Talk:Elvis Presley singles discography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge[edit]

I really don't see the point of keeping this article and the hit singles page separate. Hell, even the Elvis Presley international hit singles page seems unnecessary.

I propose we merge all three pages, or at least this and the hit singles page. There are virtually no other artists who have separate pages for their singles in their home country and their singles abroad. In my opinion, all it does is create confusion and American centrism. I understand that the list of hit singles may be for the purpose of highlighting his commercial successes given that the singer has released hundreds of singles, but we should take into consideration if it is a worthwhile to Wikipedia. Mauri96 (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that when I split the discography. I am sure this article is the one to keep and the other articles can be handled by adding extra columns to this article. You could try colour coding the table. For inspiration, try looking at the tables in David Coulthard as an example. Op47 (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki mess[edit]

When split this article the interwiki were not changed. In spanish, "Anexo:Discografía de Elvis Presley" include both, singles and albums, but interwiki just link to this article. I fixed it but now a bot restore the wrong interwiki. Can someone please fix this mess? Thanks. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Chart Ranks[edit]

I have noticed that some of the US Pop rankings aren't coming from the chart with the song achieved its peak position. In the case of "I Want You, I Need You, I Love", it's a #3 hit on the Top 100 and #1 on the Best Sellers list yet the former peak is listed. In contrast, "I Was The One" went to #23 on the Top 100 and #19 on the Disc Jockeys list ... and this time the Top 100 rank isn't used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfSpear (talk • contribs) 06:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications[edit]

I edited the sentence "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) first began tracking sales of Elvis Presley in 1958, who didn't receive his first Gold Album award until 1958" because (1) the RIAA began tracking sales of anybody in 1958, when the gold single and album awards were established; (2) consequently, saying that Elvis "didn't receive" an award "until 1958" is misleading, because nobody received any gold album awards from the RIAA until then; and (3) Elvis didn't receive a gold album award in 1958 anyway, but he did receive a gold single that year (his first gold album came in 1960). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

flip[edit]

I've noticed in the singles chart the word flip is used. What does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.80.110.225 (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means that it didn't chart itself on that particular chart, but it was the flip side of a song that did. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case the information should be removed. It's not typical for a discography to list the B sides of singles as if they were releases in their own right, and that is not what the sub-heading suggests the section is for. M.T.S.W.A. (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I am re-opening this discussion. There are currently three articles documenting Elvis Presley's singles and much of this is overkill and/or redundant: Elvis Presley singles discography currently lists U.S. infomation only. List of Elvis Presley hit singles also has a U.S.-centric view, as well as many formatting problems, particularly the inclusion of "weeks at number one" numbers that clutter up the tables and aren't used in any other discography pages. The List of Elvis Presley international hit singles also has the same formatting errors, not to mention the separation as all non-U.S. countries grouped together as "international". What was the reasoning behind this info being separated into so many articles? I'm suggesting that this all be merged together to adhere to uniformity of other artist discographies. - eo (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

–As a user from the UK who just tried to find some singles information for Elvis and found this horrendously difficult due to all the various pages, I AGREE, please merge them.—ASM 14th October 2015

"Singles only"[edit]

I spotted a number of errors where a single was noted as being "single only" in the Album field. For example, Joshua Fit the Battle and His Hand in Mine were not "singles only" but were taken from the (albeit several-year-old) His Hand in Mine album. Easy Question was released as a single several years after appearing on an album. These need to be policed and corrected. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release dates[edit]

I'm browsing the Elvis songs and checking release dates, chart #'s, etc. I noticed that one song says it was released in December of '55, yet it charted #5 in July '55. How can that be? It charted before it was even released?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirley449 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Elvis Presley singles 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elvis Presley singles 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page re-formatting/re-organization[edit]

This has been a couple of months in the making, but I have finally reorganized this page to make it easier to read and match the formatting to the way a singles discography should be per wiki standards. I have also replaced all the dead source links with working links.

