Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Carrie Underwood 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 not promoted 17:44, 27 February 2008.

[edit] Carrie Underwood discography

This list was based on another featured list I had promoted, The Corrs discography. I believe this article satisfies the criteria as it is well sourced, the information is extensive although she has only released two albums. Please take a look and voice your opinions. Cheers. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 11:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support It's been a long road, but all of my suggestions have been taken into account or shown to be stupid suggestions in the first place. Definitely a great list! Drewcifer (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose For some reason, a bunch of things I suggested have been reverted/undone. Changing my vote back to Oppose. Drewcifer (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I assure you that this was reverted and changed. Further discussion is required before changing the layout is changed again. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 04:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been reverted, so I un-reoppose. Or re-support. Or something like that. And for the record, Scorpion has a good point (about citations in the table headers), though this isn't a deal breaker for me. Drewcifer (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Most of the stuff I'd included already but someone reverted it. It is now there will further suggestions that you've made. Also, not sure about the source attribution, some sources don't have enough information on their attribution. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 23:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

1. We don't need album informatiom. If anybody wants to know album info, they can see in their pages. It doesn't look good and it is unnecessery.
2. How do you know that a song did release in some formats, but fail to chart?

--Langdon (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080

Comment Firstly, although the article is a discography, it still requires information on the discographies mentioned, particularly albums as it is the basis of the artist's work. Secondly, the songs that failed to chart are verified by the sources that I've provided at the table. It is kinda obvious for example in Bless the Broken Road was a digital download, hence it qualifies for the digital charts, although it did not make the chart. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 03:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support all of my comments addressed, fine piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't like seeing citations in the table headers, so could those refs be moved to the bottom and used as general refs? (like this) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the two previous users were fine with it. I don't know, should we have a concensus? σмgнgσмg^(talk) 04:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I had like them like that though. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 07:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment

Repeat again. 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.

1.Albums
Previous

Current

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.

2.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.

3.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.

4.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?????

5.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.

--Langdon (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080

Okay, I will aim to address these issues one by one:

1. A column should only be used if it is discussing another aspect of information, in other words, looking at the topic from a completly different view. The label column is not necessary as it only provides a few information about the CD itself. Mind you, I've simply using other featured list discographies' templates to create this one. Out of all the featured discographies, only Hilary Duff discography, Wilco discography and Red Hot Chili Peppers discography don't have this format because they don't mention the record label at all. Remember, this article must comply with the WP:WIAFL criteria, and in that, it must be comprehensive. Being comprehensive means that it covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject. This also applies for the format and release date(s), as the article needs to be thorough. So what if it takes extra space, it doesn't matter. As for the table on music videos, the extra column for directors is necessary as it is showing another aspect of the information, the director. If you think it is hypocritical of me, then we can delete the column and place the director of every music video in every row. I don't mind.
2. The certifications do not need to be in the way you proposed. Sure, you may like it, the users that have reviewed the article were fine with the current layout.
3. As for the dashes, I will quote from User:Drewcifer3000 who has had much more experience in writing discographies than me (he mentioned it in the discussion above):

"The little legend thing doesn't say "— denotes releases that were given to particular radio stations but did chart" and it doesn't say "— denotes releases that were official releases but did not chart". It just says "— denotes releases that did not chart" which takes care of all the bases. If a single wasn't given to a radio station, then it didn't chart. If it wasn't an official release, then it too did not chart. I think you're making things too complicated. The legend is worded broadly to cover all the bases, so that you don't have to worry about things on a per-radio station/per single basis. If it charted, put the number, if it didn't, put the dash. It's pretty simple. The only exception I could imagine is one like the CAN Hot 100, where the chart didn't exist. And the footnote explains that quite clearly."

1. I've already explained to you the differences between the miscellaneous appearances and other charted songs. Let me reiterate that: "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. These two can sometimes inter-twine, but their differences are still evident."

Hope that addresses your concerns. Cheers. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

of course those answers don't address my concerns.

1. what about didn't allow any notes at the top? did you even see it?
2. please improve Reba McEntire discography. delete the label column, and use the same way as in carrie underwood discography.
3. Miscellaneous appearances: you've missed my point.
4. the ceritfication: if you are fine with original one, then I will change it back. it exists quite a long time before you came in.
5. dashes: if you don't mind, we can delete dashes in other charted songs and we can denote that the blank is that "release but didn't chart."
6. you completely ingore Making Changes section. please tell me your opinion.
7. answer these question:

• 1. why do we always have to follow other featured discographies? why can't we change?
  2. my whole point is: to factor out repeated words, and make it simpler. why it is not allowed?

by Langdon (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080

Please clarify what you mean... but I like the way that you've reorganised the layout of the article. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 07:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The layout did not work... let us make this simplier, the table of Other Charted Songs contains the peak chart position of songs that are from Miscellaneous Appearances and songs that are not her miscellaneous appearances but still weren't offically released as a single. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 07:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of all the disputing, so I've requested third opinions from other users. Feel free to voice what you think should be addressed in terms of the layout. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 07:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - just add the album for "Bless the Broken Road". (Also, consider having the relase date of label of albums as seperate columns). Tompw (talk) (review) 20:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Bless the Broken Road" didn't really have an album, it was only a digital release, so I'd just placed a dash on it. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 06:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The lede is a little short for my tastes, but it's well-cited, which is good enough. The layout is pleasant and easy to understand, and the color coding beneath the artist picture is a particularly nice touch. Citations check out as reliable, and everything looks good from the point of view of someone who knows absolutely nothing about the music industry. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support There really isn't a solid consensus as to how discography tables should be sorted, but otherwise, everything looks fine to me. I see no reason to oppose; everything seems to meet featured list criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format Vote

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)

[edit] Notes

Please vote for one of them.

• vote for 4. Langdon (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080
  1. 4 as it's most concise. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Please vote for one of them.

• vote for the right one. Langdon (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080
• Right one. It's easier to understand with a quick glance. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Right one. BravesFan2006 (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Left one. Don't know why, maybe its just me. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 05:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Right, it's easier to read. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dashes

"—" denotes releases that did not chart.

"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

Please vote for one of them.

• vote for lower one. Langdon (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080
• bottom one. BravesFan2006 (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Top one. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 05:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Bottom, it synchronizes better with the song names. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Relocated the voting in the talk page. So, this nomination can just simply be failed and archived. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 08:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

It's pretty clear (to me, at least) that there is no consensus whatsoever on any of these formatting concepts. This FLC is not really the place to discuss a manual of style for these - I suggest (as I believe Drewcifer did above) you centralise this discussion at WP:MUSIC and close this FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's fail this nomination for now so we can improve and resolve the ongoing dispute. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 08:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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