Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Chris Brown discography/archive2

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 Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [1].

Chris Brown discography

[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Candyo32 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the first FLC was closed as all current comments had been resolved and was waiting for feedback from the reviewing editors. The previous corrections from the first FLC have been made and it the discography should meet FL criteria as of now. Candyo32 19:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments
  • No period/full stop in infobox caption, as it's not a complete sentence
Done.
  • "Peaks above 100 are peaks of the singles on either the Bubbling Under Hot 100 or Bubbling Under Hot 100, 25 song extensions of the Billboard Hot 100 and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, respectively." - any reason for two "Bubbling Under Hot 100"s? I see they don't link to the same place, but then why do they have the same name? — KV5 • Talk • 19:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Fixed. Candyo32 20:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:*"Superhuman" needs notes (under 100 in US)
Done
  • Why isn't "Better on the Other Side" mentioned (except for videos)?
It was not released officially for download or radio as a single or on an album.
  • Refs 29 + 30 should be in headers
Done
  • Either link all albums in singles table or none
Fixed. I had linked Fan of a Fan at the time when I thought mixtapes couldn't be included.
  • Is there a release date (or year) for F.A.M.E.?
Added confirmed 2011 date. Candyo32 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that, but I can't seem to find what is wrong with it. Also, would the sorting thing added interfere with WP:OVERLINK? Candyo32 01:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sortable tables can be exceptions to overlinking. If you wish to unlink them, though, you can use the nolinkparameter in the template. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment: '"—" denotes releases that failed to chart or was not released.' I have always detested the many different types of notes here. What if something was not released, but did chart? Is it marked with a dash? Why not simply: '"—" denotes items that failed to chart.'? Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. What about "has not charted"? This needs rewording somehow, as it is grammatically incorrect, anyway. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think the current is fine as "has not charted" will imply to the reader that the song will chart when surely, even if so due to Billboard rules I'm sure some songs of his that are +5 years old that never charted will anytime soon. Anyway, I have corrected the statement so it is not grammatically incorrect. Candyo32 23:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you see my point, though, about items that were not released, but charted? Do they receive dashes or are their positions listed? It is confusing. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean now. Well I guess that would just mean that "Other charted songs" wouldn't receive "did not chart" rather than remove not released. Candyo32 23:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Candyo32 01:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That page doesn't give peak positions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are there it is just behind a login wall, which I cannot do anything about. And the only other alternative is to use acharts.us, which is discouraged on featured articles. Candyo32 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that you use aCharts, as everyone can access their data. aCharts is OK to use if there is no alternative source. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, should be done now. And I assume you were just talking about the features as the Billboard should cover his solos. Candyo32 18:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Crawl" and "Yeah3X" are still behind the billboard.biz login wall. Can you use aCharts for them as well? Also, did "What Them Girls Like" chart in Canada? Sorry to keep posing problems, but with WP:DISCOGSTYLE not finished yet you have to keep up with recent amendments: table captions should be shorter. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And yes it is. It should be sourced in the Canadian references and it is in the table. Candyo32 09:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the first nomination was closed as WP:FLC is not WP:PR. The initial quality of the list was of great concern. Please don't nominate lists of that nature again. Glad to see it back in a better state. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My confusion was that all corrections had been made at the time of closure. Candyo32 12:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well when I archived it, there were many, many issues. Just took Gimmebot nearly 12 hours to close it formally. Anyway, we're here now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my apologies. I forgot about the Gimmebot. Candyo32 14:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - The lead is totally unsourced why is this? Ref 4, 7 need language parameters. Swiss isn't a language. Ref 14 has no publisher. Ref 70 looks and probably is incomplete. "No Air" has a few unsourced Certifications. In Mixtapes, you source "In My Zone" but not "Fan of a Fan" why? Afro (Talk) 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We established on the previous review that the lead is source as all chart positions and certs are sourced. Per WP:LEAD, refs are discouraged in the lead if sources are present in the other parts of article. No sales or anything are posted that would require sourcing. Fan of a Fan is sourced because its notability criterion is established because it has its own page, while In My Zone does not, and if not sourced, its establishment could be questioned. That's just like F.A.M.E. being sourced while all the other albums aren't. All refs in question are fixed. Couldn't find sources for other "No Air" peaks so removed. Candyo32 02:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Fair enough. "Fan of a Fan" is fine without a reference but "Chris Brown's Journey", "BET