Talk:Discipline (Janet Jackson album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Discipline (Janet Jackson album) article.
Article policies
Good article Discipline (Janet Jackson album) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 8, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Realist2 (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] "Critical Response"

I deleted the self-referenced statement of

"critical response has been overwhelmingly positive, and music industry enthusiasts expect a strong comeback for Jackson in response to the single."

The reference for this statement comes from a Janet Jackson fan site which is NOT a neutral or viable source of criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKnowledge1814 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Who are these "critics" who have "excitedly proclaimed" Jackson's comeback? Please provide a reference or it should be removed. I have added a request for citation on it. Anyone else thinks it sounds like a line off a press release other than myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.63.229 (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some kind of "reception" section? Most other releases have a synopsis of reviews.24.13.14.232 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

The track by track breakdown is not necessary, nor written in the style of an encyclopedia. I'm axing it. Phoenix1304 (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cover?

Someone please put up a new cover. The sticker on the current ruins it makes readers think it's part of it. The cover without anything blocking it is on amazon.com or albumart.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.131.137 (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German release date

It has been reported as March 22nd, but that's a Saturday: German releases come out on Fridays.

There must have been a mistake, so it's either February 22nd (in line with the date of release in other countries), or March 21st (a Friday). Aleppo1979 (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leaked

it Leaked today (20.2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.170.208 (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Well i don't know if the entire album has been leaked or not, but i know Feedback, Rock With U, and Luv we're all released on Janet's official site JanetJackson.com, and they we're joined today by Rollercoaster, 2nite, So Much Betta, and a remix of Feedback done with Ciara. So that's only 7 song's from a album that's supposed to have 20 songs or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.31.41 (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You REALLY don't know the difference between "were" and "we're"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.70.55 (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] L.A. Reid

Jermaine Dupri is the executive producer of the album with Janet, not L.A. Reid... See here, he also signed xD: http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg249/xAng3luSx/CD.jpg But also here: http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg249/xAng3luSx/JanetBack.jpg Can anybody change? And also, the album is out today in Switzerland :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.219.108.87 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true! His name isn't even featured in the booklet. – (empoor) 17:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discipline chart updates.

Here is a great site to get chart updates on the album , its continually updated so check it every other day or so. Realist2 (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Tho it doesnt seem to matter anymore. Realist2 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tracklisting

While the current tracklist contains all the necessary information, it also contains esoteric information such as producers, which is not in line with Wikipedia Albums, nor is the table in line with the standard tracklist. I strongly suggest it is re-written to fit the current guildelines clearly stated here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Track_listing Reqluce (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to change it if it goes against wiki guidelines. Realist2 (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Done.Reqluce (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

ok. Realist2 (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Tags

Realist2, I'm going to be honest with you. If you look at the entries for her other albums, you will see that unlike those, JJ and TL had nothing to do with this album, thus there is no need for that citation tag. It IS her first album since Control to not involve them. Actually, that wouldn't be correct. The correct wording would be that it's her first album since Dream Street to not be produced by them (I think...), since JJ and TL did produce Control.

Further, I changed that other statement because the track list clearly gives the games of the people who wrote the songs, but she only co-wrote one of them. So this album does at least have one song she at least-co-wrote.

Unless you can give me a concrete reason as to why these tags should remain, I am going to have to revert the article back to me previous edit. Brittany Ka (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No you will not. It must be sourced, saying "just look back at her old credits" doesnt wash on an encyclopedia. If the article is going to say that its the firt time she hasnt been involved since ..... then it must be sourced. Realist2 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial success section

This doesn't seem particularly adequate to me. For one thing, the heading itself is arguably not NPOV; something like 'Chart performance and sales' would cover the same ground in a less subjective way.

More to the point, while there's detailed information on the album's week-by-week performance in the US and how that affects various Jackson career tallies and compares to previous album sales (most of which seems sourced and appropriate), there's no discussion whatsoever of how the album has charted elsewhere in the world -- and Jackson is undeniably a global artist. According to the chart stats in the article itself, the album went top 3 in Canada and top 10 in Japan, but hasn't been in a hit in some of Jackson's other major world markets (UK and Australia, for example).

I know there's an active community working on this article and that performance is a touchy topic so I haven't simply dived in and made changes, but I think this needs expansion (and sourcing of suitable sources if there's going to be a detailed section, natch). Even a comment on the lines of "The album also reached #3 in Canada and #9 in Japan" would be a start though!

