Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ciara discography/archive2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:29, 28 October 2010 [1].

Ciara discography

Ciara discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Candyo32 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In transforming the discog from this to this, I now believe that the article satisfies the discography MoS, and is up to par with other FL's. Everything is understandable and comprehensive, doing justice to the representation of Ciara, as well as removing unnecessary fancruft and other unneeded information. Additionally I have cleared up all errors with the discography from the previous nomination. Candyo32 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support
-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me (UTC)
Comments:
While the certs thing makes since, but are the other changes required as per new wiki rules? I see they were not recommended to be implemented for current nominations Lady Gaga discography, Kesha discography. Candyo32 22:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well they were required when i did Rowland's fear not. If they are not done now they will have to be done later when WP:DISCOGSTYLE is updated. =) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 04:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
side issue... if you look at Basic Instinct (album) there is now a detailed release history (from reliable sources) so the album's table here needs updating. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 04:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made per Basic Instinct article. Candyo32 00:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I know it seems optimistic (highly) but several music stores are listing a US release for October 5 (including sony music) which supports the international music stores reporting the earlier dates as this is often the case. The situation will need to be monitored to see if the date stands or not. I will look at the rest of the discog for you. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware... but some of the changes like removing small formating can be done as it is being encouraged accross wikipedia. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose
  • Something that just struck me, you have sales and certifications the wrong way round in the Studio albums section.
  • Compilation and Extended play tables - would be good to see the columns the same width from table to table.
done
Done
  • Single Gimmie Dat appears not to have charted anywhere, where is its existence referenced?
Done
  • As featured artist table - check the spaces after the colons are consistent with the rest of the list.
Done
  • "(and Deluxe and Japanese editions)" what does that mean?
Some songs that charted were only from the Deluxe and Japanese edition of Fantasy Ride.
  • Ref 46, no-no to ALL CAPITALS (per MOS).
Done
  • Same for ref 61.
done
  • Ref 61 has a spare ].
Done.
  • Refs 62 and 63 are incomplete.
Done.
  • Ref 11 (as a sample) has a publication date (2009-04-30) missing. Suggest you check all other references to stop reviewers from having to do same.
Done. Candyo32 13:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 01:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose
Resolved comments from Courcelles 19:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:"which included the title track, "1, 2 Step" with rapper Missy Elliot, and "Oh" with rapper Ludacris. " Why link Missy Elliot, and not Ludacris, whatever or whoever that is? If t doesn't have an article, is it even worth mentioning?
I forgot to link Ludacris. Even if Ludacris weren't mentioned, a number one hit in several countries shouldn't be mentioned in a discog?
"The titular track remained atop the Billboard Hot 100 for over a month.[5] " The source given verifies that it reached number one, not how long it stayed there.
Added Billboard source, the only verifiable source for how many weeks. I know you're going to have a problem with it so I'll tell you beforehand to use the visualizer gadget.
"Two years later in 2006, Ciara returned with her sophomore effort, Ciara: The Evolution, which saw her remain consistent to her urban roots, and R&B and hip-hop driven dance while experimenting with old school songs combined with huge pop hooks." Your source doesn't back this up, at all. This is dangerously close to original research without better sourcing.
Fine, removing.
"and charting in the top thirty of most international markets" Really? Of the ones you give in the table, it is 5 to 4 in being at or over #30. And there are many more markets than the ones given in the table. Needs a source, or it is definitely POV.
Will change most to "several" then.
"Ciara's fourth studio album, Basic Instinct, set for a October 29, 2010, release, will see the singer returning to her urban roots.[13] " Not in citation given.
Added source
"It album is preceded by the lead single" It album?
Fixed to "the"
No charts for the guest appearances?
Um, Well the are "apperances" on album tracks not singles, that's why they dont chart...:Same for ref 57
Same as 64, these are sites that report on video booking.
I can figure out what they do. That wasn't the question. Why are they a reliable source? Entirely different question. Courcelles 03:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giving a new source since it seems to be such a big deal. Candyo32 18:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Candyo32 23:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes ref 64 a reliable source?
