Talk:Wild (Katseye EP)

Justifying edits to reception

@Zirthes: In response to this edit summary:

• WP:NOTSTATS states: Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing. This is not a relevant policy, as sales figures being placed within a "commercial performance" section of an article inherently gives them context.

• you haven't explained or included a supporting citation on why the Hits figure is different to the Billboard one

  It's different because Hits is a different company that gets its data from a different source. Despite the common misconception among chart-watcher hobbyists online, Hits figures are not a "prediction" of Billboard figures. Although I'm not sure which particular data analyst Hits partners with nowadays, the mention that Billboard figures comes from Luminate, which you describe in this edit summary as trivial and unnecessary, is implicitly an explanation for why the figures are different.

• nor does its inclusion enhance understanding in any way.

  It's important that Wikipedia articles are balanced. While Luminate/Billboard are by far the most popular partnership for reporting sales figures in the American music industry, Hits magazine is a credible trade publication and not some fringe unreliable source. As the biggest competitor to Billboard in this aspect, its figures should be represented in articles where applicable.

• Per MOS:NUM "170 thousand" preferably needs to be worded as "170,000" as it is a number over 10.

  "170 thousand" is more in line with the standard "X million" and makes it clearer to readers that it is an estimate rather than an exact figure.

~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Your reasoning for including the statistics from Hits is based on original research that you have conducted which in itself goes against the WP:NOR policy. You have failed to explain in the prose why the Hits figure is different from the Billboard figure, which will lead to confusion among readers. The Billboard figure takes precedent over the Hits figure because Billboard is the main and most prevalent sales chart provider in the United States for music, Hits is not and nor is there any mention of the Hits Top 50 chart in the charts section of the article. This is quite self-explanatory..

The argument of giving weight to various sources is valid when it comes to general coverage of a topic, however we are discussing concrete figures here which are not up for interpretation. Like I said, Billboard is the leading sales chart provider in the United States so it takes precedent over the Hits figure. Moreover it goes on the directly state in the prose that the album debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, without mentioning if it charted on a Hits chart. This will also confuse readers because it is not clear if Hits is separate from Billboard and there is no context given as to what Luminate is, or what Hits is. Billboard is widely known as a music charts compiler.

Your final argument is purely personal bias and you haven't supported that referencing any relevant editing policy. I explained that numbers over 10 are typically worded as "170,000" rather than 170 thousand and it has nothing to do with estimates. This is typical protocol among thousands of articles across Wikipedia. I would encourage you to read up on MOS:NUM.

Due to previous issues with the TA, I would appreciate another editor to give their opinion on this, as I doubt my response will be taken into consideration. Zirthes (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Zirthes

Your reasoning for including the statistics from Hits is based on original research that you have conducted which in itself goes against the WP:NOR policy.

Just so I know I'm not misinterpreting you, you're claiming not that I put original research into the article, but that I am violating WP:NOR in a talk page discussion by stating that Hits are credible?

You have failed to explain in the prose why the Hits figure is different from the Billboard figure, which will lead to confusion among readers.

I mean, it's different because it's a different company. It doesn't partner with Luminate like Billboard does. It gets its data from a different data company. I don't see how or why that would be explain in the article itself. Could you please give me an example of what you think such an explanation should look like?

The Billboard figure takes prescedent over the Hits figure because Billboard is the main and most prevalent sales chart provider in the United States for music, Hits is not

This is absolutely correct. Billboard is the number one source for US charts/sales figures by far. I believe that my edit showed this precedence by discussing Billboard first and in more depth.

Moreover it goes on the directly state in the prose that the album debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, without mentioning if it charted on a Hits chart. This will also confuse readers because it is not clear if Hits is separate from Billboard and there is no context given as to what Luminate is, or what Hits is.

I mean, there's no explanation of what Billboard is either. I suppose mention of the Hits chart could be added though.

Your final argument is purely personal bias and you haven't supported that referencing any relevant editing policy. I explained that numbers over 10 are typically worded as "170,000" rather than 170 thousand

I don't feel that this is a fair assessment of my comment. You may disagree with my reasoning, but I gave a reasoning related to Wikipedia's readers, not "personal bias". Numbers typically are written how you say, yes, but when we're also using terms like "X million streams", I think it's good to make it consistent, plus the other justification I've already given. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The main issue is that you can't do things just because you think it should be done that way. When we edit on Wikipedia we are guided by editing policies and recommendations that are widely accepted and adopted by most editors. You saying that you "think" something is not enough to warrant why it should be done. You can seek consensus on something that you believe is better, but when you do that it needs to be supported by other editors. The deviations from standard editing practices that you have shown just in this article are not supported by consensus or by Wikipedia editing policy. I would strongly encourage you to read Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia.

The fact you haven't included an explanation or cited a reliable source for Hits or Billboard's methodology in calculating its figures, but have included their figures anyway because of what you know about their methodology could border on WP:NOR. When you are editing you need to think about how a reader who might have limited knowledge on the topic will interpret the information. WP:AUDIENCE outlines this very clearly. You need to at least say something like "According to sales figures published by Hits magazine.." as you would when you are paraphrasing a critic review, for example "Rhian Daly of NME.."

But more to the point, you shouldn't even be including Hits when we have the main authoritative sales figure readily available from Billboard. You don't seem to be considering the reader here, you are just basing this of your own personal bias based on what you know about the differences between Hits and Billboard, without thinking if its relevant to include two different sales figures or how this will improve readability. Any other editor would say the same thing because regardless of any policy, its honestly just common sense. Zirthes (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The fact you haven't included an explanation or cited a reliable source for Hits or Billboard's methodology in calculating its figures, but have included their figures anyway because of what you know about their methodology could border on WP:NOR.

No, including sales figures from two prominent and credible music industry magazines and sourcing them with articles on those magazines' websites could not, under any circumstance, border on material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable source has ever been published, which is what "original research" means on Wikipedia.

Are you now claiming that Billboard figures shouldn't be included either? Why didn't you remove them with your edit?

You need to at least say something like "According to sales figures published by Hits magazine.." as you would when you are paraphrasing a critic review, for example "Rhian Daly of NME.."

My prose is According to data reported by Hits, and you're saying it needs to be more like According to sales figures published by Hits magazine. I don't see how adding the word "magazine" is essential to readers' understanding. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you about this because evidently its pointless. I have started a discussion at which will offer the input from other editors on the issue. Continue the discussion there if you have anything else to say. Zirthes (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Mentions of charts and sales figures should stick to those included in the "Recommended charts" list at Wikipedia:Record charts. RachelTensions (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the page you've linked is only about charts and certifications. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)