Talk:Janet Jackson discography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Janet Jackson discography article.
Article policies
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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

This article is within the scope of the Janet Jackson WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Janet Jackson and associated groups or individuals. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Upon entering the Janet Jackson discography - I have noticed that someone drastically altered her chart positions and in spite left false information. I have tried to fix the discography to the best of my ability. I hope someone can help fix the tables back to their original state.

The album sales seem to be inflated. 69.249.114.154 22:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed a problem with the Hot 100 Singles chart for Janet Jackson. Scream was #1 single for Michael and Janet Jackson. It debuted at #1 and quickly faded from the chart. The second problem is that the single, If, peaked #2. I have looked at my old Billboard magazines and found that these two singles peaked at #1 and #2, respectively.

Don't know what Billboard youre looking at, but "Scream" debuted (and peaked) at #5 on Hot 100. This confirmed by back issues I have and also an archive search on billboard.biz. You have made these types of incorrect changes with other discogrphies too. Based on above comment I am going to run through this and double-check everything. -- eo 18:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Un-cited and unreliable sales information

The discography currently contains a lot of information that is un-sourced and needs verification (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). I've just finished tidying up the discography and I removed sales information relating to singles simply because its clear its wrong, and its un-cited. As for albums, I left the figures up there at the moment and placed a cite tag ([citation needed]) on them. The figures need to be verified or else they have to be removed. Fan sites and other personal websites are not generally seen as reliable (as fans always - without exception in my experience - inflate the figures). Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further assistance.

I will leave the album sales up until the end of April - that should give ample time for a reliable and verifiable source to be found. If not, I'll remove the sales information until a reliable source can be established. Rimmers 03:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed all the unsourced sales information as no one has been able to provide verifiable or reliable sources for the claims. Rimmers 12:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Rhythm Nation and Control did not sell the same!

  • WORLDWIDE, they did, but in the US, Rhythm Nation 1814 sold 1 million more.
  • I'm really sorry that I changed a few things that I knew were wrong, but although it's verry petty, my family were telling me that 20 Y.0, and So Excited werent doing good and that nobody cared or liked them, and because I hate to be wrong I purusely changed several things to make it looke like Janet was still on top, well the good is that they belived it and arent talking trash about Janet anymore, I'm realy sorry if I confused anyone. But I hate being wrong especially when its about Janet Jackson, hope you guys can forgive me, I was just defending my baby.

[edit] 'Weekend' is not the new single!!

Janet's official website has confirmed that the song is not the new single, nor will it feature on the new album. Its just a 'taster' of whats to come. The first single will be called "Call on Me". See www.janetjackson.comRimmers 19:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Sources

I have added new sources to this page. Here they are [1]

[edit] Former Discography

Alright, I think it's stupid to say that both Control and Rhythm Nation 1814 sold 14 million copies each. This is an idea of what the old discography looked like

Control - 14 million copies sold (5.2 million US) Control: The Remixes - 1.5 million copies sold Rhythm Nation 1814 - 19 million copies sold (6.4 million US) Janet. - 22 million copies sold (7.8 million US) Janet.Remixes - 1.5 million copies sold The Velvet Rope - 11.5 million copies sold (4.1 million US) All for You - 7.5 million copies sold (3.1 million US) Damita Jo - 3 million copies sold (1 million US)

[edit] Single Sales Info

What about her single sales. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.54.48.82 (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] With u

Huray Janet's single with U moved up 11 points in the R&B catagorey, yay.

[edit] Footnotes

I've removed the footnotes from the article because they are unsourced and non-verifiable. If someone can provide reliable sources (see WP:RS) then the information can be replaced - but as it it, it shouldn't be included in the discography. Rimmers 03:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes:

  • U.S. sales of the album janet. are based on 7.0 million Nielsen SoundScan sales, and 860,000 copies of the album sold through BMG Music Club as of 2002. The album is certified by the RIAA for sales of only 6 million, since BMG Music Club is not tracked by Nielsen SoundScan, sales of "janet." are much higher than they have been certified for.
  • U.S. Nielsen SoundScan sales of The Velvet Rope are 3.2 million copies, the album also sold 420,000 copies through the BMG Music Club.
  • U.S. sales of the album All For You are based on 3.1 million Nielsen SoundScan sales, and 100,000 copies of the album sold through BMG Music Club as of 2002. The album is certified by the RIAA for sales of only 2 million, since BMG Music Club is not tracked by Nielsen SoundScan, sales of "All For You" are much higher than they have been certified for.


