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 15:23, 17 August 2010 [1].

Kelly Rowland discography[edit]

Kelly Rowland discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has undergone many changes to bring it up to speed with other FL listed discographies. It has gone from this to this and now satisfies all criteria at MOS:DISCOG. I think it clearly and accurately sets out the releases of the artist (Kelly Rowland) in way which is easy to understand. In the lead section care has been taken to try and accurately portray the succcess (or lack of in some cases) of her releases and use the most credible sources to provide such information. Rowland is herself a notable artist and the comprehensiveness of the discography now sets a good standard for other articles. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are ARIA certs the only ones available? Surely Dilemma should be certified by the RIAA and multiple other countries, as would "Work" by the BPI. Also I don't know the MoS criteria, so I don't know but are certs also included in featured singles on the featured artist's discog? Candyo32 (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will double check the certs for Dilema. Well according to the VH1 source the song was a joint single. It was named Rowland's debut single and the second single from Nelly's album. It does appear on both albums. Ok i got that wrong. All the certifications list the song as a Nelly release so I've moved it to the featured artists section. Also "Work" hasn't been certified by BPI --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
do you think it is sufficient now? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mister sparky (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Is there a more up to date picture than 2006? [done]
done, There is one from 2008 which I've changed to.
  • "Kelly Rowland has an extensive discography" - this is very POV and not very true. [removed]
  • In the last sentence of the first paragraph, the refs should be at the end.
done, changed only to pass FL (this is something I personally don't agree with as with previous occassions I cannot find enough supporting evidence in terms of policy etc.)
i only commented on it cuz it's what i have been told on previous FLC discussions. Mister sparky (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC) [done][reply]
  • The "first studio album", "second studio album" etc are really unnecessary.
  • In the albums table only the US positions are sourced. [done]
  • The EU positions for the featured singles aren't sourced. [no stable source so replaced with France]
  • What about the certifications for the featured singles? [Done]
not done was told that these do not belong in the discography for the featured artist.
they are included on the FL Pink discography and others. Mister sparky (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album appearances need sourcing.
will work on fixing these.
  • As do the soundtracks, although I thought MOS:DISCOG said they shouldn't be included anyways...?
will work on sourcing though per MOS:DISCOG regarding soundtracks it says "Non-original or previously-released material used on soundtracks, trailers, commercials, or any other compilation releases".
  • Only 2 of the music video directors are sourced.
will work on.
  • There are bare url's in the references.
easily rectified.

Mister sparky (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the input. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
all of those responses are fair, I will work on them. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all of the above, but have an issue with the music videos in that many FLs (Pink discography included) uses links like http://www.vh1.com/video/pnk/9645/there-you-go.jhtml#artist= which do not state who produced each of the videos instead merely link to the video themselves. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the mtv links do have the directors name. you click on "more info" and it's there. Mister sparky (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right I see... It's ok I've gone through and added the information as well as removing where it is not attributable. I've Tiziano and Kelly's duet "Breath Gentle" because as seen from Tiziano's Vevo she is present in the video but there is no info on the director. Are you satisfied with the other changes? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • germancharts.com doesn't verify anything, use musicline.de
note manual verification charts like this are used on other FL's e.g. Rihanna discography which I tried to model this on.
germancharts.com doesn't feature any chart positions for any artist, in rihanna's discog every position is sourced, in this one the german positions remain unsourced. Mister sparky (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.musicline.de/de/artist/Rowland%2CKelly/discography offers no better solution. And note that this link which offers manual verification of pink singles is used. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i know exactly what the pink link is, i put it there. that musicline line link didnt show anything i know, but this one does. Mister sparky (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
resolved. Sorry i couldn't navigate the website at first.
  • same for the other hung medien refs, and the occ one.
Done.
  • in the singles tables, the netherlands is in the wrong place.
Moved
  • in the featured singles table you've included the certs for austria, belgium and norway but those 3 countries arent mentioned anywhere else in the article so the certs shouldn't be in the table.
Removed.
  • in the singles as a main artist table you've replaced germany with us dance. any reason for this just in the 1 table?
It was because of the ref issues though this has now been resolved

