Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Rihanna songs/archive1
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 The Rambling Man 16:33, 27 September 2011 [1].
List of Rihanna songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 23:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because...the article was in a bit of a mess beforehand, and I want this to be the detail list it should be. I've spent a lot of time putting the songs into a chronological order in the format of table, as well as fabricating a completely new Lead. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 23:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transcluded on 11:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) by User:Legolas2186
- Oppose – Simply basing on WP:WIAFL 3a criteria. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's 3a? WP:WIAFA only has 3 (no 3a,3b,3c,etc)...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oopsie, I meant WIAFL. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's real helpful, like I can improve it with that. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It fails other points also. This doesnot pass as a standalone list as TRM pointed out. Suggest withdrawal. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, "it fails other points also" is not helpful. How does it not pass as a standalone list? So you are saying it should be re-directed or removed altogether? And it doesn't matter if I withdraw it or if someone closes it, it will still result in a "not promoted". Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It fails other points also. This doesnot pass as a standalone list as TRM pointed out. Suggest withdrawal. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's real helpful, like I can improve it with that. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oopsie, I meant WIAFL. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's 3a? WP:WIAFA only has 3 (no 3a,3b,3c,etc)...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question(s): What is this article? It appears to be a cross between Rihanna discography (which lists notable songs involving Rihanna, whether on her albums or not) and the five articles for her album Music of the Sun, A Girl like Me, Good Girl Gone Bad, Rated R and Loud (each of which lists all the songs released on the respective album). This list seems to duplicate and consolidate the five lists from the album articles into one list. Is that a useful thing to do? Do we do this for other artists? Is such a list worthy of FL status? And if yes to the above, don't we need more references for the list contents?
- The whole point of this list to list every song she has ever done, not just her album songs. Yes, other artists do have this, see List of Mariah Carey songs, List of unreleased Mariah Carey songs (now re-directed), List of Celine Dion songs, List of unreleased Michael Jackson material, List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, List of songs by Elvis Presley, List of The Beatles songs, List of Christina Aguilera songs. Basically, if you type into the search bar "list of songs by" or "list of unreleased songs by" it will return results for a multitude of singers. I asked NikkiMaria, who I am sure you know is very prominent in the Featured process, what sort of things I should include, so what you currently see in this list if an expansion upon what was suggested by her. To my knowledge, there aren't any lists of songs that are currently an FL (excluding discographies, which are all about chart positions) apart from the List of unreleased Britney Spears songs and List of unreleased Michael Jackson material lists. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, "Love the Way You Lie" in the lede lacks quotation marks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- No good reason to split this alphabetically. One single list is fine.
- People on here really need to make up their minds about things. When this was listed for Peer Review, I was told to put them into a table format, (which I might add, took me hours), now you are saying it shouldn't be, which I disagree with. This is much more clear and concise to how it was before, a mess. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Sorry, peer review and FLC are different things. All I'm saying is merge them into a single table if you wish to list it at FLC. And don't forget MOS:DTT which requires row and col scopes to be added for screen-reading software. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Won't that eliminate the ability to skip to O for example using the box at the top? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but on a list this short it's not an issue. Alternatively use some code like I use in my sandbox for this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Won't that eliminate the ability to skip to O for example using the box at the top? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, peer review and FLC are different things. All I'm saying is merge them into a single table if you wish to list it at FLC. And don't forget MOS:DTT which requires row and col scopes to be added for screen-reading software. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- People on here really need to make up their minds about things. When this was listed for Peer Review, I was told to put them into a table format, (which I might add, took me hours), now you are saying it shouldn't be, which I disagree with. This is much more clear and concise to how it was before, a mess. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Where are each of the list entries referenced? I see some of them have in-line references, but the others? Where's the evidence that each song that hasn't been released has ever existed?
- What? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- I don't see in-line references for every item in the list. How do I know they exist? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll source each and every one tomorrow. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see in-line references for every item in the list. How do I know they exist? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- First and last para of the lead entirely unreferenced.
- So FAs don't include references in the Lead, but FLs should..? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- So FAs expand on the content of the lead in the main part of the article. You don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I've never been through this process before. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So FAs expand on the content of the lead in the main part of the article. You don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So FAs don't include references in the Lead, but FLs should..? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Over-categorisation, don't need Rihanna and Rihanna songs...
- What? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- You don't need both categories. Rihanna songs is a more refined category of the Rihanna category so you only need to use the former. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I don't get where this is in the article. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have Category:Rihanna and Category:Rihanna songs. The latter is a subset of the former and a more accurate category. You don't need the "super category" of Category:Rihanna here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I don't get where this is in the article. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need both categories. Rihanna songs is a more refined category of the Rihanna category so you only need to use the former. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Overall seems to be an un-useful fork of Rihanna discography, no reason for this list to standalone.
- It's no different to any of the ones I listed above or the countless others. So by your reasoning, the vast majority of tens of songs lists should be deleted. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, if you can show me a featured list discography that should be delisted then fine. Showing me "tens of song lists" that you believe "should be deleted" isn't really my concern, this is FLC, a featured content process, not WP:AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not saying they should be deleted, I never did, you said the list shouldn't stand alone (assuming you mean this article shouldn't exist), which is what every other list of songs does. If you would have read the persons above comment, he asked "Do we do this for other artists?", so I gave him several examples of singers lists of songs. And when I have ever said anything about having an FL de-listed???? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I mis-read when you said " the vast majority of tens of songs lists should be deleted" then... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, in response to what you wrote first. I don't think the articles should be deleted, but you don't think this type of article should exist as a "standalone" list. You misinterpreted what i said. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 02:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless, the point remains, I can't quite see why this should exist separate from the discography. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, in response to what you wrote first. I don't think the articles should be deleted, but you don't think this type of article should exist as a "standalone" list. You misinterpreted what i said. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 02:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I mis-read when you said " the vast majority of tens of songs lists should be deleted" then... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not saying they should be deleted, I never did, you said the list shouldn't stand alone (assuming you mean this article shouldn't exist), which is what every other list of songs does. If you would have read the persons above comment, he asked "Do we do this for other artists?", so I gave him several examples of singers lists of songs. And when I have ever said anything about having an FL de-listed???? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, if you can show me a featured list discography that should be delisted then fine. Showing me "tens of song lists" that you believe "should be deleted" isn't really my concern, this is FLC, a featured content process, not WP:AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no different to any of the ones I listed above or the countless others. So by your reasoning, the vast majority of tens of songs lists should be deleted. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- There should be inline references in every table in order to cite the song, collaborating artists, and year. Five refs ain't enough. Ruby comment! 18:08, 12 September 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.