Talk:Carrie Underwood discography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.
Featured list FL This article has been rated as FL-Class on the assessment scale.
Featured list star Carrie Underwood discography is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Contents

[edit] "Multi-Platinum"

For the record (no pun intended), RIAA really does use "2× Multi-platinum"; while I can't directly link to RIAA search results, I would suggest looking up Carrie at http://www.riaa.com ; a search there would indicate that they do indeed use such phrasing, redundant as it may be. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, totally redundant. NrDg and I discussed this after I made my edit. - eo (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&title=Some%20Hearts&format=ALBUM&go=Search&perPage=25 is how you get a url to a search. Change title param to whatever you are looking for. I guess this is a style issue. I don't care a lot about this but like to see referenced information accurately reflect the reference. --NrDg 22:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I can understand using the "2× Multi-platinum" because that is what RIAA uses but I find it redundant and this is the only Wikipedia page I have seen that uses it. I think it would be helpful to bring this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Aspects (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA-status

I'm planning to promote this article to FA status within these few months. Anyone would like to help me please do. Thanks. σмgнgσмg(talk) 07:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a lead and fixed the album table today, but what I really need is sources. If you find sources please be bold and add them in, thanks. σмgнgσмg(talk) 08:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from before, I've made some heavy changes to the article. Here is a summary of what I've done:

  1. Improved the lead, see WP:MOS and WP:LEAD
  2. Removed US sales and Worldwide sales, these can keep fluctuating and hence, cause it to be unstable
  3. Removed the notes section under the album table. This is because the article is a list, not a case of trivial notes. However, some are mentioned in the lead, backed with verified sources.
  4. Combined other charted songs and the singles table together. This is because they technically do count as singles.
  5. Removed some songs that were regarded as singles. After countless hours of research, and information from Wikipedia articles, they aren't singles. (For eg. Bless the Broken Road by Rascal Flats)
  6. Fixed the inline citations
  7. Added sources
  8. Added a section of directors in the music video section.

Now, I think this article can satisfy the WP:FLC criteria. I have nominated now. If there is any queries, leave a message below. Also, if you are unhappy with the changes, instead of reverting it, please voice your opinions on the talk page. Many thanks. σмgнgσмg(talk) 11:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree these two points, so I change back.
  1. Combined other charted songs and the singles table together. This is because they technically do count as singles.
  2. Removed some songs that were regarded as singles. After countless hours of research, and information from Wikipedia articles, they aren't singles. (For eg. Bless the Broken Road by Rascal Flats)--Langdon (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080

Where is the source that Bless the Broken Road was an actual single? σмgнgσмg(talk) 22:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Another summary of changes by me. Basically, these changes are based on the advice made by Wikipedia editors here.

  1. Expanded lead
  2. Tweaked the table(s) a bit. Note: Inside Your Heaven and I'll Stand By You were actually singles.
  3. Add "emdashes" to the charts (Don't revert them, they are necessary)
  4. "Chart Positions" renamed to ""Peak chart positions" since we're naming their chart positions
  5. Certifications wikilinked to Music recording sales certification, RIAA changed to US and CRIA to CAN.
  6. Added information on the albums
  7. External links added

Before any reverts, please discuss it first. Thanks. σмgнgσмg(talk) 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


I don't like to put any notes in Album name column like this:
Year Album
2005 Some Hearts
  1. We are smart enough to figure out which album comes first, which is second, etc (according to the year infomation). No necessery to put it on.
  2. We have a year column in front of the album. That briefly tells when the album came out. If anyone want a specific date, he or she can check their respective articles.
  3. If it is necessery to put format out, I'll put it on the top as a note.
I don't like to put notes inside the album name, because it is UGLY. It is a waste of space. And we don't have rules on putting them on, so we don't have to.--Langdon (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080
No? Then what about WP:WIAFL where it states the article, even though it is a list, has to be comprehensive. But since you think it looks ugly, how about we work a compromise where we only add in the release dates and music labels. If we take a look at other promoted featured lists that were discographies, we can see that many of them include the release dates and music labels. For example: 50 Cent, Aesop Rock, Billie Piper. σмgнgσмg(talk) 05:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, but about the record lable , they will be repeat so many times in the future if Carrie Underwood do not change her record lable. I suggest we can mention at the top or put it in a different column. It is not so repeatable in that way. I suggest we can fix the table inthis way:


Carrie Underwood has release two studio albums. They are in both CD and digital download forms. For more information, please see their respective articles.