Mister sparky (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC) --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are 3 different refs for the irish charts, all 3 could be replaced with this one.
I deliberately didn't use: Irish-charts.com because the chart positions shown for the album do not match those provided at the official gfk chart track ones and considering GfK is the official licensed provider i consider them more reliable. See hung medien says the Ms. Kelly peaked at 46 on 28 June 2007 yet Chart-track.co.uk shows the album at 53 for that date. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the hung medien sites use the entry date, not the peak date. the album didnt peak until may 2008 shown by chart-track here Mister sparky (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lead also needs a copy-edit, it's missing comma's and some other punctuation and is missing some words. read it aloud and you'll get what i mean.

Mister sparky (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done (i think) --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
L-l-CLK-l-l Comments
Alright, the article looks great for the most part. The following are issues i have with it :
fixed, it should have been removed anyway due to WP:OVERLINK.
  • The lead looks great, the only concern i have is why are there references in the lead? are they necessary as there shouldnt be anything thats in the lead thats not in the rest of the article.
thanks for the comments, but yes per Madonna discography and Pink discography which are both FLs, references should be included as thing such as genres of albums are not sourced elsewhere in the article. With discogs the introductions are more to do with summarising and listing music achievements.
Fair enough, just wasnt sure :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 23:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this there are two dead links, it may be incorrect i will recheck the actual article for clarification.
Okay, there simple URL errors. Replace with
"http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-albums-2003.htm" and
"http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx"
those have been fixed.. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Caption isn't complete sentence, so remove full stop.
done by another user. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First para is contradictory, is this the discog of Rowland solo or entire discog of Rowland including DC?
resolving, even though I disagree that it was contradictory, I've tried to make it more clear that this is her solo achievements. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3× platinum" in the lead, stick with prose, so "three-times platinum" etc
fixed --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but failed to impact as much" reads poorly to me.
although a statement of fact e.g. another way of saying "were not as successful in other regions" I've changed to "but failed to impact in other regions". --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was eventually deemed a commericial success" deemed by whom? Perhaps just "was a commercial success"
fixed exactly per suggestion --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "platinum" or "Platinum"?
fixed --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before formally disbanding in 2006" would prefer "disbanding the following year" to avoid repetition (or perhaps "a year later")
fixed --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was a relative success," relative to what?
removed --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "top twenty" or "top-twenty"?
fixed --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eponymous album has en-dashes across the board which means "wasn't released" or "failed to chart" in reality it means "hasn't been released yet" so this is confusing.
fixed --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove spaces between text and notes.
fixed --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is Rose Colored Glasses referenced, as it charted nowhere anywhere? Same with No Future in the Past.
fixed --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non album track-> Non-album track.
fixed --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "prequal" do you mean "prequel"?
fixed --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breathe Gentle has no director.
yes I'm aware because this information cannot be found. It doesn't come up when searched for on the usual sources, mtv etc.--Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference date formats must be consistent per MOS.
fixed. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


resolved.--Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jack I really do appreciate your help but some of these changes are way to drastic and unrequired. One of your own edits which you removed the italics from the reference template I tried to undo but didn't realise that it also undid other stuff. Therefore you need to add back the '' marks for the "work=" parameter in the referencing. Per MOS:TEXT things like VH1 should not appear in italics in the text nor should they appear as VH1 in the referencing even though the "work=" parameter is pre-programmed to do so. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See RexxS's comment about this, back on my talk; one of our large threads there. He pointed us at Template talk:Cite web#"Work" vs "Publisher" parameters. That thread has been rolling along for ten weeks and seems to have concluded that the 'work' field is correctly adding italics and that MOS:ITALIC (aka MOS:TEXT#Italic face) needs changing, that for websites, the work field should get the gist of the site url. This is what I've been telling you. The work field should not be getting VH1 in it. I dunno if that DISCOG/style page is saying to do this, or if it's just the pattern that's been set by that crowd, but you need to stop following bad advice, wherever it comes from. You've come around on some of the things I've been telling you, and I'm thinking I've been proven right on this issue... This site empowers people; some get to trippin' on it; kewl, I canz writes da rulz. Some people on this site have been doing web development since there was an interwebz, and other kinds of software development for longer, yet. I've said this before, and in other contexts, that a key to success on this project is listening, and knowing who to listen to. Up to you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question

