Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/John Frusciante discography

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Crzycheetah 23:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Self nomination. A completely comprehensive list of his solo material and recordings with the Red Hot Chili Peppers. I drew inspiration from various current Featured lists. NSR77 ^T_C 19:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comments I fixed all the issues I could, but a few still remain;
• The items in the "EP" section need release dates.Y Done
• Is the fact that "All albums released in 2004 include Klinghoffer" best stated on the Shadows Collide With People notes box

Probably not. Maybe it could be mentioned in the lead or something?Y Done

• Could the sales figures of the solo albums that influenced the charts be stated?
• Do his solo music videos need to be mentioned in the "DVDs and videos" section?Y Done

Nice work thus far. Grim-Gym 05:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I could not find anything on his solo albums' sales; none of them have been certified Gold by the RIAA, either to at least give us an indication. Otherwise, I believe everything else has been addressed. NSR77 ^T_C 16:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - As a contributor to the article. Grim-Gym 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments Just to make sure, are there any stray tracks that were issued on compilations? Also, I'm not sure how other band member discographies handle the issue, but is it necessary to include his work as part of the Red hot Chili Peppers? WesleyDodds 11:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the list is more comprehensive to present the material Frusciante contributed with the Red Hot Chili Peppers (a considerable amount). I don't believe there are any current Featured Lists of a certain branching band members' discography, so I assume we'll just present anew. Thanks for the great feedback. NSR77 ^T_C 20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Gwen Stefani has one, but seeing as how she appeared on all of No Doubt's albums and already has a shitload of highly successful solo projects, it would be grossly unnecessary to include her work with No Doubt on the solo list. I don't think this is the case with Frusciante. The Chili Peppers released more albums without Frusciante than with him, because of this listing his work with the Peppers doesn't in any way, make the main Chili Peppers discography seem redundant. It also serves to validate the "With Ataxia" section. If you aren't going to list his work with the Peppers, then how can you list his work with Ataxia? I personally think it's informative to see which Chili Peppers albums he contributed and how much of an impact he had. I think the article would have a noticeable void if the Chili Peppers info wasn't listed. Grim-Gym 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Looks good, but there may be a few issues:

• It may be important to note in the lead that 'Stadium Arcadium is a double album.Y Done
• "Peaked at #191 on the Billboard Top 200.[1]" should just be in a charts column. It seems he also charted on a few other American charts ([1]).Y Done
• You may want to add a formats column to the Frusciante albums section, or at least a bullet giving formats for consistency with the RHCP section.Y Done
• Split the "EPs and miscellany" section into separate "EPs" and "Miscellany" sections.Y Done
• Each of the 5 songs contributed to The Brown Bunny soundtrack should be listed.Y Done
• Use <ref name=""> to cite each example of an RIAA certification.Y Done
• A quick search shows that RHCP also have a few British album sales certifications (see [2]; there's a good example of how to cite each certification at Goldfrapp discography).Y Done
• Put "Formats:" in the RHCP subsection of the "DVDs and videos" section.Y Done
• I don't see why RHCP music videos with Frusciante aren't listed (I'm not a huge fan of the band, but I know for sure he appears in at least one or two).Y Done