Presents Chris Brown" and "Exclusive: The Forever Edition Bonus DVD" need one? Granted "Chris Brown's Journey" and "Exclusive: The Forever Edition Bonus DVD" are basically section redirects but "BET Presents Chris Brown" is its own actual article, I hate to sound uncivil but consistency please. Also on the Music videos I'm a bit confused as to what The directors column is meant to be sorting by. Afro (Talk) 23:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I removed the refs for all the ones that redirect to sections or have articles of their own. I'm also confused as to what you mean with the videos. I guess just to sort the names, if that is what you are asking. This was modeled after FL's that have been converted to the new style. Candyo32 23:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you an idea just to clarify what I'm asking. Sorting Up, Bryan Barber, Chris Brown, Chris Robinson, Jim Jones, Kevin Custer and James Franck, R. Malcolm Jones, Joseph Kahn, Alex Nazari, Chris Robinson. Am I clear in my point that it sorts weirdly? Afro (Talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean now. I have no idea as to why it is sorting this way. Candyo32 00:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well until its sorted I am opposed to the articles promotion. Afro (Talk) 00:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sorted the names and missed one. It's fixed now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be better if the names were in alphabetical order in the cells, maybe that'd be less confusing for me. Afro (Talk) 03:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'll the reason they are not alphabetical because on singles with numerous performers, the main performer is listed first, and how it is credited. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 01:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Afro, people are sorted by their surname, except where they have stage names. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable Candy. Support I have no issues with the article. Afro (Nice Beaver) 16:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sorry Candy, I came here to comment on the discography, but in seriousness I cannot support this at present. I see some persistent issues with the discography, issues which I had pointed out in the Ciara discography nomination which you submitted. Might I say that there is a pattern to it? Here are some of it for instance.
    • The first line in the lead doesnot include the mixtape, promo singles or the music video count, as well as the infobox.
    • Internationally, the single either charted at the top, or inside the top ten, of several charts -> extremely vague
I originally had "worldwide top-ten" as I did in the Ciara discog, but a user in the first review was against it.
    • "Dreamer", a single for the AT&T Team USA Soundtrack reached the top twenty in the US. --> missing comma after soundtrack.
Done
    • In 2009, Brown's fourth album, Graffiti --> Graffiti is the third studio album.
Done
    • multiple international countries. --> doesnot mean anything
I don't understand what you mean by "doesnot mean anything", but, I originally had "international top-ten", like in the Ciara discog, but a user in the first review was against it
    • which peaked within the top twenty of several countries --> No it didn't. Either source this or leave this.
Well it is sourced in the tables, I thought that would cover it. Anyway I did have "top-twenty hit" or something like that as in the Ciara discog, but a user in the last review was against it.
    • Correct the title of "Yeah 3x" to "Yeah 3×".
The proper title is "Yeah 3X" as it is on the digital download and on the official single cover.
    • There is no mention of the release of the DVDs or the mixtapes. Are they non-notable?
Not really notable as they never charted, and I didn't want to lead to be so excessive. Do you think they warrant inclusion?
    • The music video section needs a thorough run down for merging the cells, removing overlink from them, artist names etc.
Cells can't be merged because it is a sortable table and I was told sorting tables are an exception to overlink.
    • Usage of en-dash is non-existent in the reference titles.
I still get confused about en-dash.
    • Please avoid using abbreviations like ARIA, CRIA etc.
Done
    • Check online sources and their italicizations
Done
    • Reference 32, for Canadian Hot 100, is screwed up. Please correct.
Done
    • Some references miss accessdate.
    • Can we not have the discogs link in EL, and add something from Rollingstone or Allmusic please?
Done
    • The chart providers being used. Shouldn't you have a consistency across the page? Why the sudden use of the Rap chart?
I thought it would be better to use charts that his featured singles have appeared in rather than a list of dashes all the way down of where the songs haven't charted. Candyo32 00:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I feel that the lack of consistency is the major issue with the article. Feel free to ping me with clarifications you need, and not a talkback please. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please check the internal link rot and the dab links pointed out by the bot in the talk page. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good now. It says #52 redirects but it does not. Candyo32 08:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has improved but my major concern is with the peaks of Bubbling under. They are completely and utterly wrong. A peak of 22 on the Bubbling chart doesnot correspond to a peak of 122 for the hot 100. They are not even comparable. There was a strong discussion regarding this at Talk:Lady Gaga discography and such additions of BU peaks were removed. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be sufficient if I removed the positions but leave corresponding notes to the peaks. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 15:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think thats a reasonable amendment, and please do so, otherwise I support this disc. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Done
  • thirty six should be thirty-six.
Done
  • "promo" should be spelled out in full.
Done
  • "Brown's self-titled debut album was released in 2005. The album ..." merge these.
I'm confused....