Thoughts? Gusworld (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Janets market has been restricted to north america and Japan for a number of years. Her last hit album in europe was All For You. If you cant to make chances please do, i support your ideas, ill help along the way too. Realist2 (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've made the changes suggested above, and also copy-edited the section a bit to make it more coherent (I also removed the All For You sales figures as they confused the key contrast of chart position versus sales that applied to the intervening two albums). While it's arguably possible to add "but was not a major hit in other world markets" to the end of the global chart sentence summary, I think it's more neutral to simply let readers draw their own conclusions based on factual data. Gusworld (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article gives the first three weeks of US sales but we know that after 4 weeks it sold 310,000 copies in the US. Simple maths can give us the US fourth week sales. Realist2 (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Worth adding in (with a ref) then. At some point (unless there's a Feedback-style sales rebound, perhaps driven by more singles success) it would seem to become trivial to list individual weekly sales; the section should probably ultimately conclude with something like "As of date, the album had sold a total of xxx,xxx copies in the US according to Nielsen SoundScan (source)". Not saying we've arrived there yet though. Gusworld (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah its ok to do it weak by weak for now just so we keep a track on it, then when it stops selling we can say "it sold 1.5 million copies in 18 weeks" or whatever....????Realist2 (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to critical reception section

Two things that seem problematic to me here: the Billboard and VH1 entries are unsourced (and the fact they were apparently based on listening parties isn't really a relevant detail either), so need to go unless someone can find a cite. And the second quote from the All Music Guide isn't really relevant (it's a prediction about whether Janet still has a major career, not a comment about Discipline itself). Proposing to remove these unless someone mounts a good counter-argument or finds references. Gusworld (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove anything thats crystal ball and fact tag the parts that are unsourced, gives people more of a chance to see it and do something. Realist2 (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I think that the Pop Matters quote could also probably be trimmed to make the same point more succintly, but one step at a time . . . Gusworld (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK keep at it, im just trying to maintain the charts for now, thats where most of the fans lies go. When it all calms down we can finish this article for GA.Realist2 (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A case of crystal ball?

When i originally made the sales table i added a certification colomn expecting it to get certified quite quickly. Obviously because of poor sales that isn't gonna happen soon so should the coloumn be removed because of crystal ball? Realist2 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Given that most markets don't release sales figures either, I suspect sales might go eventually as well, with the available numbers in the body text. Also, is there really any need for all three Billboard charts? Comprehensive albums covers all genres, but it's rare (if not unprecedented) for the top-selling 200 album to not also be top of comprehensive (Thriller 25 being the closest exception I can think of). Gusworld (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think because it was on sale at the same time as T25, interest in the Comprehensive chart picked up. Also it was Janets album that made T25 fall from #2 to #3 on the chart. I think the bill 200 is all thats needed, im just trying to explain why it might have been put there. Realist2 (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Janet has a certification. Gold in Japan. Should be set the table up again.gold in Japan. Realist2 (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much value in having a column on the table if only one or two countries have information available (or just one, as is the case right now). The Japan certification should certainly be noted in the text; if we end up with several certifications, the column can easily be added. (I have similar concerns about the sales column, as I've mentioned above.) Gusworld (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Ok ill add it to the text. I would defo give sales some more time, there is no need to rush with that, i believe she is going to tour for the first time in ages so it still might be a little premature. Realist2 (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Total #1 albums by a female in US

Someone added a reference to Mariah Carey scoring her sixth number one album with E=MC2, thus putting her in equal second place with Jackson for this ranking. While it seems likely that E=MC2 will top the charts, this hasn't happened yet, so it isn't appropriate to add yet. And when it does get added, it shouldn't just be incorporated into the sentence as happened here, since the referenced source doesn't refer to Mariah's achievement at all; probably a separate note along the lines of (Mariah Carey scored her sixth number one-album a month later, tying with Jackson for second place.) with its own reference will be needed. Just one to watch for. Gusworld (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The same user made the same alteration to the Janet article which i reverted. It will eventually go to number one so we will have to add another statement with a source saying that Carey has since had her sixth #1. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 00:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that it's official, have gone in and made the change myself (with ref) -- though it will probably need changing again next week if Madonna scores her seventh #1. Gusworld (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting comfusing. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 03:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Writing and production credits

While it's certainly notable that Discipline has no Jackson writing credits and no Lewis/Jam production, the previous sentence claiming this didn't adequately source that information. The review provided as a source mentions that Jackson doesn't have any writing credits, but doesn't note that this is the first time since Control or that Jam/Lewis weren't involved. I've recast the material to reflect the available sources; we still need a source to note the lack of Jam/Lewis involvement. Gusworld (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Janet has writing credits on Discipline. Her name is on the interlude's "4 Words" credits. Check your facts. --83.103.40.168 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes she did, its not worth mentioning tho. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

But saying she has no writing credits on this album at all would be false. That was my point. --83.103.40.168 (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the sentance says songs, 4 words interlude is not a song. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA

Shall we sort citation tags, format sources, and go for GA?Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 03:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It also needs a mild copy edit (the section on the singles is not very good, for instance), but yeah, other than that I think it's pretty close. Gusworld (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with most of the obviously offending material -- biggest problem was misrepresentation of reviews. Aside from format cites, a couple of outstanding issues:

*The DVD information seems trivial -- especially when there's no mention of the Deluxe Edition in the body text.

