Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Miley Cyrus 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 promoted by Giants2008 19:12, 10 May 2011 [1].

Miley Cyrus discography[edit]

Miley Cyrus discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria to become a Featured List on Wikipedia. ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't you think the lead is too long for such a young singer who has released only three studio albums, and probably has a long career ahead of her? With every new release, the lead will only become more bloated, and would need to be significantly rewritten. I suggest that rewriting be done now itself so that it can easily incorporate additions.—indopug (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think so because although she released three studio albums, she released five well-known soundtracks. And as her career expands, the discography will probably be split in half, such as Mariah Carey discography. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm I've never been a fan of the tendency among pop-music editors to split discographies; but I guess that isn't relevant to this FLC.—indopug (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Quick Comments
    • Extened plays: Spanian Platinum no ref?
      • Done
    • "Walt Disney" label should be wikilinked to Walt Disney Records
      • Done
    • Some references without a format=PDF parameter
      • Done
    • Some references without a language= parameter
      • Which ones? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • German-language references 21, 23, 24, 34.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 09:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done.
            • Ref 21, 23, 24, 45, 46, 58, 59, 60 German (seriously, Dutch and German are not very similar); 85 Japanese
              • Done.
    • Ref 6: no need to link "Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc."
      • Done
    • Ref 9, 17, 84: Check them up; see some errors.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done


  • Done.
  • Since Miley Cyrus discography covers all the Hanna Montana releases, why does the HM discog need to exist? Shouldn't it be a redirect to MC discog?—indopug (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus is yet to be determined for that. But I'm thinking of keeping it and leaving as a discography for the Hannah Montana franchise (which includes more albums and singles) and not the fictional character, which makes more sense. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "It peaked at number on the Billboard 200...". Number itself is clearly missing.
    • Done.
  • "Meet Miley Cyrus spawned two singles, the first, 'See You Again', which became her first top ten hit in the United States." Change the first comma to a semi-colon, and remove "which". Flow is a bit off the way it is now.
    • Done.
  • "which peaked at number on the Billboard 200...". A forgotten number twice in the lead? This is a first for me in discographies.
    • Done.
  • "both which peaked at number two on the Billboard 200." Missing "of" before "which".
    • Done.
  • "being unable to duplicate prior success." Should it be "her prior success"?
    • Done.
  • The note at the bottom of several tables: "denotes releases that did not chart or was not released." Why is "was" being used for potential multiple releases. Shouldn't it be "were"?
    • Done.

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some might think this as being a bit pointy since I got into a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Backstreet Boys discography/archive1, but, <shrugs> that's for the closing director to decide. I was told there that this is common practice at discography pages recently, and I think it has to stop. "GER" and "SPA" mean nothing. More so for "SPA". I could accept "GER" in an Olympic- or football-related article, but that isn't the case here. We should use international standards for abbreviating country names when a differing standard hasn't been approved (such as in the two cases already mentioned). GER and SPA are not acceptable abbreviations in regular usage, and a list that "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work" shouldn't be using them. So, while the article continues to uses abbreviations pulled out of our arses, I will oppose. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to change the abbreviations to anything, but the discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies. Also, if the abbreviations are changed, how would you order the charts? By alphabetic order according to abbreviations or full English names? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 17:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would alphabetize by abbreviation, so "DER" comes before "FRA" (even though "France" is alphabetically before "Germany"), but it's up to you. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They have been changed. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Support Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "which first aired in March 2006. " ref?
  • Done.
  • I find it odd that in the lead you have "triple platinum" i.e. uncapitalised platinum, but in the tables you have "3x Platinum"...
  • Many FL discographies like Madonna albums discography follow the same procedure, as it in the text, certifications are in paragraphs and are treated as a regular noun (not a proper noun, which are supposed to be capitalized). Meanwhile, in the table, they are not. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cyrus then signed a record deal with Hollywood Records to launch a career under her own name." ref?
  • What type of source is needed? It is sourced throughout the article that all material as herself have been released with Hollywood Records. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two dates "as of (mid) 2010" - any updates considering it's nearly mid-2011?
  • Nope, sorry. Since she hasn't released any material and, therefore not set any records, in over a year, updates are extremely scarce. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other live albums calls both releases EPs, but yet there's only one EP listed. I guess this is ... okay ... but a little odd, are they live albums or live EPs?
  • It's a complex explanation, but they are considered live albums because they are live... however they do have EP lengths. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is "I'm Still Good" referenced?
  • The general references, like the Allmusic source, reference uncharted releases. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it needs it. Then, every single release would need a specific source. A general source should suffice. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, every single which didn't chart anywhere should be individually cited. Otherwise I don't know how to prove they ever existed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I mean provide sources in the article. Amazon is interesting but is it really reliable? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think they need specific sources if there is an overall source to warrant every single release's existence. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do, and just about every discog passed through FLC provides individual and specific citation for releases that haven't charted anywhere. Recommend you check out a few of the recently promoted discogs at FLC to see what I mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Same comment for "Nothing to Lose"?
  • Done.
  • And "Rockin' around the Christmas Tree" and "Are Your Ready". They didn't chart, how or where do I determine they ever existed?
  • Done.
  • "Can't Be Tamed - Mini DVD" needs an en-dash.
  • Done.
  • Note P - "ninety-aix"
  • Done.
  • Ref 1 format fail.
  • Done.
  • Ref 2 - en-dash please.
  • Done.
  • And ref 16.
  • Done.
  • and ref 32.
  • Done.
  • Check all others, there are many more...
  • Done.
  • You relink Media Control Charts in the refs, but you don't relink Billboard etc. Take a consistent approach to relinking (or not) in the refs.
  • I don't believe there are any repeated links to Media Control Charts in the refs. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you look? 24, 25 both link it. As do 46 and 47. However, 59 to 61 and 67 don't link it... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Also, if you only link once, make sure it's the first time.
  • Done.
  • Refs 95, 96, you cite a single page so it should be p. not pp.
  • Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – I feel this list means the FL criteria. The only thing I find confusing is the singles as Hannah Montana. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Novice7 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 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/Miley_Cyrus_discography/archive1&oldid=1089913305"