Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/50 Cent discography/archive4

Add links
From 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 Giants2008 20:06, 25 December 2011 [1].

50 Cent discography

[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've done extensive work on this article, and I finally feel it is truly up to the standard required (of course, you may think otherwise). Since the last, hasty nomination, the article has had a peer review and has had many of its previous errors pointed out and removed. Hopefully, this nomination will iron out any small errors still left and leave us with a great article. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Just happened to come across some points
  • Infobox says 21 singles, but lead suggests 23.
  • 24 Shots, an album that did not chart, is unsourced in the discography.
  • External link availablility issues (7 dead, 3 timeouts) Consider replacing or fixing the links.

—WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Update: have also found a reference to replace the broken link. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Resolved comments from Michael Jester (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Comments from Michael Jester

Great work on the article so far. However, there are some concerns before I can support it:

  • "The album charted at number five on the Billboard 200, and peaked in the top twenty of several album charts worldwide." There shouldn't be a comma here.
Done
  • "The album features two singles: the international hit "Baby by Me", which peaked at number twenty-eight in the US, and the second single, "Do You Think About Me"." I would remove second single; you already mention that the album featured two singles.
Done
  • There was a new discussion over at WP:DISCOGSTYLE, and the consensus was to change the certification abbreviations to the providers.
Done
Messed up a little bit here. The certifications need to be in alphabetical order. Also, sales abbreviations do not change.
—Michael Jester (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revised
  • You have "—" in sales columns, but the bottom of the table says nothing about what that means. Either needs fixing or remove from sales columns.
Done
Still one left in studio albums.
Revised
Okay, the very long caption at the bottom is just weird to me. It seems way too long and sounds awkward.
—Michael Jester (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad. It should be better now. :) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I fixed it.
—Michael Jester (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would abbreviate Worldwide. It may look better on smaller screens. Not a big issues, if not done I will not care.
  • In the notes column for Get Rich or Die Trying: "Contains behind the scenes footage, interviews, and live performances." It uses the serial comma, but every other sentence I've seen didn't use one.
Done
  • You have an "As of December 29, 2003" under the sales column for 50 Cent: The New Breed. However, you do not has an "As of" for every other sales figure. Either do an as all for every album or none. Be consistent.
I'll leave the nominator to decide on that one. I believe he placed he parenthetical info because the sales for that release have not been updated in years. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "How to Rob", "Rowdy Rowdy", "Thug Love", "I'll Whip Ya Head Boy", "React", "The Cake", "Creep", "Mujeres in the Club", "Pass the Patron", and "Haters" need references that they are singles. They didn't chart anywhere, so where did you get the information?
Have cited some. Nominator may deal with others.
Move the reference to directly have the song title. (e.g. "Song Title"[1])
Revised the ones that have been cited so far...
  • Some albums have TBA while others have TBA. Is TBA the album name, or is this just a minor error?
Done - removed italicization
  • References have some problems:
    • Wikilink things on every occasion, not just on their first appearance.
Wikilinked every reference I could (although considering the large number of references, I wouldn't be surprised if I've missed one somewhere. However, I think I've got them all).
Missed a few; I got them though.
—Michael Jester (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have multiple cases where you have a dash "-" instead of an en-dash "–" (e.g. ref 20, 21)
    • Use italics even in the title of references. For example, "Billboard chart search: 50 Cent - "What Up Gangsta"" -> "Billboard chart search: 50 Cent – 'What Up Gangsta'"
      • Also, when using quotes inside of quotes, use apostrophes. And when the apostrophe is at the end use {{'-}}
      • I noticed that the NZ refs are now redirected to another website and showing only the current week's chart. Somehow this needs to be fixed. Those also need the dash changed to en-dash (there are a few other refs that need changing; ref #122 and #123 are examples).<
        Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 21:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is "Peak chart positions for collaboration singles on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart in the United States: " really necessary if there is only one other citation? (ref #67)
      Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes Zobbel.de an RS? I've seen it used before, but I have no idea who Tobias is. (I think these are the last issues that I have.)
    • From what I can establish, Zobbel is basically a massive statistics website which collects things like election data and Palestinian stamps (?), although their collection of UK chart data is their best known collection. According to them, they collect data from two music newsletters, Music Week and UKChartsPlus. Tobias Zywietz is simply the man who started the website and runs it currently. Personally, I use it as their data agrees with that found on the official sources, such as The Official Charts Company (as is the case with this article) and for the positions below 100, I prefer to cite this over the UKChartsPlus journal as I prefer to use references that actually show the data. However, if you don't want to use Zobbel, I will cite the relevant weeks with UKChartsPlus, as is the case on Lady Gaga discography, as it is most definitely a reliable source. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Not needed. That's fine.
      —Michael Jester (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once these comments are addressed, I will take a second look, and then a support will follow.
—Michael Jester (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the nominator's workload. I will leave him to address some of the ones which he will better understand. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from — Status {talkcontribs 18:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments by Status
  • Is the hashtag at the top really necessary? It's not as if people are going to be confused with "50 Cent" and "G-Unit". It would seem better suited to just link in a "see also" section. But that's just my personal opinion.
  • Compilation and soundtrack albums are different; so they should be seperate.
  • What exactly is "miscellaneous"? Maybe have a note on top of the table explaining what it contains.
  • I don't see why "collaboration singles" need to be separate. Again, my personal opinion, but they should just be in the normal singles table.
  • "Collaborations and soundtrack appearances" – "Guest apperances" seems like a more approiate title for this section.
  • The infobox link for "DVDs" doesn't go anywhere.