  • Might make sense to wait until we know if Madonna scores another #1 album, as that will change Jackson's ranking among females with #1 albums, before we submit. Only ten days or so away, and bound to attract a few random editors, which wouldn't help during GA.
  • The chart trajectory information for the US will need to go per Wiki album guidelines (we can revisit that if there's a tour-inspired climb up the charts or special edition, but for now it's excessive).

*The total sales figures for the US and worldwide (used in the intro and commercial section) are troublesome, since we don't have standalone sources for them. Gusworld (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and per WP:FLAGS, the flag icons in the release history need to be replaced with text. Gusworld (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually regarding trajectories i thought thats what you were ment to do, replace a trajectory table with pros? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The 310,000 figure is supported by rueters, dude thats completely fine by wikipedia standard. Check my talk page 2 editers including one admin has said its fine. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We shouldnt postpone the GA nomination over madonna, yes it will cause a few bad edits but not enough for a quick fail on stability grounds. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Formatted sourced and resolved citation tags. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I put the article up for GA, we only have a few minor issues to resolve, the nomination process is backlogged so we have some time before it comes around to us. Could you sort out the flags, im not sure how you want it done and im not bothered, cheers, omg, i think we have a good chance!!!Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work with the cites. I'll replace the flags with text (I don't see them adding anything), and I might simplify the trajectory stuff -- trajectory tables are indeed supposed to be replaced with prose, but they're also not supposed to be overly detailed even in that format.Gusworld (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i think the flags are the essentuals, we can discuss the trajectory if needs be. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Just not sure that the chart positions for the first four weeks are particularly notable (and the weekly sales do seem like indiscriminate information) -- the key points are peak position and total sales. The chart stuff could effectively be simplified down to "Discipline remained in the Top 10 for three weeks". But will flag first! Gusworld (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

1 thing, for the critical reaction section, yesterday i had to remove 1 positive comment because it was an unreliable source, could you add another positive statement back in to rebalance it. Nice flag work, cheers. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gusworld (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, do you think its rightfully balanced? I would say the critical reaction section is slighly more negative but i would argue that reviews were better than average. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 00:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN on hold

  • Lead needs expansion to three paragraphs...check out any other album GA/FA (eg. Diorama (album), I've recently been working on)
    • DONE
  • Merge/expand short paragraphs in the Production section. Also, the first needs a source for said announcement
    • DONE
  • Like "Feedback", this article again feels not-so-broad...check out the sections used on some of the other articles that are GA/FA
    • DONE - expanded singles section and expanded production section
  • Check italics for magazines in Critical section
    • DONE
  • "Several critics were less favourable" - their commentary was less favourable, not the critic (the person) themself. Reword.
    • DONE
  • Songs need quotation marks in Singles section
    • DONE

I'll take another look after you expand it...cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, will get to it. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 14:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, finished. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

More notes based on the additions...
  • Singles section should go before reception
    • DONE
  • The DVD paragraph is pretty unsourced...need some external sources, not just the DVD itself

The rest mostly looks OK.... 00:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have another sweep at this -- has developed a few minor copy problems during the revisions, and some of the references are now inaccurate. Gusworld (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please go ahead. There's no hurry. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment The lead is ackward. Its huge while the below text is relatively not so huge. Needs balancing per WP:LEAD. --Efe (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Clearly the lead was expanded in response to the suggestion above, but it does seem a little long now relative to the rest of the article. Gusworld (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. But it was overly explanded. --Efe (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I was specifically asked to make it 3 paragraphs long which is exactly what i did, the singles part of the lead defo needs trimming but it was the only way to get the lead to 3 damn paragraphs lol. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 12:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it again, H20 had no problems with the leads expansion. Before its altered i request that H20 makes further comments on the lead, i dont want to keep going back and for, cutting and expanding, unnessarily.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what guys, I'll give it at try. :) Any objections to this? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
My point was just the lead was overly expanded. I think DM's version is way better because it does not compete anymore with the text below (Although that "Feedback" info remained too much). Good article. --Efe (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes thats fine by me, are we ready to go?Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, all seems good then, passing! Kudos to all. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, man, my second today!!!Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Grats man! --Efe (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanx Efe. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 03:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Always welcome. --Efe (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)