I hope this makes it much easier for everyone to browse for singles information! Benjichilders (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page looks confusing with the b-sides being attached to it. I was wondering if you can also include the b-sides into the a-sides. Why split them up? It looks confusing because I can't figure out what is the next single that came after Heartbreak Hotel for example. Which it was I was the one which the song charted. Don't make a separate section for b-sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan1518 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue you're having with the page comes from a lack of understanding on how singles are released. The A-side ("Heartbreak Hotel" for example) is the single, the plug, the intended promotional track being sent to radio. The B-side (in this case, "I Was the One") is just an additional song, the flip. Due to Elvis' overwhelming popularity almost all of his B-sides charted, but that does not make them singles. You made a comment about not knowing what single came next, the next single was "I Want You, I Need You, I Love You". That's why the page is laid out that way, so the next single is easily identifiable. Another issue you mentioned having with the page was not knowing how many No. 1 singles Elvis had in a year, all 18 of his No. 1 songs on the US Billboard Hot 100 were A-sides, with the exception of the double A-side "Hound Dog" / "Don't Be Cruel". All 18 are present in the singles section. As for other artists not having a charted B-side section, if they don't have that section on their singles discography pages that's because they haven't had any B-sides chart. The few times an artist has had a B-side chart they do have that section on their pages, for examples see George Strait singles discography, Alabama discography, Dolly Parton singles discography and Porter Wagoner and Dolly Parton discography. For further information on A-sides and B-sides see A-side and B-side. I hope this makes the page make more sense to you! Benjichilders (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way we can look into adding Cashbox and/or their country and R&B charts (and in the 2000s, the BB Sales chart) because pre-75-ish, Cashbox was just as as important and popular as Billboard was. Also, I understand how the new A-side/B-side system works, but it’s time consuming if it is a “flip” to scroll up all the way to the 70’s or something to find out the A-side peak. If we can’t combine those maybe we can include the non-charting B-sides with the charting A-sides like in the previous version of this page. With all these suggestions, I do have to say that I love this new update with all the charts combined; it looks great! EPBeatles (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2019

Listing the number of number 1 singles[edit]

This post states that Elvis Presley had 33 number 1 singles, but that is deceiving and maybe that section should be removed. In the United States, Elvis Presley had 17 number 1 hits on the Billboard Hot 100 and the Beatles had 20 number 1 hits on that metric. In the United Kingdom, Elvis Presley had 21 number 1 hits on the Record Retailer (now Music Week), but this is debatable as three of these hits were re-issues of songs that were already number 1 hits decades earlier. The Beatles had 17 number 1 hits on that metric. The number 33 in this post combines both metrics, plus US Cashbox and UK New Musical Express, which are not official. Dkf12 (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Record World / Music Vendor Charts[edit]

Is there any objection to adding the US chart information for Record World / Music Vendor? I think it would add some good information. For example, some of Elvis' early singles made the Music Vendor country chart while they did not make the Billboard or Cash Box chart, because Music Vendor was a top 50 chart while the others were only a top 15 chart. (MHS1976 (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I have started adding Music Vendor / Record World chart information one section at a time.MHS1976 (talk)

Previous singles discography was much better.[edit]

The merge has caused many issues, and solved none. The order of charting songs in the U.S. is extremely hard to follow now. "American centrism" was used as a reason for the merge, but Elvis was American, so it would make the most since to have a U.S. centric discography and however many other pages were needed or desired for other countries. No one country should have to settle for being lumped together as 'International".

Dates of release, B-sides, and at times even the version of the song differed country to country, none of this is easily conveyed in the current article.

The old article listing A-side/B-side also nicely dealt with the charting songs from Extended Plays. The excuse that "other singers discographies are not organized that way" is ridiculous, as the number of charting songs for Elvis that were not A-sides is extremely substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clinclink (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The current organization makes it difficult to follow the flow of his career and not sure why there is an "Other Charted Songs" section? Why aren't those integrated into the other singles sections? Or why not just create an EP section if you do not want to include EP songs that charted in the singles sections? MHS1976 (talk)

Reduction of US Chart Columns ?[edit]

Is there any objection to reducing the number of US Chart columns to the major categories - Pop/Hot100, AC, C&W, R&B, instead of having separate columns for each chart publisher? I propose making Billboard the default for US charts, but if a song did not appear on Billboard, but did on Cash Box or Record World/Music Vendor, that chart information would be listed with a note that it was Cash Box or Music Vendor. An overall note would be added stating that US charts were from Billboard unless otherwise noted. An example is "That's All Right" which did not make the Billboard Country Chart but did reach 28 on the Music Vendor Country chart, because at the time Billboard only published a top 15 chart while Music Vendor had a top 50 chart. That could be listed with a note that it was from Music Vendor. If there was a significant showing on another chart that could be noted as well. For example, "Burning Love" peaked at number 2 on the Billboard Chart but reached number 1 on the Cash Box chart. The Billboard number 2 would be listed in the column with a note that said it reached number 1 on Cash Box. I think reducing the columns in this way would make the table less cluttered and more readable, but still provide significant information. What are your thoughts? (MHS1976 (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Since no objections have been expressed, I will begin reducing the US chart columns in the next week or two. MHS1976 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I began reducing/consolidating the US chart columns, adding notes providing additional chart information. It is a lot of notes since so many different US charts were published in the 1950s. Do I need to eliminate some of the notes? Just mention significant chart info - like reaching number 1 on Cashbox and/or Music Vendor and when a song failed to chart on Billboard but did on Cashbox and/or Music Vendor. Feedback welcomed! (MHS1976 (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Other certifications[edit]