Are we happy to hold-off on any accessibility changes until the discussion on the discography project talk page is market and completed as resolved? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no; that page will never make it to MOS-status. It's all about going against the MOS and modern web design. It needs a complete reboot. Meanwhile, we should not be granting FL status to pages that are not following the MOS re accessibility. I am sorry that it happened to be a page that you were working on when this issue blew-up. I've working on these issues for a long time, and then the DISCOG tables and rowspans came up on, I think, WT:ACCESSIBILITY, and that caught my eye. Also, you see that Dodoïste said he liked my User:Lil-unique1/Sandbox/8#E.g. 3 take on next-gen DISCOG-tables, best? Try seeing 'accessibility' as meaning to stop trying to control things so much. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a query, the MOS used to mandate "alt text", then it turned out that no-one could adequately define it, so it was removed. As such, FLC temporarily bowed to the whims of MOS editors who simply moved the goalposts (it seemed) for alt text, only to remove it not long after. I could do some more research but am pressed for time, is this modification to the MOS a long-held guideline, or is it a recent update? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the recent history of WP:ACCESS, the relevant parts of the guideline are unstable. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with the alt-text discussions; alt-text is a good thing and it would be even better to be supporting the title attribute... The W3C has definitions ;) Alt should be clinically descriptive ('img of woman in a red dress'), titles should track more with captions and be human readable prose, albeit succinct. Alt text is primarily for those unable to see an image; the blind/vision impaired and Googlebot.
The bits in MOS:ACCESS re the scope-attribute are new. The parts about the issues with row/col spans have been there a long time, as has the caution re inline HTML and CSS styling (WP:Deviations, 2nd paragraph, especially). The two bulleted points in my initial post ↑↑ concern these long-standing MOS issues, not the new "scope" issue. Recent attention on the rowspan concern has resulting in attacks on that aspect of the MOS; some of this is misunderstanding of accessibility issues and some seems to be about attempting to throw-down good guidance that is inconvenient to efforts to extensively customize tables with lots of hard-coded markup that is inappropriate. These DISCOG tables have been at odds with the MOS and good coding practice for at least several years. This particular page just happens to be the one that was coming down the pike when I focused on the issue. I know that Lil-unique1 was just following what he thought was appropriate guidance. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the row for "Train on a Track" actually has no "Year" or "Album" information" - it clearly shows that "train ona track" was released in 2003 and is on the album simply deep, not difficult. and i have a 17" laptop screen at its normal resolution and i can see it perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.49.179 (talk • contribs)
Yes, you can see it. Now try and get a screen reader to read out that row, can you hear it? (Hint: no, you can't. because it's not there in the HTML). --RexxS (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is why is everyone battering this article with a huge stick when it follows the style and format of all other FL discographies. Nowhere does project discography say thatyou cannot merge cells for year/albums. I think you'll find that ALL FLs merge cells for albums and years. Also I use a 16" laptop and I have no issue with the 75% formatting. As far as I'm aware and from what I was told the "style="width:3.5em;font-size:75%;" formatting allows web browsers to adjust the formatting to fit the dimensions and resolution of the screen. Lots of users have stated on the discography talk page and the talk page of WP:Accessibility that the changes and updates are on-going. Its also been stated that more expert opinion and clear evidence is required as well as everyone commenting that it would be unwise to radically transform any article based on an unstable and constantly changing policy. My arguments are that based on the current given standards this article does examplify the best standards for lists. If you think it doesnt then why not criticise the existing FLs and FL discographies upon which this was based? No one is saying that such changes won't be made, we're just wanting to put them off until there is a clear cut consensus and mandate on how to implement the changes best. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 00:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does your 16" laptop have a resolution of 1920px across? If it does, and you can read that 75% text, just count yourself lucky for having superb vision, and then take a moment to put yourself in the place of those of us who are not so fortunate. You were misinformed, by the way, about style="font-size:75%;"; browsers do not adjust text size depending on the resolution of the display – you tell it to use 75% of the normal (12.7px) text and it comes out as 9.5px text, with the ref numbers in 8.5px text. Why do you have to inflict that size of text on anyone whose eyesight is less than perfect? --RexxS (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll admit I'm not a massive fan of the small text myself but I've used it because every other FL and every discography I've encountered has. I've removed it as I dont see it as a major requirement. Is it better now? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 01:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's much more legible now. I see you've started to remove the <small>Small Text</small> as well. As it happens, that's less of a problem as it can be overridden in my monobook.css (although I'd rather not have to) and it's almost 10px, but I think it looks cleaner without the different text sizes anyway. You can always ask yourself: "Do they actually lend any value to the article? If not, why are they there?" I really hope you don't think I'm picking on this article, but I do believe you have the chance here to set a valuable standard for others in the future. Be better than what's gone before. --RexxS (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You see I'm happy to listen to your suggestions and see if/when/where the changes or concessions can be made. I respect genuine comments when the person giving the comments is not patronising nor trying to sound like the 'tree of life' on the subject. What do you make of the new proposed tables on the discography talk page? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 01:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Cutting the style="font-size:75%;" and <small> are steps in the right direction. Terima kasih. As I've been saying, you and others have been following poor advice; the /style page and the extant Discog FL's all offer poor techniques to copypasta. I noted that there were two FL Discogs at FLR and considered bringing these concerns there. They're at FLR for other reasons (crosses fingers as I've not looked in days;), and more issues as discussed here would likely seal their fate as demoted. I didn't because that would fragment the discussion. Look, I'm sorry this landed on the page you've been working on; I said I'd help get it to follow the core intent of the real MOS (not the pretender with the lying prefix). I have a huge amount of coding experience. I've worked on apps that are millions of lines of code. Not stuff written in mere html and css, either. You know what? Repetitive code bloat bites you in the ass, every time. It hosed Longhorn, and cost Bill tens of billions of dollars. Jack Merridew 01:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lil, I don't think I could usefully add to the discussion at WT:WikiProject Discographies/style, but you will recognise that I don't like text that renders below about 10px; that I think the first column (row headers) should contain the unique identifier for the entry in that row (screen readers can speak that for each cell, allowing non-linear navigation of the table for the blind); and that I don't like references in the headers (for the previous reason). Have a look at this article again and see if there are any changes that could improve any of those aspects. If there are, can you see any good reason why if the article were as good as it could be, it should not contain those changes. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Adabow (talk · contribs)
*Comment The article for "Stole" mentions a BPI cert; this isn't here. I will support after this is sorted out and alt text is added to the infobox's image. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text now added. --RexxS (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A dark-skinned woman" doesn't really comply with WP:ALT take a look at the Blair and Bush example. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Bush and Blair example casts no light on this case, since both are sufficiently well-known to be identifiable by name. Not so Ms Rowland. A screen reader supplies "A dark-skinned woman with black hair, wearing a white top and blue jeans, is holding a microphone. Rowland appearing in 2009 at the 'Love Music Hate Racism' music festival in Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom" (remember it reads the caption as well, and we do not repeat that information). If you don't think that conveys the information the image does, please feel free to suggest an improvement. I'm sure you're aware of the advice to keep alt text succinct. --RexxS (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, just the "Stole" cert issue is stopping my support. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article for "Stole" is not my responsibility. I'm choosing to maintain this. I can't be expected to maintain all of the articles linked to this discography. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 04:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Adabow is saying is that the Stole article claims there was a Platinum certification in the UK and that should be included here. However, I checked the claims in the article and don't find them supported by the sources given, [2] and [3]. Adabow, if you can find a reliable source that verifies a Platinum certification for "Stole" by the BPI, then I'm sure there's no problem in adding that. If not, it would not really be reasonable to ask for a FL candidate to contain unsourced information. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AH i see. The only acceptable source for certificates is their provider. In the UK that is the British Phonographic Industry who, have not certified any of Rowland's singles as a solo artist (i.e. those not featuring other artists). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 04:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for clearing that up. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I guess I was making issues out of nothing Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:17, 15 August 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