Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Taylor Swift 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 Dabomb87 15:23, 3 April 2010 [1].

Taylor Swift discography

[edit]

Taylor Swift discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria to become a Featured List in Wikipedia. Most likely all that is missing are minor things. ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Why not just say "country music" rather than just "country" to let our non-experts get the drift of it?
  • done
  • "eponymous debut album, Taylor Swift, in 2006." perhaps "Swift, the following year"?
  • done
  • "topped Top Country Albums" just unfortunate that you chose to use "topped" with a "Top" chart. Can you rephrase?
  • "spun out a total of five" ugh, maybe "produced five"?
  • done
  • "She followed with the " - "Swift followed.."
  • done
  • If you use EP put it as (EP) after the first use of "extended play"
  • done
  • "non-consecutive weeks,[7] became the best-selling" becoming.
  • done
  • "Swift obtained her biggest debut on the Billboard Hot 100 with "Today Was a Fairytale" from the Valentine's Day soundtrack.[14]" when? This sounds like a last minute bomb you've dropped!
  • Extended plays section needs spaces after "Formats:"
  • done
  • Certifications in the lead are lower case, in the tables they're upper case. Pick one and stick with it.
  • That's because in the lead they are in paragraph form and, in the tables, they are not. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message
  • "The latter found its current peak in the Billboard Hot 100" - current peak?
  • "as released in June 2009 but charted in January 2010." how?
  • I count 13 music videos (inc the one without a director) while the infobox has 12...

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes which are complete sentences shouldn't have full stops.
  • "to be certified gold by the RIAA before its release" - I think you should explain how this is possible!
  • done
  • How do you know that there is editorial oversight? Where is the evidence of Chart Stats' reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? As for those other lists using Chart Stats, feel free to fix them. Goodraise 02:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it had no editorial oversight then just anyone or any user could edit the website and it doesn't work like that. But that may be me speculating. If it had a bad reputation, it would be on Wikipedia's black list or be mentioned on Wikipedia pages or guidelines, but since it's not, I think can be used without problem. There is nothing saying the website cannot be used as a source or even advising against using the source. On the contrary, Template:Singlechart#Non-Billboard charts advises to use the website. What is your reason for questioning Chartstats.com as a reliable source? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The absence of an edit button is no proof of editorial oversight and that black list is not what you think it is. -- I am saying the source should not be used. The documentation of some template says it can be used. Neither matters. The only thing that does is whether WP:RS is met. -- I don't need a reason to question Chart Stats' reliability. It's not "Reliable until proven unreliable." It's the other way round. Goodraise 06:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CHARTS is a style guideline and as such has no business concerning itself with the reliability of sources. As for those extensive discussions, I assume they contain some convincing arguments as to how Chart Stats meets WP:RS? If they don't, then that "consensus" is worth squat. Goodraise 06:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All your arguments on why the site should be considered reliable boil down to "because other Wikipedia editors think it should". You don't see a problem with that? As for back-up, mine is called WP:V, which is policy and therefore takes precedence over that style guideline of yours. As WP:V puts it: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As far as I know, that's not the case here.
    Until I hear some solid and substantiated argument as to why I should consider that page reliable, I will remain opposed, no matter how many editors, style guidelines, and template documentation pages tell me to do otherwise. Goodraise 02:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flaw with that is: WP:V is not in doubt. The difference you have is with WP:RS which is a guideline and like wise WP:GOODCHARTS which is also guideline, both are to be applied with common sense meaning there are exceptions to them. WP:Consensus(a policy) has established that ChartStats is an acceptable source and thus it is listed in WP:GOODCHARTS, but if you feel consensus can change in this case then bring up the issue on WT:CHARTS. In the mean while I not would recommend attempting to derail on article for FLC by editors who are doing exactly what is appropriate to meet the recommended guidelines. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a difference with WP:RS. Throw RS out of the window, forget I even mentioned it, and I'd still be opposing this FLC for violating WP:V. As for that consensus I keep hearing about, there's no such thing, only a group of editors who apparently think that they can themselves provide a source with sufficient credibility. But lets take a step back. Above policy stands common sense. So, answer me this: Why should I (being a reader of Wikipedia) believe anything that's written on Chart Stats? Any answer to this question that boils down to "Because one or more Wikipedia editors think so." is not good enough. Goodraise 00:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sorry to butt in here, but in all of my time being an editor and all the discussions and whatnot about uk chart sources, you (Goodraise) are the only editor that feels the way you do. so that shows that there is consensus among other editors and admins alike. there are many discussions about uk sources, all of them with many examples of undoubtedly reliably sources that use chartstats as a source, so take your views to those instead of filling up every single discography you review. Mister sparky (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"in all of my time being an editor and all the discussions and whatnot about uk chart sources, you ... are the only editor that feels the way you do." - Easily proven wrong.
"there are many discussions ... with many examples of undoubtedly reliably sources that use chartstats as a source" - Where are those discussions? More importantly, where are those examples? Thus far, I've seen not a single one.
As for filling up FLCs, what I have to say takes one line. Hardly too much. Goodraise 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the bbc news, bbc radio, reuters, sky news, the telegraph newspaper reporting uk parliament debates about eurovision chart entries, norwegian newspapers etc etc. but its become quite clear nothing is going to change your mind. as with all opinions on chart sources, thats just what they are, personal opinions. but the majority of opposes you give to discographies makes no difference anyways.Mister sparky (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean the ones given here? The ones citing EveryHit.com? Goodraise 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yep cuz you had probs with that as well. there were more with chartstats. but doesnt matter anyways. Mister sparky (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, you keep insisting that there were such examples in regard to Chart Stats in those discussions, but instead of backing up that claim with proof, you suggest that I am unreasonable, that I would continue to oppose FLCs using the source even in the face of strong evidence of its reliability? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Have I displayed such a behavior in the past? Goodraise 22:14, 23 March 2010(UTC)
Seriously, if you have a problem with ChartStats.com, then write a comment on Wikipedia talk: Record charts, not here. This isn't the page to decide whether a source is reliable or not. I just follow Wikipedia guidelines, which state that ChartStats.com is perfectly fine. If you reach a consensus opposing the use of the website, then come here and I will gladly change the source. But as for right now, ChartStats.com is considered a reliable source. Thank you. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let us for one second assume that Wikipedia:Record charts is not a style guideline, but a content guideline, and that neither Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources nor Wikipedia:Verifiability have any say whatsoever in questions of source reliability. So, what is Wikipedia:Record charts' decree? Perhaps it is "Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives". Take a good look at the page. The only time that Chart Stats is mentioned there is in the sentence "Archived at Chart Stats." It states nowhere that Chart Stats is a reliable source. -- By the way, in the article, you've labeled Chart Stats as being published by The Official Charts Company. If that were the case, I wouldn't oppose its usage. Goodraise 03:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per [2], the site has editorial review and information is retrieved from reliable sources such as Yahoo!, The Official Charts Company, and the BBC. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 16:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That page says nothing about editorial oversight. The only indication is the "Contact Me" link on the left, which suggests to me that the site is run by a single (not to mention anonymous) individual. Even if that person is vigilantly overseeing his/her/its own work, that's nowhere near good enough. As for the sources used, Wikipedia uses reliable sources too, but that doesn't make it reliable itself. Now, if Yahoo!, The Official Charts Company, and the BBC were using Chart Stats as a source, that would be a different story. Goodraise 18:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It says "The singles archive was provided very kindly by Colin at PolyHex and the albums chart archive was kindly published by Lonnie of DistantStar on the UKmix forums." And I have no way of finding out if the website is licensed. Once again, take it up with Wikipedia guidelines not this article. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 19:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Colin at PolyHex" and "Lonnie of DistantStar on the UKmix forums"? Who are they? Are they experts on UK charts or something? Once again, why should I "take it up with Wikipedia guidelines", when they're backing my position already? Goodraise 06:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Wonderfully constructed discography. Improved much from the ongoing fan-war edits happening when I last checked. Here are my issues.

