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 by PresN 01:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande[edit]

List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande/archive1
• Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande/archive2

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s):  — ₳aron 16:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it passes the criteria for FL. It is follows the same structure, format and purpose as previous nominations of mine (Leona lewis, Adele, Emeli Sandé). I think that this one for Grande has a good section of prose/lead which covers her start in the music industry up to now. It is very comprehensive, and the table includes all songs from both albums and the EP, as well as guest appearances where writers can be sourced. It has a very clear structure and is visually appealing. It's very easy to use and navigate. The history of the article is very stable and only consists of me editing it. There not edit disputes or wars.  — ₳aron 16:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Excellent work. Just one minor point:

"Her music career started when she contributed to the soundtrack albums for the American TV sitcom, Victorious, in which she also starred". --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 19:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you  — ₳aron 19:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Tomica

Resvolved comments from Tomica Comments from Tomica Ariana Grande is an American recording artist. ---> Isn't she also known as an actress too? Might worth mentioning it. to YouTube ---> on YouTube Republic Records eventually signed Grande ---> I don't think 'eventually' is needed here since you are already mentioning Mac Miller, you don't need to use his full name for the writing credits just add Miller Grande worked with Babyface on the albums opener ---> you mean the album's ? with Nathan Sykes British boyband The Wanted ---> I suppose you are missing an of here? along with original compositions ---> along with other original compositions By original I mean original to Grande. "Last Christmas" isn't original to her, to "other" doesn't work here. I reworded it regardless.  — ₳aron Grande's second studio album ---> put comma after album "turned Grande into a dance artist, pop artist, and soul artist." ---> I know it's a quote but the repetition of the word artist reads awkward, try finding a solution for this one. I think as it's a quote, it's okay. He's placing emphasis on her being three different types of artist, not an artist combining all three into one. How about this, 'determined Grande as an artist who performs dance, pop and soul music' ? It's the same meaning just you omit the multiple repetition of the word artist? — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yes, done :)  — ₳aron 13:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] that grande ---> Capitalize G You do not need to add (picture) on the other artist's picture since there is one person on the photo But as I mention more than one artist, it makes it clear who I'm referring to in the picture.  — ₳aron In the other artist(s) field, why don't you make it sortable? Instead of adding and or featuring on the artist (or from what band it originates) just add his name as he is credited. As the field says this is not to see whether the artist has a 'feature' or 'and' credit, but only who he/she is. Because where Grande is not the lead, it makes it clear who is and when she is just featured. That's just how I like to do it lol  — ₳aron I don't think the See also section contributes much to the list You're meant to have it so that it's not so stub like and there's links to other articles for viewership.  — ₳aron The ref. #1 needs fixing in the work field Nickelodeon Records should be linked in ref #2, not #3 Be consistent on whether you, or you don't use publishers in the references Ref #14, work should be MTV News Ref #15 should be MTV Buzzworthy The Huffington Post should be italicized I am not sure whether Idolator should be used for FL, as it's a FA unreliable source Ref #22 The album it's just Jessie J's not by Grand or Minaj too They'd both say the same for writers.  — ₳aron You're citing the album, Sweet Talker, right? It's only credited to Jessie, the other two are in the booklet. Ah yeah I see what you mean. Done.  — ₳aron You might add an External links section with Grande's profile on Allmusic Calvin this is a good list but not perfect yet. Please fix this issues and you can have my support here. — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thanks Tomica.  — ₳aron 20:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. After all my comments were addressed I can say that this list really deserves the golden barnstar. Good work! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you  — ₳aron 13:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The songs are not in quotes anymore, fix it please. — Tom^(T2ME) 09:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.  — ₳aron 09:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great work overall. — HĐ (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you.  — ₳aron 11:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Aaron, you should also add this song. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not an alternate vocal recording though. It's the same vocals as her original, same for Azalea. So I'd be reluctant to include it, because it's not a different recording as such. It's just a remix.  — ₳aron 20:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Then according to your theory you should also exclude "The Way" (featuring J. Balvin). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, very nicely compiled list. While this doesn't prevent me from supporting, I'm curious of one thing; is the clickable "show" feature to see writers a new practice? I haven't seen it used very often in song lists. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Yes, I think it just makes the table look more streamlined. Because you don't have the same amount of writers for each song, the size of the rows are governed by how many writers there are, which can make the table unnecessarily longer.  — ₳aron 18:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure thing, and I'll keep this in kind for song lists I try to make FL's myself Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, as the lead is much too detailed: she's had a career for all of four years now, so what happens next year? The year after? Are we going to end up with a 10-paragraph lead? Some of the less necessary details should be trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your input but this is the eighth list I'm nominating, and my previous seven have all passed with lead lengths in accordance with their discography and careers thus far. Saying what might happen next year, in five years, in 10 years is a bit superfluous to be quite honest and bordering on WP:CRYSTAL. If and when she releases a new album, then we can deal with that as and when it happens. But for the time being, I disagree that it is "too detailed"; the lead covers the scope of the list.  — ₳aron 12:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Patently ridiculous. You have 3602 characters (597 words) in the lead, including such dithering fluff as "it is a genre which Grande revealed she never thought she would venture into, but the experience caused her to only want to record dance songs." In what appears to be an attempt to urge and contextualize every single she's released, you've bloated the lead with information which would be better suited for her article or the article on the song. 2500 characters would not be out of place, but 3600 is too much. That your other lists were promoted in such a state is simply evidence that they all need a more thorough check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it's not crystal balling to say that a recording artist is liable to record more; that's kinda in the job description. Even if she were to retire immediately tomorrow, there'd still be at least a sentence added to the article (about her retirement). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• More minor note: the pictured in the image captions is not needed. (Indeed, it's not present in two of them).