  • You have "in the US" and "in the U.S." both are acceptable but I would expect this to be internally consistent.
Done
  • Link "certified" appropriately.
Done
  • "and Gold in other countries" not specific enough. how money countries?
Done
  • " and it spent a month atop the chart." no need for "it" and did it spend "a month" or four weeks? I would guess that Billboard updates weekly.
Done first thing. Month as Billboard updates weekly.
  • "Internationally, the single either charted at the top, or inside the top ten, of several charts" again, very vague.
What would you suggest as explaining every single charting might be a bit redundant.
  • "US R&B top five singles " what is "US R&B"? i.e. link it.
Done
  • "international top thirty song "Superhuman"" what does "international top thirty" mean?
Re-worded
  • "During the Exclusive period" I thought Exclusive was an album? What does this mean?
The time during which singles were released during that album. I had "era" but an editor above was apposed to it.
  • I see no mentions of music videos in the lead. The lead is supposed to adequately summarise the whole article.
Music videos are mentioned, if you mean in the first sentence. I haven't seen an FA to explicitly detail videos in the lad except for in the first part.
  • Seems like "Yeah 3x" should be "Yeah 3X" according to our own article.
Done
  • That's the lead reviewed. Plenty of spaced hyphens in the references (should be en-dashes per WP:DASH), Long Gone isn't referenced, two DVDs have no citations...
Confused about en-dash, I'll fix Long Gone, and as stated before like the albums, they are on Wikipedia pages, and this is why they are not sourced. This is why F.A.M.E. is linked but Exclusive is not. Candyo32 03:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More (still oppose)
  • "was certifiedf double Platinum " typo.
Done.
  • References in this list should standalone and not rely on sub-articles to cite them, e.g. Exclusive.
Confused as to what you mean.
  • Were all of the "Other charted songs" released in all of those territories?
No, as they are not "singles" therefore not released, they just failed to chart.
So why does the note say "releases that failed to chart if they weren't released? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how useful "with relevant information" is in a table caption. It might as well say "with stuff".
Removed.
  • Please read WP:DASH – spaced hyphens e.g. "ARIA charts - Accreditations" should be spaced en-dashes e.g. "ARIA charts – Accreditations".
Done. Candyo32 01:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • You have rowspan years in, say, Album appearances table but not in Music videos. I don't understand the difference. Is it simply to keep the Music videos table sortable?
I suppose. I modeled it after FL's that had been converted to the new style.
Well I'd prefer a consistent approach, either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing changed yet? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a bit of a crossroads here now because I used the sortable because all the FL's now converted to the new style made usage of sortable tables, including Fantasia Barrino discography, which was promoted after the new style was implemented. I believe sortable is used because of the different directors, and multiple artists, but I am not sure. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 19:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to hear from DISCOGS as to why video releases table should be sortable while the other tables shouldn't. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot sort the singles and albums tables cleanly, but you can with videos. I think it is an editor's choice whether to use sortability or rowspan on videos. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there is no formal decision about it. It's quite practical. The contents of this table is different from the other tables. And it is handy to be able to sort the content by director or artist. Dodoïste (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notified Legolas a few days ago, now I am notifying other two reviewers. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 01:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

  • Missing "on" in "peaked at number one the Billboard Hot 100".
Done
  • In the third paragraph, commas should be added after Kevin McCall and F.A.M.E. Minor point, but it would improve the flow of the sentences for readers a little.
Done
Due to Billboard glitches, those peaks will not show up on the site and from WP:BADCHARTS, acharts.us can be used as an alternate source.
Since I don't know that much about the kind of sites these lists use, I'm leaving this one unstruck in case the regular reviewers in this genre have anything to add. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the reason it was added was because it wasn't included in the Billboard reference, and a reviewer above told me to use acharts. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 17:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 13 lacks a publisher.
Done
  • Period needed after the link in reference 30, for consistency with the other citations.
Done
Would you mind checking the formatting of this reference? It's showing up in the article. Looks like the closing brackets were accidentally removed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it wasn't closed then, but it should be fixed now.
Done! Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 14:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : The only thing i find annoying is having three references in one box. They should be merged like so to avoid overlapping and clutter. Once this is done throughout the article i will gladly support if i fail to find any other issues. To be more clear on what i mean, under Chris_Brown_discography#Singles US section, you have three references, they should be merged into one with proper titles and explanations. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to do such, but I have a problem in that some of the refs are named. So I tried to combine, and name the ref as a whole, but then it kept showing up as an error. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 17:02, 17 December 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/Chris_Brown_discography/archive2&oldid=1089081581"