Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Backstreet Boys discography/archive1

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 not promoted by Giants2008 18:21, 17 May 2011 [1].

Backstreet Boys discography

[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have put a lot of work into it and I do think it should be a featured list KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certifications are awarded for units shipped, not units sold. Therefore it is incorrect to list sales figures in the "Sales Based on Claims and Certification-Awards" column based on certs alone.—indopug (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • Not certain that Platinum, Diamond should be capitalised in the prose
  • "After the Black & Blue Tour in 2001, the Backstreet Boys entered a two-year hiatus. They released their fifth studio album, Never Gone, in 2005." My maths must be off because 2001 + 2 years = 2003. So what happened between 2003 and 2005?
  • When used as a conjunctive, "However" shouldn't start a sentence. Easy fix: change "blah blah blah. However blah blah blah" to "Blah blah blah; however, blah blah blah". Better fix: remove it altogether and recast the sentence.
  • Compilation albums table has the Sales column, but it's empty. Why not remove it?
    • It would be a better idea to have it because the studio album table has the column and it would be inconsistent not to have it here, even though there aren't any sales mentioned. Linkin Park discography is an example. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The WP:FL? require the list be complete. An emtpy column of sales figures implies we forgot to put it in, someone removed it, and that the list is incomplete. Removing the column removes that worry. Since the albums did sell copies, if you insist on leaving the column in, you need to put sales figures. Think about writing the article for the album. Would you put "The album sold __________ copies" and leave a gap because we don't know the figure, or would you simply not mention it? Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Inserted sales. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Backstreet Boys "For the Fans" a notable release? Should it be included here?
  • A discography is supposed to catalogue releases. NKOTBSB is set for release in May. It isn't out yet, doesn't really exist, and so isn't part of their discography
  • Table header is fucked up in the Singles, for Canada. Why not just put the reference by the chart position for that one?
  • Please use correct ISO-3 names for the countries. NL, GER, SWI mean nothing
    • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copied from Matthewedwards' talkpage:

        Hey, this is regarding your comment while reviewing the BSB discography on FLC that NL, SWI, and GER should be changed according to ISO-3. I did what you said but another editor reverted my edit saying that this system is not used anymore. He kinda seems to be right as most discographies, including featured ones, seem to have SWI, GER, etc. So, should we leave it as it is or should I still change it? KingdomHearts25 (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
             Then he's probably the one going around changing them. All the discog FLs I've done, I've been asked to do ISO-3 names as they're official. I've also seen other discog nominations being asked to make them ISO-3, as well as a discussion on a talk page somewhere at WP:DISCOG, perhaps the style page. Check out some of them from the date they were promoted, you'll likely find more. GER and SWI have no meaning and are simply wrong. but the thing is that small edits like changing DEU to GER and SUI to SWI won't flag people when they see the edit on their watchlist because no bytes have been added or removed, and so they end up being left that way. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