Well its used in the FA Kesha discography without a problem, so I assume it was used.
That's not an argument. Not every FAC/FLC catches/questions the things it ought to have. Courcelles 03:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the detailed FLC it went through, I'm sure it was brought up. It'll have do now because it is the most reputable source other than blogs.
Then you're saying you can't defend it as reliable? Oppose stands. Unreliable sources, promotional language, POV problems. Courcelles 19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will this help with the reliability issue? articles about the magazine from The Daily News [2], and The New York Times [3]. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I should have linked to the version I was using ref numbers from. I was questioning video static, now ref 65, not Rap up. Courcelles 18:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status on these sourcing concerns? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can all other reviewers comment on the sourcing issues? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just use [4] instead of Video Static? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! I forgot the video was just released. Candyo32 03:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The album's fourth single, "And I" achieved little chart success in the United States." 27th rank is "little" success? This is too POV-ish for my taste. Later on, something that never got over 30 is a "moderate success"
I assume your not familiar with the music industry. 96th on the Hot 100 its not successful. The 27 was on a COMPONENT CHART. I never had any complaints like this in the first review, so I believe you may be going a little overboard with the POV.
Read WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYN. Is there a source saying this is little success, or are you saying it? If you can source it, fine. If you can't, it's two of those three.
This is crazy. I need a source to say a song received little chart success when it was 96 on the Hot 100?
Yes, you do. Being one of the 100 most popular songs sounds successful, you are saying it is not. So is it sourceable, or is it original research? Courcelles 19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been reworded. Can you please revisit this, Courcelles? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
""—" denotes a title that did not chart, or was not released in that territory." I'll pass along the information that New Zealand has been demoted to a "territory".
Well it used in Kesha discography, Lady Gaga discography, Rihanna discography, and every other FA discography on Wikipedia, so pass that information along too.
Gah. A bad phrasing doesn't become good phrasing just because it is multiplied by four. Courcelles 03:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since FL's are "believe to be the best lists in Wikipedia," its not changing. Seems like if it were a big problem, someone would have been let know in every single other FL candidacy that uses the same phrase.
Nominator is uncooperative. Stare decisis doesn't govern Wikipedia. Courcelles 19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Courcelles here. Why not simply use: '"—" denotes albums/singles which did not chart in that country.' (or something similar? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been changed. Candyo32 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"However it spawned the highly successful worldwide top ten hit," Again with POV problems
How is it POV, again? I'll remove highly, but it was successful and worldwide, indicates it had worldwide success rather than US only or international.
Okay, POV might have been the wrong thing... actually, no, it is right, but WP:PEACOCK is more directly related. You seem to be making lots of analysis of the numbers without using sources to back up your analysis. Courcelles 03:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers are sourced in the charts below. Per WP:LEAD citations should not appear again. Candyo32 18:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When info is likely to be challenged, you absolutely do repeat citations. I'm challenging this as POV. Courcelles 19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "However it spawned the international top ten single,"? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been changed also. Candyo32 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
""Work" had moderate success in few international markets." What does it take to not sound promotional? Charted in four countries, none over #30? Source for the "moderate success"
Again, how POV? Wasn't a big chart topper, therefore "moderate."
You're providing analysis. That is not allowed. This article is written almost entirely non-neutrally and promotionally.