Year Album Peak chart positions Certifications Record Lable
US Country US 200 CAN Albums CAN Country AUS Country World US Canada
2005 Some Hearts 1 2 11 1 12 2 7× multi-platinum 3× platinum Arista Records
2007 Carnival Ride 1 1 1 1 9 1 2× multi-platinum

--Langdon (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080

Yeah, but don't say "for more information, click on their respective articles". That is just redundant. Or maybe, let's just not have that opening sentence. σмgнgσмg(talk) 06:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


I've just done the following things:

  1. merge other charted songs and Miscellaneous appearances. they are basically the same thing.
  2. separate certifications. It looks clear this way
  3. record label: move to the top or create a new colomn. It should not be repeated more than 2 times
  4. dates: years are repeated. I delete one of them.

And the certifications of singles are a mess. Should we separate them or what? --Langdon (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080

[edit] Further changes

Further drastic changes to the layout of the article and the format of it will need to be discussed beforehand. This is because we can't keep on changing the format to suit what you think looks good as the article is currently going under a WP:FLC review. Thanks. σмgнgσмg(talk) 04:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't follow your rules. You didn't even discuss when you made the change. You just list what you'd changed. It is non sense. You are not in charge here. I'd posted some changes I made, like you, and no one answered.--Langdon (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080
Okay, I will try to be civil here. The reason the article had undergone any changes is due to the discussion here with myself, Drewcifer and The Rambling Man, who happen to have prior knowledge in promoting featured articles. I've only changed the article from their constructive criticisms. Please take a look and if you are still unhappy, leave a message on that page and it can be resolved. Thanks. σмgнgσмg(talk) 06:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
But I do like how you created another table for certifications. I must admit, the original table looked messy. σмgнgσмg(talk) 07:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If there is a disagreement with suggestions made at the article's FLC, I would either recommend bringing them up at the FLC for the suggestors to see and respond to, or to close the FLC for now and continue discussions here. It's not good to divide conversations between two places, especially since there seems to be a huge disconnect between the two. My two cents on the changes: I obviously think they are for the better, which is why I suggested them in the first place. If you look at pretty much every other FL discography, the suggestions made at the FLC are pretty consistent with established discog style. I would further argue that most of the conventions have been established for good reasons, over the span of many separate FL nominations, and through the work of many editors, so I feel confident in suggesting ways that this particular discography can match those conventions, and voting one way or another based on how closely the list conforms. That said, it's not a requirement of any article to go through such a process, nor is it a requirement to follow the suggestions made. Drewcifer (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other charted songs vs. Miscellaneous appearances

Miscellaneous appearances is where she collaborated with other artists or featured in other songs. Note, this does not mean that these songs charted. So why are we combining it with the other charted songs table? σмgнgσмg(talk) 04:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is because most of Other charted songs are Miscellaneous appearances, like do bless the broken road. other charted song was created by me, and spreaded by me. they are all other charted songs, but they are repeated again and again. I just try to make it simpler. and, only "just a dream" don't count in Miscellaneous appearances. why don't we put them together? before anyone responses, I will change it back, let others take a look, and we can discuss keep it or kick it. that should be the way to make change, or we can never change anything, or improve the article.--Langdon (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080
Nevertheless, there is still a very big line that seperates these two. Other charted songs are songs that have garnered attention to be popular enough to have airplay on the radio. Miscellaneous appearances are songs which Carrie Underwood has collaborated with, that are featured in other albums. They did not have airplay on radio stations, and hence, these two are different from one another. σмgнgσмg(talk) 07:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some Hearts

the song "some hearts" only released in pop and AC format (it said like this in Some Hearts). so don't put lines back in country colomns. --Langdon (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080

See here for the reason why. σмgнgσмg(talk) 06:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Label Issue

I've talk about label issue before, and someone likes it. why change it back? like I said, if carrie release 20 albums in her career, we will repeat the label so many times. I suggest again that we create a new column or move it to the top. I will do it beforehand.--Langdon (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080

It's just a bit wierd for have a column just to have a label on it. See other featured discographies like The Corrs discography, all have the labels repeated again and again. σмgнgσмg(talk) 06:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You've given me a very bad example. The Corrs discography was edited by you. It is strange to repeat a thing so many times. We have to make it simpler. I'll not accept it, because other country discographies like Reba McEntire discography puts the label in another column.--Langdon (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080
Yeah, but other featured list that are discographies have repeated the label again and again. For example, Powderfinger discography, James Blunt discography, Billie Piper discography, 50 Cent discography, Aesop Rock discography.... and there is many more. The only reason I used The Corrs discography was because I had based it on the discographies just mentioned now. σмgнgσмg(talk) 00:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About All the Changes

I really appreciate Omghgomg who work very hard on this discography. But I ought to point out the things I don't like.