We always want to make sense when requiring for certain styles. SUI=suisse is in French, DEU=Deutschland is in German; in other words, if we are going to ask editors to post these two in their native languages, we might as well ask for all other markets be posted in their native languages including Finland which would be SUO=Suomen and not FIN, Sweden which would be SVE=Sverige and not SWE, Austria would be ÖST=Österreich and not AUT etc.. The country abbreviations are in English also at Discographies/style/samples. --Harout72 (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 3166 is an internationally recognized standard for country codes and abbreviations. Requiring SUI and DEU is not asking for abbreviations in native tongue, just in the internationally recognized standard. Check out ISO 3166-1, a fully referenced and FL article about the codes. The ISO 3166-1 code for Germany is DEU, for Switzerland it's CHE (Latin for "Confœderatio Helvetica"; I made a typo before when I said "SUI" without thinking). For Finland it is FIN, for Sweden it is SWE, and for Austria it is AUT. SVE, SUO and ÖST have nothing to do with anything. You're right, we do want to make sense, and I agree, using those three doesn't make sense. Using made up abbreviations because we want pre-teen and teen Backstreet Boys fans to understand what county we mean doesn't. We're an encyclopedia. Let's educate. Let's, since we require professional standards of writing at WP:FL?, use the ISO-3166 codes, which do make sense. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm aware of ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, I don't think we necessarily need to implement those internationally recognized ISO codes in discography tables. I do recall seeing the ISO codes in the past in the tables, but they haven't been in use for quite some time now. Can we really call it a teen desired made up abbreviations? I don't know, but the fact remains that there are no featured discographies with ISO codes implemented in them for DEU=Germany, CHE=Switzerland. However; if this is something that some reviewers desire to see changed, surely the sample table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style needs to be amended first. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair to single out one discography.--Harout72 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they haven't been used in quite some time, and I'm not sure I believe that, it's probably because a person or people have been surreptitiously changing them. As I said previously, changing DEU to GER won't flag anyone who is watching the page because there is 0 bytes of change. Even the odd ±5 bytes here and there wouldn't cause a page watcher to stop and check out what's changed. Then, because eventually those people have changed enough pages without raising eyebrows, because it isn't noticeable unless you're looking for it, it becomes accepted as the norm. It isn't. They're incorrect abbreviations. The sample table at the Discog style page doesn't need amending first because it isn't a Manual of Style guideline or sub-guideline. It hasn't even been "officially" approved as a style guide by the discog people. There's a huge notice at the top that it's a proposal and it has been for years. The page is effectively dead. It hasn't been updated to reflect what's required at FLC, which sets the standard of what is "the best example [of a list] Wikipedia has to offer", and there hasn't been any discussion on the talk page for months. Besides, a proposal isn't set in stone and even an accepted MOS has changes made to it periodically. While ever they continue to be in the article,FLC is the only place the Discog people discuss their articles. This page is being "singled out" because it has been put up for review, and I'm reviewing it. I'm not reviewing any other, but if I do I'll ask for the same. If you don't want it singled out, don't nominate it, simple. As with all the discogs I've put up, and the ones I've been involved in reviewing, they have been asked to use internationally standardized abbreviations. Perhaps the Discog folk have gotten lax in their standards in my absence, but I'm here again, and while ever we have incorrect abbreviations in an FLC for no good reason other than WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'll stand by my oppose because being wrong does not sit comfortably with "exemplifies our very best work". Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only time "GER" would be an acceptable abbreviation for Germany is in Olumpic-related or football-related articles, possibly some other international sporting events that "borrow" the IOC codes. Same for "SUI" (not "SWI") for Switzerland (That's why I typed it earlier!). Since discographies and the music industry doesn't have an "official" list of country abbreviations, we default to the ISOs, as with every other subject that doesn't. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was invited to this discussion by Harout72, and I'm going to wind up agreeing with both of you. Harout72 is right that discographies don't normally use ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes. That isn't because of people making surreptitious changes, that's because WP:DISCOGSTYLE doesn't use them. It just makes up it's own codes. Matthewedwards is right that that isn't how it should be: discography articles should use a standard system. I think the discussion of which system to use belongs at WT:DISCOGSTYLE, and I wouldn't have any objection to any editor that decided not to support any more discographies becoming WP:FLs until the matter is resolved.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of a footnote that makes the reader scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page, just do a line break and small font to say "Don't Turn Out The Lights" is performed with New Kids
  • Rows for Number 1 hits and Top 10 hits aren't standard and are not needed. Any half-wit can count all the 1s in a column and figure out how many number 1 hits they had in a country.
  • Perhaps retitle the Videos section as Home videos?
  • Ref 2, 21, etc Billboard is a magazine, so it should be italicised. Be consistent between "Billboard" and "Billboard magazine"
  • What makes Rockonthenet.com a Reliable Source?
    • It has reliable information, is not blacklisted, the certifications and awards posted there seem to be accurate, I don't know what is unreliable about it. I think it is a pretty safe site to use. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many sites that are unreliable aren't blacklisted. We need a bit better reassurance than than "it seem to be accurate" and "I think it's pretty safe to me". What do you base this on? 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. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
      • This applies equally to the acharts reference that Giants mentioned earlier. How can they be considered totally unreliable for some information but reliable for others? It doesn't make sense. If the site is wrong, it's wrong, it doesn't matter that some of what they have is right. Surely there are other sources available? Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hung Median and Chart Stats shouldn't be italicised as they're just website names, not publication titles
  • BPI is a company, and that shouldn't be italicised.
  • Ref 51, 55, etc remove riaj.or.jp from the attribution

Not too bad, but needs a bit of work. Oppose for now. Please ping my talk page for a revisit. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Additional[reply]

Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:41, 23 April 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/Backstreet_Boys_discography/archive1&oldid=1089913650"