  1. A comma after Swift in the line The discography of American country music recording artist Taylor Swift.
    • done
  2. In the United States, Taylor Swift peaked at number five on the Billboard 200,[1] peaked at number-one Top Country Albums --> Sounds awkward. Try In the United States, Taylor Swift peaked at number five on the Billboard 200, and number one on Top Country Albums. Be consistent with number-one and number one.
    • done
  3. Taylor Swift marked the longest stay on the Billboard 200 by any album released in the decade. --> Which decade?
    • done
  4. with the releases of the EPs --> with the release of the EPs
    • done
  5. Swift obtained her biggest debut on the Billboard Hot 100 in February 2010 --> Mention that it debuted at 2.
    • done
  6. Remove NZ certification from Fearless. Minor market certifications are not listed. It's for the album article.
    • done
  7. Same from the singles tables.
    • done
  8. The note links don't work.
  9. The publisher for allmusic is Rovi Corporation not Macrovision.
    • done
  10. Ref 3 and 6 for RIAA, use an en-dash(–) b/w RIAA and Gold. Check for the dashes in the other sources also.
    • done
  11. For the Hung Medien references, give the work as the main charting source, like ARIA Charts for australian-charts, tracklisten for the danish ones, etc.
These are the things I could find. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Concerns have been addressed. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from liquidluck✽talk 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*I've edited the article in the past so I would have a bit of a COI supporting, but here's a few comments:
  • "becoming the best-selling album" -> "became the best-selling album", in order to preserve the sentence's parallel structure.
  • done
  • "of 2008 and 2009" Add "in the United States" to make it clear it wasn't worldwide (unless it was?). Also, cite the clause to citation #14 since it isn't supported by the RIAA cite.
No worries, I did it myself. liquidluck✽talk 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation #3 isn't working for me? The link works but the page just contains "Search results: First, First".
It still isn't working for me, but if it works for others that's good enough for me. liquidluck✽talk 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "denotes releases that did not chart or was not released." -> "denotes songs which did not chart or were not released in the region"
  • done

liquidluck✽talk 00:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment – The lead looks worthy of an FL, but I noticed a reference issue above involving Chartstats, which is used to source UK chart positions. Since I have no knowledge regarding what chart sites are reliable, I wanted to ask something from another point of view, namely what alternatives are there? Is there something online that is considered reliable, so that old magazines don't have to be individually cited? Or are the magazines the only source here that won't be questioned? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This would of course be considered acceptable, but unfortunately it doesn't come out till November. The current edition only covers up to 2007..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 29 March 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/Taylor_Swift_discography/archive1&oldid=1143871954"