  • I think this comes down to a matter of personal opinion, because you're the only one who has taken issue with in across eight nominations, so you are in the minority. It may come as no surprise, but I disagree with everyone you have written. I haven't solely written about singles in the lead; I've got a balance of singles and non-singles (it is a list of songs recorded), and I've given them all a little bit of info about genre or background, so that it doesn't read as a series of facts. I'm actually offended that you would accuse me, as well as all of the editors who have supported my nominations, of deliberately nominating/supporting them in "such a state." I don't understand why you are commenting and voting on something that hasn't happened yet, and might not happen for another year or two. I think you're being quite rude. No one is better than anyone else on Wikipedia, regardless of what one's contributions are.  — ₳aron 14:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. You don't seem to understand my point. This is a list of songs. This means that this should be an overview, speaking generally, of trends in her music. If we were to use your approach for, say, Whitney Houston, we'd end up with a lead that went on for 3,000 words. As Grande is reasonably early into her career, we don't have to quite worry about it yet, but there is still fat that needs to be trimmed. An overview means highlighting the bigger hits, maybe genre trends, not listing X amount of songs.
    • If you prefer not to consider my objections, fine. SchroCat or Giants can (when they have time) close this. So long as I'm opposing, I have to recuse from my delegate duties. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is an overview, though, of songs she has recorded. I've hardly written about every song in the list, just a sample from each project. I have read your reasons for objecting, and I've responded to them. I've taken on board what you have said, and I have decided that I don't agree with them. You're not getting what I'm saying, though. With regard to the "An overview means highlighting the bigger hits, maybe genre trends, not listing X amount of songs," I am going to have to highlight your lack of knowhow here. Lists like these are here to document all songs recorded by the singer. It is not supposed to be single-release centric. Songs are first and foremost songs before they become singles. A single is just a song which receives more promotion and attention than other songs on an album. Placing more or all weight on the singles is not how we do it. The lead of of an article like this should never focus on just the singles, that is what a discography article/list is for: to document what songs have been released as singles and their respective chart positions and certifications. So I'm going to have to make you completely wrong on that point.  — ₳aron 15:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Final point: you mentioned your eight (actually, according to our records, seven) FLs, and how the issue was never raised before. Looking through them, the only one which is currently over 3k characters in length is List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis, which has expanded by 1,000 characters since it was promoted in 2012 (was 2572 characters, is now 3680 characters). It's quite likely that the issue was never brought up because the issue wasn't present at the time. Unless you're willing to bring this list in line with your own precedent, I can't in good faith strike my oppose.

And quite frankly I don't get why you've gone on a diatribe about singles and songs. That's neither here nor there. I've never asked you to focus exclusively on singles, nor would I. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • I said: "this is the eighth list I'm nominating, and my previous seven have all passed," I never said I have had eight promoted, I said this is my eight list nomination, and that my previous seven have been promoted, so please read what I write more carefully so you don't trip yourself up. And you did say about placing more weight on singles, you said: "highlighting the bigger hits," which is obviously about singles, because a non-single can't be a hit because it doesn't get commercial release. I can't take anything you have to say seriously while you keep on contradicting yourself and making embarrassing statements which shows you're not actually paying attention to what I'm saying. It shows that you're actually not up to commenting/reviewing/voting in an informed way because you keep on going back on what you say.  — ₳aron 23:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must say, I like your gall, claiming that I need to read more carefully then immediately misrepresenting what I said. It's completely possible for an album-only track to end up becoming a hit. This often ends with the song being released as a single, but not always.