— Status {talkcontribs 03:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from nominator (Sufur222)

OK, after reading all of these comments, here's everything I have done:

  • Changed infobox entry from "DVDs" to "Video albums" and linked it up.
  • Changed "Collaboration and soundtrack appearances" heading to "Guest appearances", as suggested.
  • Inserted en-dash in reference titles everywhere needed.
  • Italicized Billboard in all of the XML reference titles.
  • Removed the G-Unit hashtag at the top, and made a "See also" section containing a link to their discography, as suggested.
  • Inserted italics into references where appropriate.
  • Separated out compilation and soundtrack albums sections.
  • Found references all of the remaining uncharted singles. (However, have removed one of the two references for "Haters", as I feel only one is neccessary.)
  • Removed date on sales figure for 50 Cent: The New Breed.

There are some other comments I wish to make as well:

  • I'm getting conflicting advice over the formatting of the references. In his peer review, Wikipedian Penguin told me to only link every work/publisher only the first time, but Michael Jester has told me to wikilink everything - which is right? Also, WP also told me whilst referring to individual weeks of Billboard charts, to refer to Nielsen Business Media as the publisher if the chart was published during their ownership of the company. However, when I tried this on Birdman discography, JohnFromPinckney told me that they should ALL be Prometheus. Again, which is right?
  • Some of the sales figures are listed as according to the RIAA, yet some are simply US. When I read this discussion at WP:DISCOGSTYLE, I thought that the abbreviations would only be used for certifications: however, it appears that they are hovering in limbo. I presume this is a mistake from when the abbreviations were changed: however, I want to be certain.
  • I'm not yet sure what to write about "miscellaneous": currently thinking - any ideas welcome.
  • Personally, I prefer to keep the collaborations singles separate from the main singles table - however, if the consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of combining the two tables, I will happily do it.

Thanks for all your work and help, guys. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 21:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, that's what we're here for!
—Michael Jester (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

How about this: The album charted at number one in the US, as well as reaching the top ten of many album charts worldwide, and sold 4.83 million copies in the United States in 2005, the second highest sales count by any album that year. The Massacre includes the US top-three hits "Disco Inferno" and "Just a Lil Bit", and the US number-one hit "Candy Shop", which peaked in the top ten of many charts worldwide. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think so - it's still the same singles chart, isn't it? If it charted at number 1 or number 200, it still appeared on that chart. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the usability advice included in WP:DISCOGSTYLE, the Title column of the first six tables (they're all album tables) should be specified at the same width (they could generally be somewhat larger than they are now). The remaining seven tables (all dealing with songs) should likewise aim for a common width for their Title columns. This width need not be the same as that specified for the first six tables.
  • I feel really stupid mentioning this one, Rufus, since I've watched you work and I know you try to be careful and complete. I think I must be missing something glaringly obvious, but I still see what looks like big referencing problems. We're showing US Hot 100 and the R&B charts for singles and songs, and both are 100-song charts. But we've got quite a few peaks over 100 in these columns, and they appear to be unsourced. Duh. Just saw the (screen-size) Notes section. So sorry. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Album info for the Have a Party" song looks improperly italicized (and capitalized, maybe). Also, I think you could remove the artificial line breaks within and just let the text break where it breaks (most of the words are short).

That's it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well, I have to say I was a bit confused by the ugly-sounding phrase "Music from and Inspired by the Motion Picture" which I thought you'd invented. I hadn't followed any of the soundtrack links (and I had only noticed the one title I mentioned anyway, although I now see that several titles use it).
My suggestion would be to trim that crap where possible, and use what we use for our own WP articles: Get Rich or Die Tryin' soundtrack, 8 Mile soundtrack, In Too Deep soundtrack, Bring It On soundtrack, Tupac: Resurrection soundtrack, and Real Steel soundtrack. Only the first two and the Tupac one appear to actually use the "Music from and Inspired..." thing at all, and only the 8 Mile looks like it might be official. It looks more like a sub-title on the Get Rich and Tupac soundtracks. If it were just me on my own, I'd drop it, but maybe you or others feel strongly about keeping it in the 8 Mile title and possibly the other two. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I like your suggestion. I'll change them all to that. Oh, and should I change the format for the Get Rich soundtrack in the Soundtrack albums table as well? I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 07:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that'd be best (and consistent). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for taking so long to come back to this. I have looked the page over (again) and I like it very much. I support the promotion and congratulate Rufus on some really good work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2011 (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/50_Cent_discography/archive4&oldid=1076192594"