[edit] Albums

Previous

Year Album Chart Positions Certifications
US Country US 200 CAN CAN Country AUS Country World US Canada
2005 Some Hearts 1 2 11 1 12 2 6× Multi-platinum 3× Multi-platinum
2007 Carnival Ride 1 1 1 1 9 1 2× Multi-platinum

Current

Year Album Peak chart positions[1][2][3] Certifications
US Country US 200 CAN CAN Country AUS Country World
2005 Some Hearts 1 2 11 1 12 2 US: 7× Multi-Platinum
Canada: 3× Platinum
2007 Carnival Ride 1 1 1 1 9 1 US: 2× Multi-Platinum

compare these 2. in the second one the notes make every row spacious. that is not a good thing. so I suggest several ways to avoid this, but Omghgomg did not listen.

  1. the label: I suggest that we can move to a new column, like Reba McEntire discography. or if the artist has only a label at this time period, we can mention at the top. but it seems like that Omghgomg 'didn't allow any notes at the top, and he thinks repeating things is good, like his model example, The Corrs discography.
  2. the format: this part is deleted, but I have to mention it again. most albums release in CD format, and sometimes in digital download form. they are similar in every album, so we don't have to repeat again and again. I think the best solution is add a note at the top.
  3. the release date: like I've said, we can briefly know when a album is out by looking at the year column. month and date is not very important because most country artist do not release 2 albums in the same year. it is not really necessery. and, do we have to do the same thing to singles too?
  4. the certifications: for this part, I prefer the first one because it is clearer than the 2nd one.

if over 90% of discographies are edited like that way, I won't argue again. I know some featured discographies did that way, but that is not a rule. we don't have to skick to other pages. if we can save some space, why don't we? and a my point is to factorthe same things out, and don't repeat the same thing so many times.

[edit] Singles & Other Charted Songs

I like the note system very much. it works much better. one day I will make a change in all country discography.
one thing I want to point out is the horizontal lines. the note says, ""—" denotes releases that did not chart." what do you mean? is it release to all formats but fail to chart some of the formats or release to that format but fail to chart? Like "Some Hearts", the song release to pop and AC format only. hot 100 contains any format of music, so I don't know if the song fails to chart. but it didn't release to country radio, the song don't have to chart. it is the same thing in other charted songs. the songs there didn't even RELEASE. the lines there should be deleted.

[edit] Miscellaneous appearances

I think the chart positions of "Do You Hear What I Hear" and others should be move to this section, either merge or create a new box. they are the same, but separated into 2 different sections. it is weird.

[edit] Music videos

it is an irony here. Omghgomg created another column to denote directors but didn't allow me to put label in a new column. what reason is that?????

[edit] Making Changes

since Omghgomg have come, making changes become more difficult. I've suggest a way to change this: "change first, then leave a message, and we can discuss keep it or kick it." I think it is better than "discuss first, change later," in that case we might never change a thing because no one answer to it at all. we should also copy the messages to the featured list discussion, so everyone can see them.
there are too few poeple to response to making changes, and because of the old way, we can never change a thing. compare to these 2 pages, 2006 in country music and 2008 in country music, you can see that the 2008 one is not worse than 2006 one. and please don't say "no other pages do that". it is ridiculous.


by Langdon (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080


I've address your concerns on this page for other users to view and they can voice their opinions. σмgнgσмg(talk) 02:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let us stop editing this article until other users have voiced their opinions on this article shall we? σмgнgσмg(talk) 10:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

As the inactive FLC has been archived in Featured list candidates/Carrie Underwood discography/archive1, the issues have been posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Noticeboard#Carrie Underwood discography, and several editors have been participating in the continuing discussion below, I've removed a third opinion request which was posted five days ago. — Athaenara ✉ 15:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

I don't like some of the format edited by Omghgomg. I'm going to hold a vote. the catigories include: notes under albums, certifications, dashes, the position of albums in single and song table. I need everybody's opinions.