There is a section about RIAA certifications. Does anyone feel like there might be a need to extend that to other certifications? Many Elvis songs were certified in the UK. --Muhandes (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australia[edit]

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Should we remove the AUS column as a "bad/"fake"/retrospective chart? --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WK1980: I think Australia can be safely removed cause it's a fake (retrospective) chart and it doesn't have historical value. After it is removed, there will remain 10 columns and no one will complain. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me WK1980 (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist on removing. I'm just saying that if we have to choose a column to remove, it should be Australia. Cause David Kent's Australian charts prior to 1974 are retrospective and don't have any historical value. (I think I've seen Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars removing Australia from some pages "just like that", but he didn't reply and didn't do anything, so maybe it wasn't him.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other Charted Songs Section[edit]

Is there any objection to integrating the Other Charted Songs section into the main tables? They appear to be songs that were released on EPs but charted on the singles charts. I think it would make more sense to just list them in the same tables as the other songs, and note that they were released on EPs in the US. WK1980 — Preceding undated comment added 01:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem with including them in the singles tables is that they weren't released as singles so this would be inaccurate. Plus the formatting wouldn't be particularly clean (i.e. no B-side). However, I do think that including a footnote about inclusion on EPs is a good idea. DPUH (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Cashbox and Music Vendor/Record World sections[edit]

In late 2021, the US Billboard, Cashbox, and Music Vendor/Record World sections were combined in this article in order to attempt to simplify it. I think it creates more problems since it adds a ton of footnotes. On top of that, Cashbox was just as important as Billboard until the early-to-mid 1970's or so, and Record World/Music Vendor was important in the 1950's until the early 1960's or so. The UK is the only other country that I can think of with multiple "main" charts, but those have reduced over time, and the UK has created one "official" chart combining the three charts into one (possibly negating the need for three UK charts here as well as the three US ones). EPBeatles (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Double-A-sided single[edit]

@WK1980: Concerning this edit. That doesn't look correct cause it was usual at the time for singles to contain 2 strong sides. It is just that the side that became a bigger hit is now retrospectively considered the A-side.
Actually, maybe the original note was correct and "Don't Be Cruel" was originally intended as the A-side. You'll have to find the Billboard "Spotlight" review if there was one and see which side was listed first. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To quote music historian Joel Whitburn, "As far as the two-sided Presley hit 'Hound Dog" / "Don't Be Cruel,' I've always tabulated that single 45 as two #1 hits. 'Hound Dog' was the first title to chart and the first one to be listed as the lead #1 song. Billboard's 'Best Sellers in Stores' chart listed the #1 song on 8/18/56 as 'Hound Dog/Don't Be Cruel.' It was also shown that way when it first topped the 'Most Played in Juke Boxes' chart on 9/1/56. There is absolutely no doubt that the initial sales and 'buzz' about this record was for 'Hound Dog.' It was a smash #1 hit right out of the box. As airplay began to favor 'Don't Be Cruel,' the two titles were flip-flopped at #1, with 'Don't Be Cruel' actually showing more weeks as the #1 lead song. Again, I have always tabulated these two titles as two #1 songs. There is no way you can consider this 4-times platinum record as one #1 hit. And, neither does RIAA who awards gold and platinum selling records. They show 'Hound Dog' / 'Don't Be Cruel' as both receiving platinum designations." Hound Dog by Elvis Presley - Songfacts
Hound Dog was the original A-Side, it was listed as such on the Billboard singles sales chart and was the charted on the Billboard Top 100 before Don't Be Cruel. After a few weeks, Don't Be Cruel began receiving more air play and leap frogged Hound Dog on the Top 100, then Don't Be Cruel was listed as the A-Side on the sale chart. WK1980 (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elvis_Presley_singles_discography&oldid=1207103942"