Who ever put up those last notes do not put up so random shit. Craving Janet has gone and done the research and put up the links. The sales you put had no links to back it up thus they were removed by me. You made no sense and if you have something to say about the sales you should leave a note in the discussion page you fool. Unless you put links proving that Janet has sold what you think that put your links. craving Janet has done real accurate research do not just leave a link of ambiguous riaa links what crap leave the fucking page alone. It is accurate to the most it can be nobody really knows what she has sold, in fact nobody knows what any artist has really sold are you God. Leave the page these are accurate estimates.

signed Lisksosp

    • Swetheart, An ignorant fan site that made up figures based on SOME sales statistics they THOUGHT they read in SOME magazine is not a viable source. CravingJanet is filled with inaccurate and utterly wrong "facts."

[edit] Album covers

Why are the album covers not allowed on this article? What's the problem with taking the cover images featured on the main articles and linking them here? This article looks so BARREN without the album covers. 71.65.23.14 10:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The images are only usable under the fair-use criteria; use in articles like this doesn't meet those criteria, so including them is a copyright violation. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sales Figures

The site that these are linked to has made a major error in their sales data that causes the data to be over estimated. This site therefore is non credible, and there are others available that are. The issue is that they have mixed RIAA (shipped sales) with Soundscan and BMG Music Club (over the counter sales). Stating Music Club sales are not included in Soundscan sales, is a true statement, BUT Soundscan does not equal RIAA. RIAA = Soundscan + BMG [2]. So, Music Club sales have been counted twice. I suggest using [3] 60.234.242.196 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources for your claims about accuracy? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly as I have specified. Counting the same sales figures twice is certainly a non accurate way of obtaining sales figures 60.234.242.196 10:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a statement of what you say that they did; do you have a source for that statement? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no source to my statement. Thanks for pointing that out. Even though I have pointed out that the source used is making an error, I am assuming that you consider this original research. Bad data is better than a second reference that also constitutes being a verified source, and does not have the error? The more sources the better, and the more consensus the better too.60.234.242.196 10:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no way that I would ever trust a fansite that is associated with MJ. His fans hate on her 100%. And there are no sources to back up their "claims".

[edit] Sales Figures Fixed

I fixed Jackson's American and Worldwide sales figures, which were severely inflated by her army of fansites. CravingJanet is a Janet Jackson fansite that published inaccurate figures that are easily refuted by three databases of worldwide sales figures and certifications. I posted my sources that list Jackson's Worldwide sales at less than half of what her fansites falsely report. A&M and VIRGIN may have left Jackson's albums undercertified by 76%, but that doesn't constitute nearly doubling Jackson's Worldwide figures.

[edit] Sales Figures Still Inaccurate

After I corrected Jackson's sales figures, someone reverted them back to being wrong and grossly inflated. I'm not going to fight ignorant super-fans; keep the false figures if you want.

[edit] Neutrality

Although this entire discussion page has comments from multiple Users saying the sales data being used is not reliable, the actual article goes against the discussion. This is against wikipedia policy. Concensus is formed, and then the majority rule. Maggott2000 17:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is actually no reason for CravingJanet to not be used. The issues raised are non valid for the following: that it is not the website that is combining RIAA, Soundscan and BMG sales, it is editors to this article. It is not the website that has inflated figures, as 3 separate sources state the near same data, so this is the required consistancy. Referencing has been done to include this site. I will remove the neutrality tag. Maggott2000 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Discipline' section : unsourced single

Why is there a row for the song '2nite', when there is no official announcement of it being a single, much less a page for it? Someone please remove it. Reqluce (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flags as column headers

These need to be removed per WP:FLAGS as they are obviously being used as decoration. More importantly, the flags should not be here in place of wikilinked text showing what the numbers in the columns represent. - eo (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)