    • Yes, I was mistaken in remembering your statement about nominations/lists. That doesn't change the fact that, of your eight nominations, only this list appears to have been this size when you nominated it (though one has since expanded to the point that its lead is a bit too long, showing my concerns about the future are well-founded). My main point remains unchanged: objections have only been raised now because the problem seems to have only shown up now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • See, you've made another contradiction. "It's completely possible for an album-only track to end up becoming a hit. This often ends with the song being released as a single." So even if this does happen (although it doesn't) then it becomes a single anyway. Find me a song, a non-single, article whereby it has become a hit. Thus, meaning that it has had no commercial release (single, promo single etc), has reached the top 5 of multiple major national charts (no components) and stayed there for X amount of time (more than just one week or two weeks. A significant trajectory), has been certified gold or platinum, has been ranked high on an end of year chart and perhaps won awards, too. Basically, everything that a hit single is, but without any form of release or promotion (as non-singles tend not to be heavily promoted).  — ₳aron 08:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are again ignoring the main point, and clearly unwilling to work with reviewers. Instead, you are focusing on what you perceive to be inconsistencies in my posts, and going on a lengthy diatribe on a completely unrelated point. I have unwatchlisted this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not ignoring anything. I'm fully addressing you each and every time. I'm not perceiving anything, it's the bottom line truth. You can't say that a non-single can be a hit, then when I call you on it to give me an example, to then throw your toys out of the buggy and not do it and say I'm not willing to work with anyone. I think my contributions show that I have often worked with others. I have actually trimmed the lead down, not that you've noticed. I think that you use of "diatribe" is extremely misplaced; it's not me who started off being bitter, I think you will find that was you.  — ₳aron 09:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Harrias

*Oppose. Frankly, I'm shocked that this has gained so much support. The lead, in addition to be remaining too detailed as Crisco 1492 details above, also requires a copy-edit. Some examples of problems are: "Put Your Hearts Up", a bubblegum pop, was it was aimed as children and teenagers on the albums opener I am also not a fan of hiding the writers: this means that the table loads with a blank column, which in addition to looking odd also requires a lot of effort on the part of the reader to open them all if they wanted to compare across them. Harrias talk 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] I disagree that it's too long, especially after shortening it this morning. hiding the writers makes the table short and makes all of the rows the same width, too. I think it's personal opinion.  — ₳aron 16:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Please check that hiding the writers does not contravene WP:ACCESS. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] I can't see anything there saying that it contravenes it.  — ₳aron 21:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] So you know for sure that screen readers can access your collapsed material? Plus, see WP:COLLAPSE. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] I can't see anything about hide and show in WP:ACCESS, but in WP:COLLAPSE it says "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text," and I do cover a lot of writers in the main text (the lead) and also photos on the right include writers names.  — ₳aron 09:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] No, if you insist on using collapsed information, please ensure it is accessible to screen readers. Plus, the section of COLLAPSE you quote means you would need to cover all writers for all songs in the main text, and you don't do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] How do I ensure it's accessible?? I can access the writers fine.  — ₳aron 09:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Are you blind or partially sighted? Do you use a screen reader? In any case, COLLAPSE means you shouldn't do what you've done. Please uncollapse all of this text. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] And do you understand that different songs have different amount of writers and will have an inconsistency in the columns? Look at this list, it's very unorganized, unlike this featured list candidate. Better example, I just worked on List of songs recorded by Ricky Martin, the man has recorded 150+ songs, do you know what would happen if I un-collapse all the writers? A fucking mess. And what's the problem with WP:ACCESSS? Users are too too lazy to click on 'show' so they can see the writers? At the end of the day this is a List of songs recorded by X not List of songs recorded by X which were written by X, Y, Z. Such a stupid reason! — Tomíca(T2ME) 09:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) I have absolutely no idea what a screen reader is, so I don't see how I could have known what you was referring to if because you didn't explain yourself properly. And why not just tell me to uncollapse everything prior to now instead of going back and forth? (And my reason for not wanting to uncollapse is the reason that Tomica just gave.)  — ₳aron 09:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] For the record, I just downloaded a screen reader and ran it through this article, and the collapsed cell isn't an issue for it, it presents the data as if it were visible. So for a blind user, this page is actually more accessible than it is for a non-blind reader. (To download this screen reader I Googled "screen reader". It's a tough concept to handle, I realise.) And okay, I'll put this simply. Uncollapse everything. The reason Tomica just gave is a perfect example of why they should not be collapsed. Ricky Martin has recorded 150+ songs. So if I wanted to see all the writers, I'd have to uncollapse 150+ cells. But, as The Rambling Man points out, that is all beside the point, as WP:COLLAPSE, which is part of the MOS, which all Featured lists have to adhere to, is specific on this point, and the cells can't be collapsed for this to be considered for Featured status. Harrias talk 11:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Harrias So you want to tell me that you rather have a messy list with a different width of the columns (which represents a "fault" made by the number of writers) rather than just press one button? And I bet that a reader won't come to the list to see the writers of ALL the songs. Even if he comes I bet that won't be a real problem for him. I am certain that would even be a smaller issue than have to deal with messy entries with different widths. In general you have to agree that hidden writers lists are more condensed and easier to read opposite the ones with open writers, as the one I pointed above (which is not the only one). — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] For a start, you don't need a new line for every writer, you could separate them with .... ooh.... a comma? Oh, and User:Tomica, please cut out the swearing. If you don't think the writers are important enough to show, get rid of them altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] I see nothing at all wrong with the Rihanna list you linked to above. But even if there was, we can not prioritise visual appeal above content. Harrias talk 13:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] I agree, to make some bogus claim that the Rihanna list is "very unorganized" is indicative of a desperate attempt to bypass our criteria. That list is absolutely fine, and doesn't have the hideous [show] in every row. Time to get with the program and get rid of the collapse. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] It's not just the Rihanna list, there are like a lot of them and yeah not that just they are very unorganized, they are also very no accessible and messy (readers will be like F the writers, I can not navigate the songs). And for The Rambling Man, comma? Seriously? Try this mess ;) (Don't look at the producer column though). I really can't see the problem here, it's like making a big deal of barely nothing to hurt, just can help in look and access better. — Tomíca(T2ME) 13:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Either we go with the MOS and don't collapse this stuff and stand a chance of promotion, or we go against the MOS and default to fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Are the two of you the ones who decide what should fail or go? Should we just listen to you two? With all due respect Rambling, it's not you who coordinates the FLC, so this is very WP:POV of you. Just so to know. Maybe users like SNUGGUMS, Crisco 1492, SchroCat or Status (who is the creator of the template would like to discuss too). — Tomíca(T2ME) 13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain Given the recent work on shortening the lead further, and making the cell contents visible, I have struck my opposition. I still have a few concerns about the quality of the lead: it seems to go into a fair bit of detail on specific songs, rather than providing an overall summary. But that might be my lack of understanding of the genre; while I happily listen to music, I don't "follow" it, so this might be reasonably common. On that basis, I'm going to abstain from a specific vote on this; I no longer oppose it, but I don't feel in a position to support it. Harrias ^talk 14:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken so much out, and there really isn't much detailed prose about any song at all. The lead must talk about genres and writers, otherwise there would be no lead. I've had enough song lists promoted and enough contributors have said that this is how a lead for this type of list should be written. What I've given is a summary.  — ₳aron 15:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – following the recent work on this article, a number of prose issues have been introduced into the lead. It needs a significant copy-edit to improve the writing, which certainly falls short of the "professional standard" required by the Featured list criteria. For example, and this is far from all of the problems:
  • .. with Grande appearing on .. This construction should be avoided, see User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing for explanation.
  • The second sentence includes one semi-colon and four commas, far too many. Split it down into two, or even three, sentences.
