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 23:41, 16 November 2010 [1].

Fantasia Barrino discography

[edit]

Fantasia Barrino discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Candyo32 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after making massive overhaul of the article removing fancruft and adding reliable sources, and then converting to the new discography style, I believe it now meets FL criteria. Candyo32 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but about the ref, something is wrong with the RIAA site today. I was working on another discog and that happened. Candyo32 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link is working for me now. Ucucha 18:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
for me too. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See featured lists Taylor Swift discography, Kesha discography, Rihanna discography and more.
Oops, done.
Done. Candyo32 20:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Candyo32 20:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
add an External links section, i.e. allmusic, official website, discogs, musicbrainz...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Candyo32 04:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:*Is she more well-known as 'Fantasia' or 'Fantasia Barrino'? If the former, please indicate this in the first sentence. If the latter, you should refer to her by her surname throughout the lead.
  • "Although only shifting 133,000 discs in its first week of availability" - reference needed
  • "The song was certified Gold in the US and according to Billboard, ranks at number eight on the 2000s decade-end R&B chart." - comma after 'and'. Don't link 'decade-end' to 2000s (decade), instead link '2000s'.
  • The last paragraph is quite short; can you mention Back to Me's sales and "I'm Doin' Me" in it?
  • Why is there a sub-header for studio albums when they are the only type of album she has released?
  • Link: USA Today (published by Gannett Company), Rovi Corporation, Nielsen Business Media, Inc
  • About.com should not be italicised
  • Be consistent with linking - you link Billboard every time, but Allmusic and MTV are only linked on their first occurence.
  • The USA Today ref has a date format inconsistent with the others (there may be other rogue ones, but I can not see any)

Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every concern should be addressed now! Candyo32 04:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking much better. Can you unlink Billboard in ref 13, and unitalicise MTV, allmusic and about.com? After that I should be done! Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Candyo32 11:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MTV is still italicised (refs 20-24). Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Billboard is owned by e5 Global Media now (I think). Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All changes to this discog and current featured lists are due to the new formats/style per WP:DISCOGSTYLE. Candyo32 20:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a proposed guideline, until theres a consensus on it, you should follow the format of a recent FL, if the guideline is adopted the changes can always be added in future to update the list. Afro (Talk) 21:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was established on the talk page to being converting, as several FL's have been converted including Kelly Rowland discography, Kesha discography, Rihanna discography, Hilary Duff discography, and Ashley Tisdale discography, among others. Candyo32 04:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked over the talk page and consensus doesn't seem to of been reached as of yet, currently though the proposed guideline does fail MOS:BOLD at the very least which was my original question. Afro (Talk) 17:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editors may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Bolding of title. We need to address internal inconsistencies between style guides before they cause too much trouble. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Afro, I do not like this new styling of discographies either (especially the bolding of single titles), but according to WP:ACCESS (specifically here) apparently these changes have been made to optimise readability for less-able readers. MOS:BOLD allows bolding for table headers, which these are. I think we will just have to suck it up and accept these changes. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant aesthetic change. It's quite the opposite, this new layout improves readability. Your reaction is normal, because you are used to a certain layout. And changing habits is surely disturbing, and sometimes unpleasant. But once you will have seen this layout several times, you'll get used to it. And later on, you'll get attached to it just as much as you were attached to the previous one. Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time of asking, why isn't the Music videos section bold in the same way as the singles and albums? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it at the same time as your reply. Dodoïste (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 13, 17 and 19 seem to have coding issues. Ref 17 also has a date inconsistency. Afro (Talk) 16:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 13 and 19 fixed, but I don't seem to find a problem with 17.Candyo32 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I believe you meant 7, and its fixed now. Candyo32 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, silly me I also seem to have no more problems with the list, Support. Afro (Talk) 17:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we are agreed that the new bold row headings is correct and that we need the repetitive (and bold) captions for every table. Detailed discussions on this moved to FLC talk page Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bold table headers have been allowed by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text_formatting) for years, I did not went back further than 2007. So the row headings are OK. Remains the potential issue with table captions. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Support, there are not really any major issues here. Rather than debate too much about the WP:ACCESS part of MOS, everything else is quite good about this article. WP:ACCESS is part of the MOS and DISCOGSTYLE shows one way in which ACCESS can be achieved. Personal preferences on style should not hold back the progress of articles. Though I will be one of the first to agree that how we apply ACCESS to DISCOGS is still being debated etc. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise it still contravenes WP:MOS because of the bold table captions, don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question was raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Table captions. Few people commented, so the question is still open. Dodoïste (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now challenging the assertion that bold table captions are not a recognised exception at WP:MOSBOLD. It may be worth suspending judgement here until consensus forms. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has this consensus already taken place? Because someone has already gone ahead and removed every bolded item in the discog. Candyo32 19:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using the recent change to mediawiki's common.css, the bolding is now optional, but will still be obvious to screen-readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per WP:MOSBOLD#Other uses which states that table headers should be in boldface; the use of plainrowheaders directly violates this for the row-headers. Jack Merridew 19:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC) striking this as the whole thing is still in flux. Jack Merridew 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh, just what the hell is going on when I'm busy at work? FLC candidates are not the place to debate rules. There is WT:FLC for this, and other MOS pages. We're not to annoy editors who are trying to do their best and make the article accessible. It would be awesome if every featured lists would conform to accessibility requirements. But accessibility should not be perceived as a hindrance, and especially not prevent excellent lists to gain the featured status. So please don't do that. There has been enough mess here already. Dodoïste (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on content rather than appearance:
  • For such a slim discog, would expect her videos to be mentioned in the lead as well.
Done.
Done
  • "consists of three studio albums, and thirteen singles" I see no need for that comma.
Done
  • "peaked at number on in" (and people supported this!)
Done
  • "Later that year," what year? I don't know when American Idol season 3 was held.
Done
  • "certified Platinum" could use a link to something that allows a non-expert reader to understand what "certified" means in this context.
Done
  • "and has sold over 1.8 million copies in the US" - as of when?
Done
  • "shifting" is very tabloid, not what I would expect to see in an encyclopedia.
Done
  • And "only ... 133,000" needs context, because, where I'm from that's a heck of a lot...
Done
  • "The album has also.." and "which has peaked in" - no need for "has" here in my opinion.
Done
  • Infobox caption should not have a period.
Done
  • Where is "It's All Good" referenced (since it didn't chart anywhere)?
Done
  • "Other Artist(s)" -> "artist(s)".
Done
  • "Director(s)" - there's only ever one so ditch the (s).
Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "having moderate success" what does this mean and is it your opinion or do you have an RS to back it up?
"moderate" was dertermined since the osng did not reach the top ten on the R&B chart, and was used rather than to list all of the acutal chartings of the song, similar to the way "moderate" and "little success" were used on Ciara discography.
Not sure it's even needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Candyo32 19:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this be in past tense as they same songs "live" or can be played over and over so she "performs" and has not "performed" as its not a one-time live performance or anything.
Not sure I like this, but I'll leave it out there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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