Something like ""Work" appeared on a few international charts."? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't been changed, considering your suggestion, appearing on a few international charts means the song could have topped the chart, or appeared at so and so position, while moderately denotes it charted moderately. Candyo32 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Lil-unique's comments below mine, I still think that the POV is fine and OR is not in action. I have made some corrections but per other FLs, terms such as "moderate" and indicated highly successful and less than successful singles and or albums is acceptable. Candyo32 20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV problems are better now. I wouldn't hold this article out as a paradigm of NPOV, but so very few actually are. Courcelles 01:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who supported the article in its previous nomination I question Courcelles, are you not being too harsh here? I've looked through and I don't support claims that this article is written POV/Promotionally. Lots of GA and FL articles use words like smash for number-ones, hit for top-tens, moderately/reasonable for top-twenty/thirty etc. For example you appear to be harsh with the terminology of "not released in that territory" yet it is acceptable in other FLs. At the end of the day countries are territories. reference 64 is Rap-Up.com is the website of a known and recognisable published magazine about R&B/Hip Hop music not a blog as asserted by Courcelles. To assert that it is not notable without an reasonable opposing argument is verging on questionable. Whilst I respect Courcelles opinions it feels like they are too picky and based on personal preference rather than genuine hinderances to FL status. I'm not trying to fall out with you Courcelles but I would ask you to look at the discography again and consider whether those 'issues' above are actually issues. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I haven't gotten to closely inspecting the article, I would like to support Uniques statement. Rap-Up is a reliable and industry related source. It is used for many things, from release dates, sales and news. It is reliable and useable for FA,FL or any such article.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 09:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from –Chase (talk)
*Comments:
    • Debuting in 2004, with her album, Goodies, the singer was hailed with the honorific title, "The Princess or First Lady of Crunk&B," the comma after 2004 is not needed, neither is the one after album.
Done.
    • If you're going to mention that "1, 2 Step" was with Missy Elliott and "Oh" was with Ludacris, why not mention that "Goodies" was with Petey Pablo?
Done. Can't believe I hadn't noticed that
    • "Lose Control", with Missy Elliot drop the comma.
Done.
    • Ciara: The Evolution should be referred to as her second effort, not her sophomore - the term sophomore for albums is not widely recognized outside of the US.
Done.
    • debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, and charting in the top thirty charting → charted
Done.
    • reaching Platinum status in the US,[6] and selling drop the comma, again.
Done
    • a US top twenty a US top twenty hit?
Done
    • Whilst is primarily used in British English and not widely recognized in American English. Since this is about the discography of an American singer, I'd change it to while.
Done
    • Having "to be released" covering all of the peak chart position columns implies that the album will chart in those territories when released (WP:CRYSTAL). Just put a "—" in all of the columns - the note at the bottom of the table even says that that represents albums that were not released.
But wouldn't "-" give the impression that the album was released and had not charted yet as it indicates "not release" instead of "pending release." ?
    • Per WP:MOS: "if the abbreviated form for the United States appears alongside other abbreviated country names, avoid periods throughout". U.S., U.S. R&B, and U.S. Dance in the singles table should be US, US R&B, and US Dance.
Done
I know this is WP:OTHERSTUFF but since FL's are recognized as the best by the Wikipedia community, FL's Taylor Swift discography, Kelly Rowland discography, Sugababes discography, M.I.A. discography, Rihanna discography, Tokio Hotel discography, Maroon 5 discography, etc. all include them.
I still think that songs that weren't released serve no purpose in a discography and I stand by that point. The only reason I could see for including them is to flatter an artist by highlighting their "popularity".

–Chase (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why emphasis is put only single releases, when Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a discography as "a descriptive list of recordings by category, composer, performer, or date of release" and "the history of recorded music." More importantly, the majority of users have voiced their opinon to keep them in discographies. Candyo32 00:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On wiki, our focus on discographies is releases. Which is why whole track listings are not included, as they are not relevant. Honestly, I see no valid points in the discussion you are pointing me to. All I see are inclusionist essays that have no real reason as to why "other charted songs" are relevant in discography articles and comments that including such a section "shows an artists popularity". Thus I have begun a new discussion regarding the matter. I firmly maintain my point.

–Chase (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused of you bringing it up again considering the overwhelming voice of support for keeping them the first time. Candyo32 01:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the music videos section, for videos where Ciara is the lead artist, drop Ciara from Ciara featuring... it is implied that she is the main artist unless stated otherwise.