Please see WP:Voting, in particular the quote "Voting is not a substitute for consensus." My own opinion is that the scope of this particular discussion has gone beyond this single FLC. I would recommend closing this FLC with the intention of renominating it later, and posing the question of formatting elsewhere (Wikipedia:WikiProject Music or the WP:FLC talk page would probably be the best place to start). That way, a discussion (rather than a straw poll) can be started beyond the scope of Carrie Underwood fans. Drewcifer (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, I'd like to stress that broader venues might be a better place for this discussion. Centralizing the discussion here will result in only Carrie Underwood fans contributing to the discussion. Drewcifer (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

1.

Year Album
2005 Some Hearts

2.

Year Album Label
2005 Some Hearts
  • Released: November 15, 2005
  • Format: CD, digital download
 Arista Nashville

3.
The record label of all albums is Arista Nashville; albums are released in CD and digital download forms.

Year Album
2005 Some Hearts

4.
The record label of all albums is Arista Nashville; albums are released in CD and digital download forms.

Year Album
2005 Some Hearts

Please vote for one of them.

Comment - Concise is not an issue in this article, what matters is readability and comprehensiveness. σмgнgσмg(talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Voting for 2. It contains the most information without sacrificing readability. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • voted for #4. BravesFan2006 (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Voted for 1 - except we can get rid of the format section. σмgнgσмg(talk) 05:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Certifications
Certifications
US: 7× Multi-Platinum
Canada: 3× Platinum
Certifications
US Canada
7× Multi-Platinum 3× Platinum

Please vote for one of them.

[edit] Dashes
Year Single Peak chart positions
US Country US Hot 100 US Pop 100 US AC US Digital
2005 "Bless the Broken Road" 50 — — — —

"—" denotes releases that did not chart.

Year Single Peak chart positions
US Country US Hot 100 US Pop 100 US AC US Digital
2005 "Bless the Broken Road" 50

"blank" denotes releases that did not chart.

Please vote for one of them.

  • vote for lower one. Langdon (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080
  • Dashes is the way for me. Blanks are ambiguous and should never be used to denote anything.--Crzycheetah 00:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Blanks I don't think that blanks are ambiguous at all, and I think that dashes look ugly in a table. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - We can't have blanks in an article because in the article, there is a table with blanks in it already. That is in the singles table. The blanks represent the fact that the CAN Hot 100 was not established at the time of the single. σмgнgσмg(talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Blanks per TenPoundHammer --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Dashes per Crzy. Blanks could be interpreted as the information not having been entered. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Blanks BravesFan2006 (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Dashes per Crzycheetah. σмgнgσмg(talk) 05:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Album positions
Year Single Album
2007 "Just a Dream" Carnival Ride
"Do You Hear What I Hear" Hear Something Country Christmas 2007
Year Single Album
2007 "Just a Dream" Carnival Ride
"Do You Hear What I Hear" Hear Something Country Christmas 2007

Please vote for one of them.


[edit] Voting (lack thereof)

The voting, as Drewcifer said, was a pointless method. So, I've left a request at WPP:MUSIC discussion board in hopes that they would provide scope on this article. This article is in need of a third opinion from outside the Carrie Underwood fans. σмgнgσмg(talk) 03:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] New FA Run

Since there is really no objections to the article or any disputes, I'm thinking of nominating this article for FAL again. If you have any objections, now would be the time to voice them before I nominate this article. σмgнgσмg(talk) 10:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there has been no objections, I have nominated this article again for a featured list. σмgнgσмg(talk) 10:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Voting

I must say, the voting is quite successful. (it is held by me.)

Those format examples are not wrong, but we need consensus on the format. Also, It tells us what other editors prefer. when I make changes, I always receive this excuse: "other editors are satisfied with that, so don't change." or something similar to that. how do you know others think that way? of course they are satisfied with that (because they don't talk), but after voting, we can see they do prefer other ways.

so, we have to use the result temporarily. the voting law did allow us to do that. so the certifications and album positions problems are temporarily solved. for notes and dashes, we will wait for more opinions. Langdon (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)i7114080

Remember what Drewcifer said above, voting is not a substitute for consensus. Also, hosting a vote here is not sufficient as only Carrie Underwood fans will be in this discussion. If we must have a vote, do this after the WP:FLC nomination and host the vote outside this talk page, preferably WPP:MUSIC's discussion board so a broad range of experienced users may have a look into this and vote as well. σмgнgσмg(talk) 06:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)