Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Madonna albums discography/archive1

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 22:44, 17 November 2009 [1].

Madonna albums discography[edit]

Nominator(s): --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/Madonna albums discography/archive1

Featured list removal candidates/Madonna albums discography/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this is a complete list featuring Madonna's albums (studio, live, compilation etc). Since her catalogue is huge so there are two separate articles for singles and albums. This is the albums discography of Madonna. I believe the article is worthy of being Wikipedia's best. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Note above infobox should be "Madonna album discography". Not sure you need to link Madonna there as it's linked in the first sentence of the lead which is in roughly the same place in the article.
- Done. Linking is kept as per other FLs.
Image caption doesn't need a full stop as it isn't a complete sentence.
- Done.
The four remix albums aren't included in the opening part of the lead.
- Done.
"signed for a singles contract " didn't she just "sign a singles contract"?
- Done.
"reached a peak of eight " perhaps "peaked at number eight on..."?
- Done.
"album peaked the chart " perhaps "topped the chart" to be completely unambiguous?
- Done.
You link both platinum and diamond to RIAA certifications. Perhaps just link certification once to RIAA certifications?
- Done.
"entered the 90s " 1990s.
- Done.
Are diamond, platinum etc capitalised or not? They're not in the lead but they are in the tables. Apart from when you say "Multi-Platinum " - I'm positive Multi shouldn't be capitalised, if nothing else!
- Done. Capitalised
" fourteen million copies" 14 million.
- Done.
Any real reason for the tiny font in the table? Just makes it harder to read and less accessible.
- Actually since unlike other FLs, sales are included in this one, hence the 10pt font was making it difficult to make other users iwth less than 800x600 resolution read teh table. We need to remember that not everybody reads the articles on Wikipedia with same format.
  - Smaller text is more likely to cause a problem than people using 800x600 though. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry I didnot explain myself clearly. The 10pt text was breaking the tables in a 640x480 resolution hence I made it 9pt. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WW? Never seen that abbreviation before, why not just have "World:" and "US:"?
- Im at a little loss on this one though i changed it to World.
Can you use real notes that link to the text?
- Its fine to use scholars and their analysis as long as it is actually present.
  - I would like the notes to link to the text, especially as some of your non-linked notes are right next to references, it looks very odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you clarify this a little? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The notes (e.g. "1. Standard worldwide: 1-CD...") do not link to where they are used (like a reference would, for instance). And you end up with something like "US: 5,777,000[38]2 " which is very odd looking. The notes should link to the text. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ohh. Now I get it. I'll make them reference like :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I corrected it. Take a looky :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does en-dash mean in the table?
- Added in the first three tables.
"Does not include sales prior to the start of the SoundScan era (May 25, 1991)." I'm not sure I understand what this really means?
- Explained.
The notes are unreferenced.
- Referenced.
"Other .. albums" sections should have their tables formatted with same size columns.
- Done.
One album has a hyphen as a year separator, one has an em-dash. Pick one (pref an en-dash) and be consistent.
- I didnot understand this one.
  - The GHV2 album uses an em-dash to separate the years while the "Madonna 1983-1989 " uses a hyphen. En-dash is preferable. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Made them en-dash. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three of your "See alsos" are "best-selling" links. That information should be in this article if some of these are in those top lists.
- They are present. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support

~~Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should have a maximum of four paragraphs. This article has five.~~
- Made 4. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not entirely sure making the third paragraph so bulky was the right way to go. I suggest splitting it again and just getting rid of the last paragraph, it's pretty trivial.~~ — ξ ^xplicit 05:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ya I feel so now too. Removed. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following references should be updated, as they redirect to different titles: "Madonna's label sues record giant", "Madonna Makes a $60 Million Deal", "Thank You For the Music! How Madonna's New Single Will Give Abba Their Greatest-Ever Hit".
- Replaced with working references.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Discogs is a user generated site and not a reliable source.~~
- Replaced with Billboard. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Some references do not use templates (specifically the book references). Considering using the {{harvnb}} template.~~
- Whoahh. This was tricky but done :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~More than one reference contains <ref name="aus">, despite having different content. Please correct this.~~
- Corrected. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~This reference is used more than once. Consider combining duplicate references.~~ — ξ^xplicit 02:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Separated to respective urls. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Dabomb :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I made a few suggestions to the nominator before he brought it here, so I'm pretty happy with it right now, and don't have that much to offer, especially after the reviews that have already come. Generally it's very good, although I'm a bit concerned that the sales figures will date and may become unverifiable. Some are referenced to books from 2002 and 2004 -- surely they're more than that by now?
- Actually I did try to find references as current as possible but its very difficult for pre 1990 albums when Nielsen Soundscan didnot track their sales. Hence the recent most book is used. Sorry about that. :(
  - No problem. I know we work on the "WP:V, not Truth" principal. :) Matthewedwards : Chat 04:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book by Maury Dean is listed in the references section, but no notes use it.. is that a mistake?
- Well here's a mistake. I'll remove it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewedwards : Chat 02:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, one final thing is that I don't think the 3 "List of bestselling albums in..." are particularly necessary in the see also section, but it's a personal preference and nothing that's a big deal. Support Matthewedwards : Chat 04:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support on fixing the overlinking in the References section. The list appears comprehensive and well sourced. However, you should de-link pretty much all of the wikilinks in the references section. We already have wikilinks for most these in the article (such as Billboard or Australian Recording Industry Association) and the others (e.g. BBC or The Daily Telegraph) aren't really helpful IMO. Colin°^Talk 14:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I understand about wp:overlink on Billboard and ARIA, but how does a single link of BBC and The Daily Telegraph violates wp:overlink? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't. I just mentioned that "IMO" those weren't really helpful but if you disagree then that's fine. The issue was the overlinking. Colin°^Talk 09:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cool. So do you feel that I addressed your concern for the overlinking? Please check. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes. Though I've now noticed that your "work" and "publisher" parameters to "cite web" are the wrong way round. Have a look at the template help. Colin°^Talk 10:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dt128 (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from Dt128

Why are the publishers in italics? Also, why is, for example, The Official Charts Company used in conjuction with Chart Stats? Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 16:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the jargon of template:cite web and template:cite news. As for why The Official Charts Company is used with CahrtStats, the original work is by OCC, Chart Stats is just the publisher, that's why. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know but, for example, Allmusic is a website, not a publication that should be in italics. Surely the "work=" parameter should be left to such publications as Billboard? And yes, such websites as Les Charts and Chart Stats get their chart information from the chart sources, but are not published in conjunction with them. Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I stated before this italicization is only due to the template:cite web and its jargon. Nothing can be done reagarding this if the jargon is not changed. As for Lescharts and Chartstats, it is more important to note the authors or the original workers when they publish not in conjunction. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why haven't album catalog numbers been included? Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Catalog numbers are not a necessity to be included. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Websites and chart names should not be in italics. See this sample edit to guide you.~~ Dabomb87 (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected such links. Please check Dabomb. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks; looks good now. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.