• If these are resolved I'll support this list's featuring. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the review. NSR77 ^T_C 21:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Well done. --Brandt Luke Zorn 02:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, the RHCP stuff should not be listed here. They have their own article for that. A discography should only indicate works released by the artist or at worst, with a co-branding of the artist (for instance, were he to release a duet with, um... Tom Jones under the title Tom Jones and John Frusciante, then that could be listed here). If this can be removed, then I'll reassess the article to see whether or not it should be listed, but right now, no way. --linca^linca 03:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But what's your take on the Ataxia works? That has no supplementary article in which it could be listed and is basically in the same boat as the RHCP works. If the RHCP info is removed, then shall the Ataxia info be removed as well? I personally feel that it shows the impact that Frusciante had on his band and is noteworthy in that regard. Further clarification from you, and perhaps a second or third opinion, are necessary to alleviate this point. Thanks. Grim 05:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ataxia works should be listed on the Ataxia article if the volume is not sizable enough to warrant its own discography article, but should also not be listed here. As I said, I only briefly skimmed the article, so I didn't realise that that was there either. This article should only indicate John's own work and maybe as a footnote of sorts, could indicate a listing of his contributions to RHCP and ataxia, indicating that each has its own main article listings. --linca^linca 05:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this statement. First, John's is a guitarist of the RHCP first and a solo artist second. Furthermore, there are no set guidelines that warrant any reason not to include his works with the Chili Peppers. Lastly, if you feel this strongly then I'd prefer to keep the information in and not have it featured than what you suggest. NSR77 ^T_C 10:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you disagree with the statement, but that doesn't change the operation of the guidelines in practice. See WP:ALBUM#Discography for a start, but most importantly, have a look at any other article of the kind. It would be a differet kettle of fish if we were talking about an artist who wasn't a solo artist at all (someone like Terry Bozzio for instance), but the fact is, JF's got a solo career and it's not indicative of his solo career to parade his collaborative efforts under the RHCP or Ataxia banners as his own efforts. This is misleading to the article reader. As I said, it would be appropriate to list his efforts with these groups as a collaborator, but to list the certifications, chart positions and such is attributing too much credit to him (and I believe he would even confirm this were you to ask him). Secondly, it's superfluous as this information is invariably listed on the RHCP discog, as I mentioned before. There's a certain amount of information that may be duplicated from one list to another for specific purposes, but this doesn't really qualify for that. --linca^linca 11:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing, though he may be more known for his work with RHCP, he's produced a great deal more work as a solo artist than anything else, so voluminously, he's more of a solo artist anyway. --linca^linca 11:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there really is no precedent, I think we should wait for a few more opinions on this and take it from there. Grim 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He has stated on several occasions that his commitment is more towards the Chili Peppers, and may only focus on solo material after his obligations with the group are complete (i.e, after touring, in between albums, etc.). NSR77 ^T_C 17:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That may not be relevant to this argument. Let's wait for a few more opinions to come in. Grim 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support (as a member of WikiProject Alternative music). However, there's a few issues remaining:

• Are all the albums in the "Solo albums" studio albums? If so, it might be worth noting just to be specific.
• In the Red Hot Chili Peppers section, the "debut", "second", "third" etc. is already implied; however, the "left" and "returned" notes should remain.
• I don't think sales data (or formats) would be appropriate in the Chilis section (although I don't feel too strongly about this; it's more of a personal preference). (I'd treat as if Frusciante were a band appearing on a compilation). Perhaps sort as:

Year	Album	Comments

Otherwise, it's well done. CloudNine 19:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've converted everything concerning the Chili Peppers' table over to a more appropriate table which provides no information not pertaining to Frusciante. NSR77 ^T_C 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose
  • You are citing a "Kiedis 2004" work, but missing the general citationY Done
  • It might look silly, but I do think a few general links (e.g. {{Allmusicguide}} or {{discogs}}) could be added. If there's a general discography on his website, that would bemost appropriate too.Y Done
  • While it looks like he didn't shart enough on his own for a charting table to be appropriate, one should be present for the RHCP material.
  • The second note of "Blood Sugar Sex Magik" is at best confusing.Y Done
• Circeus 00:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. We just removed all the RHCP chart info because a previous reviewer opposed it. Hopefully a consensus can be established at some point. All the other points were very helpful and have been addressed. Grim 01:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I first took the rather lengthy time to find all of the chart, sales and certificate information; then it appeared the article was misleading, etc., therefore I reformatted it. Now I have no idea what to do, as it appears no one can agree on the arrangement. NSR77 ^T_C 01:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I can go with no charts if the consensus seems to be against it. I added a "See also" for the full RCHP discography. As for the notes, It's not its presence that bothered me, but the lack of context. I'll support now (even if the note isn't added back). Circeus 02:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I reworded it accordingly; feel free to fix it if you still notice any flaws. NSR77 ^T_C 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm impressed with the edits to tone down the RHCP and Ataxia info. The references need to be tidied up to be consistent and legible, especially the ones referring to Scar Tissue, since most of them don't indicate that that's whet they refer to, but simply state the authors, year and page number, the book name and ISBN should be listed with every reference. Don't expect reads to connect the dots. Once that's done, you'll have my support. --linca^linca 03:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for recanting that point. The current reference format was directly modeled after John Frusciante (a featured article), is consistent with Neutral Milk Hotel discography (a featured list), and complies with the second point stated in WP:Footnotes (Style recommendations). Based on these facts, there is no reason to alter the current format. Grim 04:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm recanting the point because it bears revisiting. I wouldn't consider the references to be consistent like this and with inconsistent references, the article doesn't deserve (yet) to be a featured list. Though another featured article works in this style doesn't mean that it's considered optimal. It could well be a detail that's slipped between the cracks. I'd encourage promoting improving an article as much as possible rather than accepting a "that'll do" attitude, because to me, that's unaccpetable. I remain opposed to promotion unless this is done. --linca^linca 06:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's academic convention to use abbreviated citation information in multiple references from the same source, and as Grim-Gym pointed out, it's a Wiki guideline. Personally when citing a book I like to list the full information with the first citation and then used a summarized form for future references from the same book. Some editors I know simply use an abbreviated form throughout since the full citation information is already provided in a references section. Regardless full citation information is not required for every single footnote in an article if that information is already propeerly conveyed elsewhere in the article. In the specific case of Scar Tissue, further information is not necessary in the footnoes for reader accessibility unless another book by the same authors is cited. WesleyDodds 09:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point about users not being able to "connect the dots", but that underestimates the intelligence of the user. The references section provides all of the necessary information for a person to connote the meaning with ease. Assuming that it makes blatant sense to you or I but not to the average reader not only underestimates their intelligence, and is not even really a plausible issue. If a person is unable to draw the conclusion that "Kiedis, Sloman, 2004. p. 284" is referencing the item above that was written by Kiedis and Sloman in 2004, then such a person is probably not going to be concerned with the intricacies of references formats to begin with. If a person has that difficulty, they will find it throughout Wikipedia and not just on this article. If such a thing confuses them, then they will seek out the reason for it being that way and come to understand it. If you feel the need to continue to oppose the article, then kindly cite Wikipedia policy that supports your opposition. Grim 13:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel LinkaLinka has absolutely no merit to still oppose this List, considering he is directly contradicting a Wikipedia guideline (the style, in fact, is typically called the Harvard Method, or something along those lines). Unless you can detect a discernable, reasonable and legitimate reason to oppose the list, do not pull things from the air. NSR77 ^T_C 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but let's remain civil here. We should at least try to empathize with his point of view and explain why we find it invalid. Grim 21:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's called Harvard referencing; it's one of three citation formats recommended by the community. CloudNine 21:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm being particular about this, but this isn't conforming to the standard use of Harvard Referencing. Harvard referencing still requires the use of the title in each reference. I know The authors didn't write another book together that year, but you have to consider that's not always the case. Especially where it's a single author, they may release several books or written articles (or otherwise and sundries) each year, removing the adequacy of said references. All I'm asking for is the book name and (if applicable, and I know it isn't here, but for future reference) the volume number. If you simply add "Scar Tissue" to each of these references (you don't need to link or use the ISBN because those are alread included prior to these inclusions) then I'd be happy with it. I'm well aware of the acceptance of the referencing type, but the use here is simply non-compliant with the format. --linca^linca 07:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. (Smith 2005, p. 1) is an an example straight from the Harvard referencing article (plus I've seen such a style in several papers). Where have you seen the requirement for this? CloudNine 09:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're omitting reading the very part of the article that indicates where it says that. --linca^linca 11:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This sums it up "Under Harvard referencing, a brief citation to a source is given in parentheses (footnotes in our case) within the text of an article, and full citations are collected in alphabetical order under a "References" or "Works Cited" heading at the end". Then it says a brief citation looks like this: (Smith 2005, p. 1). That's what's happening at the moment. CloudNine 11:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I want you to know that we all understand your point. There may or may not be some validity there, but four people in this thread have understood and disagreed with your argument. You have to understand that the reason for this isn't that we're trying to beat you down, or show you how wrong you are. We are merely following academic convention and Wikipedia guidelines that have already been questioned and proven effective. We have cited several examples of Wiki policy and guidelines that support the current format, failing that, there probably isn't anything we can do to persuade you. I implore you not to dig your heels in and harden your stance for pride's sake. This is Wikipedia—if we don't check pride at the door, all our projects will suffer. Grim 13:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A really nice equivalence concept there, Grim. What Linca asks is not a difficult task to execute. However the incorrectness of such warrants enough not to make such an edit. Furthermore, I ask Linca to find proof before he comments again, confirming his comments hold any water; please scour the text relentlessly and directly quote them as CloudNine has. Also take into consideration that a fellow user reconsidered a rather large element to his outline (Circeus) after looking at the facts. His argument was far more relevant, and yours is less so. Four users (including myself) have already contradicted you with Wikipedia guideline. That in its own right instantly disproves any argument on your part. I am simply perplexed at your interpretation, to tell you the truth. I have never seen an editor so gruelingly persistent and unyielding that they went this far as to contradict a guideline and Harvard referencing method. NSR77 ^T_C 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

