Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Jessica Mauboy discography/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Dabomb87 15:48, 16 October 2010 [1].

Jessica Mauboy discography

[edit]

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

Toolbox
Notified: Ozurbanmusic, Alex Douglas, WikiProject Discographies, WikiProject Australian music, WikiProject R&B and Soul Music

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is poorly referenced. The last three promo/soundtrack singles are unreferenced, as are most of the music video directors. The references are also not formatted well, eg citations 13 and 14 are just titled, without publishers/dates. The labels that Mauboy is signed to are also not referenced. Furthermore, although less critically, the 'sales' of albums are listed, although these are based on certifications which, in Australia, are judged on shipments. It seems redundant to list the certifications and sales, then link to the certifications page in the header of the table. Lastly, an image wouldn't go amiss. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agree that the list needs an overhaul, I've added an image and removed the bold linkage in the lead, but as Adabow notes, there's more to do... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so the promo/soundtrack singles have been referenced, the music video directors have been referenced, the references are formatted well now and citations 13 and 14 are good now. The lables have references now. I've removed the sales section because it's not needed. Lastly theres an image now. Anything else needs fixing? ozurbanmusic (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've had a go at improving the expression in the Lead and standardised the references as per ozurbanmusic's formatting.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments Good work. A few more things, though:

Lead fails WP:ORDINAL. Is there a total number of sales figure available to tie up the lead?
What makes popdirt, Captiv8 and everHype reliable sources?
Why isn't the "Been Waiting" director listed? Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added total number of sales in lead. Those sources are reliable. They have the names of the directors who shot the videos and there not blogs. And the reason why Been Waiting director isnt listed because I couldn't find a source of who directed the video but I will still keep on looking. ozurbanmusic (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so every other artist has a discography article. Even if there just charted in one country. Theres no rule saying there shouldn't be a discography article for an artist if they've only charted in one country. ozurbanmusic (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but FL criterion 3.b says it must meet all of the requirements for stand-alone lists. This is what Peter is contesting. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anymore to do lists for the article? ozurbanmusic (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced about the reliability of sources. EverHype looks like a blog or social networking site. Popdirt also seems to be a blog site. I have realised that Captiv8 is a video production company, so I am satisfied with that. The lead has not been addressed with respect to WP:ORDINAL. The certifications should be listed separately for each song, rather than lumping them together, otherwise people may think they might have been released as a triple A-side or similar. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I don't get what you mean by the lead? is it the numbering format? ozurbanmusic (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with Peter's and Legolas' interpretation of this criterion. The artist is notable enough for a separate discography even if charting occurred in one country. Notability of this artist's discography is further reinforced through certifications received.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theres millions of discography articles that have charted in one country and have a discography article. Adabow knows this. Plus theres already heaps of information on their for it have its own article. We're not here to discuss if the article should be merged into the main article, we're here to discuss if it should stay in the featured list! ozurbanmusic (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter and Legolas are commenting on its FL status. Criterion 3.b states that to be featured a list must meet WP:SAL. This is what they are disputing. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further clarification is required from Peter (or Legolas):
  1. Which particular point(s) on WP:SAL are under dispute?
  2. Where does it specify that a separate discography list must have charting in more than one country to be notable enough to exist?
  3. Does the existence of other FL discographies for artists with only one country's charting have any bearing on this discussion?
As indicated previously, this artist's discography is notable enough on its own. I don't believe charting in more than one country is a necessary criterion for inclusion according to WP:SAL.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Its not small. This is the average size of a discography article. She's just released her new single, so theres more to come later in the year which means the article will expand. Like I said, we're discussing if the article should stay as a featured list. Not if it should be deleted or merged! ozurbanmusic (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, I don't see why merging should be off the table when the discography's so small... as her albums expand, I could see a discography article being created, but I wonder-- is it really necessary to have an entire separate article to say that she's released one album? I feel the content could easily be placed back into the main article and the current discography article could be a re-direct until then. Nomader (Talk) 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shes released two albums, a live and a studio. Her second studio album will be released on November 5, 2010. This article was created in 2008 and has had no problems. Why now! Hey Adabow can you just remove it from the featured list already so we can stop all this! ozurbanmusic (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral
    • People seem to be getting confused here. FL is about standards and quality not necessarily length. GA, FA and FL criteria and guidelines state that articles can be promoted as long as they are broad in coverage and follow manual of style.
    • In terms of MoS this is a very good example of a discog that follows it well.
    • It is reliably sourced.
    • Though at the time of nomination it was very small and shouldn't have existed (it should have been a section on her artist page), now it exists its well written.
    • the real issue here is ... do we delist a discography that should have never been an independent article but is well written enough to be a good FL candidate? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, because it shouldn't be an article in the first place and therefore shouldn't be featured. The article should be made into a re-direct and its content should be merged back into the main article– once she's made a couple more albums and her discography is too long for her main article, the old article can be brought back from the re-direct and re-expanded. Shouldn't be too much of a process. Nomader (Talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, just leave it as it is. Theres nothing wrong with it and it's not that small. ozurbanmusic (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While there are some MOS issues to clean up, I don't have a problem with this being a stand-alone list. This in no ay fails 3b. Courcelles 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a for the record thing, I'm typing this on my phone so no guarantees this'll work or format right. Hmm.... is there a notability criteria specifically for discographies, or are we just eyeballing it? Also, sorry Ozurbanmusic... I've kind of sounded like a WP:DICK throughout this discussion- apologies. I know how much work you put into this list, and I don't mean this to be anything personal. Nomader (Talk) 08:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok Nomander, I have worked hard on it and I really don't want it merged into the main article which I also worked hard on to improve and merging the discography into the main article will make it look untidy which I really don't want. I think Adabow took this personal since I took over him from editing Stan Walker related articles. But overall, theres nothing wrong with the article. ozurbanmusic (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, ozurbanmusic, that is quite low. It is absolutely not personal. In fact, I didn't know that you were involved here, as another used originally got it promoted. Please refrain from making personal attacks, and I look forward to working with you on other content in the future. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on the delisting, because other than the YouTube sourcing in the videos section, the other is fine for now. Strongly Oppose merging, as her discog seems too comprehensive to be merged. Candyo32 12:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist and merge. The topic of this page can be covered in an equally detailed manner and without problem in the main article. Organizing the encyclopedia's content into ever smaller bits is not beneficial to the reader. The advantage, we can often gain by creating summary style spin-outs is, in this case, minimal at best. Goodraise 19:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and merge the main article is only 30k long, and addition of this there would not make the main article either too long or overbalanced. If that is still the case, it could even be merged into Young Divas discography. Nergaal (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral – I don't deal that much with discographies, but I do know that in the past they have pretty much received a free pass from 3b as a whole; can't say that I'm sad to see that ending. As for this article, I'm of two minds. I absolutely see the rationale for delisting/merging and agree with it to a certain point. The tables can be merged into the main article. The question I have is whether this would be beneficial to the main article. At first glance, it does seem like a lot of tables to be putting in (even if they are small). I don't think it would overwhelm the article as is, but if anyone ever wanted to merge the awards and nominations list (another short one), there would be a risk of that. I could honestly live with either possible result. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:19, 14 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_removal_candidates/Jessica_Mauboy_discography/archive1&oldid=1141920338"