be in another. Even if it's in 20 articles. Even if they're featured. And have to agree witih everything else Sanders11 just said. So what will the final table look like? I always find it better, if something's going to take a long time to update, to do it in my userspace and then copy it over when it's finished. Then the page won't be incomplete, or won't look complete when it's not. –Anemone Projectors– 21:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with having more than one UK chart. I've read and observed both your comments, although I find Sanders to be a bit rude and condescending. Note how neither have said how much better the Other charted songs table is now, which took ages to do. — AARON • ^TALK 22:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you now have two people who preferred it how it was so since you changed it from that I feel you should justify how it has improved the page. I apologise if I am coming across rude which is certainly not my intention, but surely you agree significantly changing the article like this would warrant some discussion? I think the Other charted songs looks fine, but it also took me ages to format the other tables in the article. Sanders11 (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other discographies have more than one national component chart, I really don't see the problem. Don't give me the whole other stuff exists thing, it's stupid and a cop-out answer which carries no weight. I completely redid the album chart positions as they wren't that great. I don't see how the table has changed so drastically, just a few countries are different. Not as if I have changed the format of the table. — AARON • ^TALK 19:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well really you're the one that is using other pages as your defence rather than showing how you have improved the information available for readers. I have listed several reasons of why I think it was better before with more information. Can you tell me why the previous album chart positions weren't that great? Sanders11 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is my reason, I think the country which the singer is from should have more than one album chart. I didn't say anything was wrong as such with the other countries, but it's best to only have 10. Your comment about it making Spirit look less successful doesn't really affect it too much. I could say that by removing UK Digital and R&B, it makes Echo look less successful. I don't mind removing Digital, but I'd like to keep UK R&B. — AARON • ^TALK 20:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But why should they have more than one UK chart, what does that add? Your point about making Echo look less successful is exactly my point, at the present it looks like Echo was more successful which isn't true, ie the current information is misleading. Why include a chart where her most successful album didn't chart? Also I think losing the certification is a big loss to the article. Switzerland and Austria are two of her most successful territories and I strongly believe they should be represented in the article. Is there any reason you chose to add France despite the relatively poor charting there? Sanders11 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even touched the certifications, so don't know what you're on about there. i just added another country in. France can go and be replaced by AUT or SWI. Like I said, it's not final. 22:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Discographies only show certifications for the countries whose charts are being used, if you remove a country then you have to remove its certifications. This is why I think you should have started a discussion before just changing them. Sanders11 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said it wasn't a final table. 19:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

So what else would you propose is changed about the table? Sanders11 (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the album table to its previous state. There has been no consensus for a change of countries and discussion stopped over a week ago. More than happy to continue discussing to see if we come to one though. In addition to this the table was referenced wrongly, with the individual chart week the album peaked in referenced, rather than a page stating that was the peak position of the album. A number of the peak positions were changed but I double checked all the references and they were correct before. As such I felt reverting the table was the best way forward. I did however change the column widths etc to match up to how you changed the EPs and video albums. Sanders11 (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was referenced wrong. All references were formatted fine. — AARON • ^TALK 13:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that it's better to have one page that lists all the peak positions (which exists, as is currently used) than a list of references for each individual peak. And I just think we should list the countries she has been most successful in, with just one chart per country. If people want to know what other charts a release charted in, they go to the main article, so I don't see any reason change the countries. "Because other articles do" is not a reason. However I do think it looks weird that "I Will Be" is in the albums reference (I know it's because it's the same reference for both albums and singles, but just looks weird to me). –Anemone Projectors– 15:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a reason. Pisses me off when people say that. — AARON • ^TALK 16:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a reason, just not a very good one. –Anemone Projectors– 16:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not very good to denounce it because it shows something which I was trying to incorporate. — AARON • ^TALK 16:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I suppose you're right. I just disagree with the charts you wanted to list. –Anemone Projectors– 17:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not faulting the formatting of the references, I was faulting the choice of references used, they need to state that it is the peak position and not that it charted at that position that week. Do you have any further reasons for why you want to use the UK R&B chart beyond other articles include it? Obviously the flaw with this argument is it can be countered by the fact that plenty of other articles don't use it. Sanders11 (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is using different component charts for the country that the singer is from, not the UK R&B chart specifically. — AARON • ^TALK 23:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GLASSHEART DIDN'T SOLD ONLY 27.000 COPIES, it sold 15.000 secondo week and 10.000 in the third... we know that the album has sold over 100.000 copies only in UK! edit tha page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.56.168.97 (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GLASSHEART sold over 100.000, edit now! Sinebot is right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.183.43.38 (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas With Love

I don't think Christmas With Love has been certified silver however much I'd like it to...its been in the charts 3 weeks and peaked at 13 so this is wrong.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazza1311 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was certified on Friday, you can check the reference yourself :) Album sales are much higher in the run up to Christmas. Sanders11 (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been certified Gold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.120.61 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Leona Lewis discography

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Leona Lewis discography's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BPI":

From Better in Time: "Certifified Awards Search". British Phonographic Industry. Archived from the original on 13 March 2012. Retrieved 30 August 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
From Take a Bow (Rihanna song): "Certified Awards Search". British Phonographic Industry. November 12, 2010. Retrieved October 16, 2011.
From List of music recording certifications: "The BPI". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 2013-11-19.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Leona Lewis 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2012/Radio-2-top-40-albums-since-1956.html
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6EEYfYVwc?url=http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130701062753/http://www.ifpi.at/?section=goldplatin to http://www.ifpi.at/?section=goldplatin
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213135743/http://www.ifpi.se/wp/wp-content/uploads/guld-platina-20082.pdf to http://www.ifpi.se/wp/wp-content/uploads/guld-platina-20082.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206222134/http://www.cria.ca/gold/0508_g.php to http://www.cria.ca/gold/0508_g.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160109195740/http://www.localuknews.co.uk/othernews/music/localnews/official%2Bcharts%2Banalysis%2Bjustin%2Bbieber%2Btakes%2Bsingles%2Bsummit%2Bbut%2Bmisses%2Bout%2Bon%2Balbums to http://www.localuknews.co.uk/othernews/music/localnews/official%2Bcharts%2Banalysis%2Bjustin%2Bbieber%2Btakes%2Bsingles%2Bsummit%2Bbut%2Bmisses%2Bout%2Bon%2Balbums
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623082234/http://www.cria.ca/gold/0110_g.php to http://www.cria.ca/gold/0110_g.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016091518/http://bmg.com/news/bmg-u-k-signs-leona-lewis-to-worldwide-publishing-deal to http://www.bmg.com/news/bmg-u-k-signs-leona-lewis-to-worldwide-publishing-deal
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6GuddxJwp?url=http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/22/2011-12-24/ to http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/22/2011-12-24/
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billboard.com%2F%23%2Fartist%2FRihanna%2Fchart-history%2F658897%3Ff%3D793%26g%3DSingles&date=2011-10-02 to http:///
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523150207/http://www.billboard.com/artist/306997/leona%2Blewis/chart to http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/leona-lewis/chart-history//
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifpi.at/?section=goldplatin
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cria.ca/goldplat.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radioscope.net.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77&Itemid=63
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=33999
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=34759
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billboard.com%2F%23%2Fartist%2FRihanna%2Fchart-history%2F658897%3Ff%3D793%26g%3DSingles&date=2011-10-02 to http:///

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) 02:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leona Lewis 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) 14:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Leona Lewis 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) 21:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]