Done
    • Refs: Pitchfork Media, MTV News, BPI, CRIA, Static Multimedia (I think, anyway), Allmusic, German Albums Chart, Oricon, iTunes, German Singles Chart, RIAA, CDUniverse (I think), CMT, and AfterEllen (this actually brings me to my next point...) are not print works and thus should not be italicized.
Done, besides Oricon, which is print.
    • What makes AfterEllen a reliable source? In fact, this article looks to be user-submitted, a big no-no as a WP:RS.
Replaced with better source. Candyo32 20:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fix these issues and I'll support. –Chase (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. My issues have been clarified. Consensus at the discography wikiproject shows that other charted songs and other appearances are acceptable. However, they shouldn't be a level-3 header under the main singles section, and this still should be addressed. –Chase (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with a level 3 header for other charted songs. Candyo32 13:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually forgot to address the "to be released" issue but no, I don't think it would give off the impression, especially since the album details should explain that it has yet to see a release. "To be released" covering the peaks implies that it will chart which is a major no-no per WP:CRYSTAL. –Chase (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good, just a couple of minor issues in the lead;
  • "...and the second single, "Promise" was a US R&B chart topper." - maybe a comma after the title?
  • Second sentence in fourth paragraph: "It album is preceded by..." - 'It' → 'The' (or something) Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! Fixes were made accordingly. Candyo32 01:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done with Adabow's assistance. Candyo32 19:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see there has been a dispute with the reliability of Video static. Now, im not very familiar with how we determine if a source is reliable or not. I chose to include it and thought it was reliable because its written by "Steven J Gottlieb" who is the former Senior Editor of music video trade magazine CVC Report (published from 1983 through 2004). Considering he is an author in his field i thought it would be appropriate to include the website. Please share your thoughts on this here as im watching your page. Talk to you soon :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Reliable? :

  • Is the author a considered a subject expert in his field?
Yes "Steven J Gottlieb" is an author for his field. He was the Senior Editor of music video trade magazine CVC Report (published from 1983 through 2004).
  • Has the website/publication been cited by other reliable sources?
I dont know if wikipedia counts but i know consensus doesnt always have to be discussed, instead it because a general use, this is the case here, more and more articles are using this source.
  • Does the website/publication cite its sources and undergo a rigorous fact-checking process (or both)?
From what ive seen, yes it does, actually this website generally gets the director information first, then other websites seem to follow. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the past that hasn't been a problem, so why is it now? It's not like you can retrieve them in any other reliable source since they are the official Musicline and Oricon sites. Candyo32 11:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying its a problem they aren't english but it should be stated like the other references. Afro (Talk) 11:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note the manual of style for discographies has been changed since the time of nomination and unfortunately I can no longer support this discography until it is converted to the new format given at WP:DISCOGSTYLE. This in turn is updated for the new WP:ACCESS part of WP:MOS -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retracted comments for now... its fairer since I would like to see a mass change that I making notes on the featured list talk page instead. Sorry for the disruption caused. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You know I find it funny how you put "Fail" for my article, something that would severely hinder it, versus putting a "Note" like you did here. I don't know, that doesn't look too fair if you ask me, but whatever, just saying.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok good. I also asked Dabomb87 about it and he said since the nomination was prior to the conversion that it will be compared to the criteria at the time, and then will have the time to convert to the new format, and that it would not affect the current nomination. Candyo32 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need some consistency with the Abbreviations for Chart positions, you kinda jump from 3 letters to 2 letters and IRE to IRL. Afro (Talk) 04:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the abbreviation consistency as well as the language concern. Candyo32 07:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still are using IRE and IRL for Ireland, both have the same link so I assume they should be the same abbreviation. Afro (Talk) 10:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oops that should be fixed now. Candyo32 12:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still IRL in "as featured artist", also not sure on the policy but does About.com fit WP:RS. Afro (Talk) 13:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok should be fixed now, and About.com is reliable used in almost every album and single GA and FA, and is published by the New York Times Company. Candyo32 21:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Ciara_discography/archive2&oldid=1140185434"