From a completely personal POV, I have a degree in English and during my time in university the citation method we've all described is how I had to cite my papers. Full citations for every footnote are unnecessary, and you only need to add more information if multiple works by the same author or under the same title and so forth are listed. WesleyDodds 22:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As was said, (a) it's not hard and (b) it says it on the Harvard referencing page; all references should indicate the work they're citing (simply the name). It's all I ask. Come on. --linca^linca 06:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

None of us are sure of what you want, so please provide a specific example (that's found within a Wiki policy) of exactly what you want changed. Also, please provide a rationale (in the form of a citation of Wiki policy) as to exactly why the current version is unacceptable. Simply do these two things and the references will be changed to meet your standards. If you issue a statement that doesn't address these two points, I will assume you are still working on it and won't respond. Grim 06:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full_citations (in WP:CITE#HOW). This indicates that when referring to an item (and it doesn't distinguish whether the reference is used once or mulple times), a full citation is used. The guidelines as set out in Wikipedia:Harvard referencing (WP:HARV) are equally ambiguous in indicating whether or not the book should be mentioned every time, however it doesn't implicitly exclude it. The casual viewer (you can quote me on this) will generally not be able to figure out what the reference is stating, however, when the book title is not mentioned every time and, as I mentioned before, the author(s) of the book may have written other works in the same year. It's simply a matter of common sense to provide this little, albeit trivial, very crutial piece of information on each case of reference given. I don't really see why I'm getting so much resistance on this matter. It's both simple to implement and more logical and descriptive than the lack of its inclusion. --linca^linca 07:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They won't have generally. You're getting so much resistance because it contradicts the guidelines in question, plus past experience from a number of editors. See "Full citations": "In the Harvard and embedded links citation systems, full citations appear at the end of the article in a section labeled "References." In the footnotes system, full citations may appear in a "References" section or may appear directly in the footnotes." (we choose the former!). In WP:WIAFA, it states the format w're currently using! It's more complicated; it hides the crucial information, the page number, in a load of repetitive text. The format we're currently using is okay. (This is the style guideline in question) CloudNine 08:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In the case of this particular list, only one book by the same authors is being cited. And the full bibliographical information is provided in the References section. The footnotes section is also not that large, so anyone viewing the Notes section would not only see the first Scar Tissue footnote at a glance, but would also see the full citation of the book in the Notes section. WesleyDodds 08:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* This is disappointing, considering having done a heavy amount of editing, submitted several university reports and theses, I've only ever seen it used the way I'm explaining here, but I'm going to have to concede that the concensus here appears to be to the contrary, despite logic not given the chance to prevail. Unfortunately, it seems logic isn't the preference here. You have my weak support, in light of the insistance to keep it against the actual use of harvard (I don't care what you say, you're not in line with the guideline set out in WP:HARV, but I have to concede that you're all being arrogant, and that's a shame). --linca^linca 08:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again this is nothing personal against you, and once again we are citing guidelines and experience. Honestly there's published books and papers that reference this way. WesleyDodds 08:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you linca, and thanks to everyone else (Wesley, Grim, and CloudNine) for their support in this as well. NSR77 ^T_C 14:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's close the book on this issue. It has been thoroughly exhausted. Let the record show that Lincalinca has recanted his opposition despite not having physically stricken his initial use of the word "Oppose". Grim 19:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)