  • The final paragraph just reads like a string of bullet points rather than high quality prose. Harrias ^talk 16:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've addressed all of these.  — Calvin999 01:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think this is an excellent list, and that the relative size of the lead is appropriate. I don't find Crisco's concerns persuasive. Good work. AgnosticAphid talk 03:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you  — ₳aron 11:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment Previous featured lists of this format (e.g. Cheryl Cole, Katy Perry, Adele, Alexandra Burke) all have sortable "Artist(s)" columns that detail precisely who is credited for each song. List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis currently does not, but it did when it was promoted. It seemed to me like this was the accepted standard amongst articles of this type. Why does this list have an unsortable "Other artist(s)" column instead? With so many grey N/A cells, the table just looks incomplete and visually unappealing. How is this column an improvement over a sortable "Artist(s)" one? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made it sortable.  — ₳aron 12:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am starting to question my support here. Other artists now has 'Ariana Grande' rather than n/a? We all know that the songs are sang by the artist the list is dedicated to. Please bring it back, because this is a non-sense now. Did Ariana Grande sang the song with Ariana Grande? o.O — Tom^(T2ME) 14:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The advantage of making the column sortable is that you can then easily group together all the songs by a particular artist. With this list, for example, you could sort all of Grande's solo songs together, or the songs where she had featured artists, or the songs where she featured on someone else's music. Almost all FLs of this type have this format. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I forgot to change it to "Artist(s)".  — ₳aron 10:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not convinced many of those just adding a "support" have actually read this list in any detail. I share Crisco's concerns, there is detail in the lead which simply does not belong here. Stick to the subject matter, i.e. her songs, not her potted life history. "she didnt completely love the song" what? Firstly avoid contractions, and badly formed ones at that. Secondly try to stick to encyclopaedic prose. Someone else changed it to this and I didn't see it.  — ₳aron 21:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] " life,"(in a comical way) " no comma, space required, "(in a comical way)" you should rephrase entirely. Someone else changed it to this and I didn't see it.  — ₳aron 21:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] You split paras when introducing her debut album which seems odd to me. "It was... It was... " boring and repetitive prose. "Follow up singles" hyphen required. Oppose for now, will complete the review later. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] I've addressed your comments.  — ₳aron 21:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Apart from the bad use of collapsed lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] They've gone now.  — ₳aron 14:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Could I have your updated opinion after having gone through such an extensive debate and having reverted in the hiding of writers please??  — ₳aron 08:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sure, I'll try to complete my review this week. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Further Image captions which are complete sentences require a full stop. Added full stops. Ref 17 appears to have one too many j's. Removed J's I would avoid linking 1990s R&B to "1990s in music", especially as you have previously linked R&B to, well, Contemporary R&B. Unlinked Crush On You is actually Crush on You. De-capitalised "on "One Last Time" and" add a serial comma thus: "...Last Time", and..." Added comma Minaj and Jessie J captions are repetitive, can't we do better than that?! Changed captions You can now add a few more images down the right-hand side since the "show" artists issue has been resolved. Added more photos Best Mistake has "'2014" for year. Yes, that's right.  — ₳aron 14:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Apart from the hyphen. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] What do you mean? It was released in 2014. Why are you saying about a hyphen? This point makes no sense at all.  — ₳aron 19:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Apostrophe, not hyphen. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] I'm really, really lost now. What apostrophe? I literally have no idea what you are referring to here. I did CTRL+F '2014 and it returned nothing.  — ₳aron 21:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] And by the way, it's about time you started to show some gratitude to the people that actually bother to look at your list. The quick supports for this nomination are really worrying, they undermine the process entirely because they supported a list which was in no way ready to be featured. I'm glad we have good FL directors and delegates who will overlook such tit-for-tat "supports". Some of us take a lot of pride in keeping quality to a maximum here, and your negative, shouty, responses along with a sense of real indignation when you're asked to comply with the standards required of a featured list will make it unlikely that I will ever help you in the future. Having said that, I will certainly ensure we uphold the quality expected here by opposing anything that you submit if you continue react in such a negative fashion to critical reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] WP:No personal attacks please. Saying that you will purposely oppose anything I say or do here on the grounds of being "negative" is not acceptable and you will not get away with doing that. Just because this is FAC, it doesn't mean that I have to immediately bow down anyone's comments and suggestions just because they or you say so. If I disagree with something, I will challenge it, and I have done here. I think you will find that I have actually appeased you on everything you have asked, so I really don't know why you are taking this also negative stance, or why you making deal out of nothing.I'm perplexed at where this accusation of being "shouty" has come from, too.  — ₳aron 21:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Please demonstrate the "personal attack" your edit summary claims. If you continue to attack reviewers then no-one will bother with your candidates. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Isn't it obvious?: "Some of us take a lot of pride in keeping quality to a maximum here, and your negative, shouty, responses along with a sense of real indignation when you're asked to comply with the standards required of a featured list will make it unlikely that I will ever help you in the future. Having said that, I will certainly ensure we uphold the quality expected here by opposing anything that you submit if you continue react in such a negative fashion to critical reviews."  — ₳aron 21:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oh, one of your hysterical over-reactions to my comment about being "really, really lost", you somehow fixed in this edit. How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) I don't even remember taking that out, but clearly I saw it of my own accord considering you got the terminology wrong in the first place, hence why I questioned it. But you're not responding to anything I'm saying. This nomination is pulling further away from a just that and into an argument that you've created. You still haven't addressed the fact that I have done all that you have asked, and yet you still decide to carry this argument on?  — ₳aron 21:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Conclusion there seems to be a cabal of editors who simply support each other's (very similar) lists here. The fact that this list had numerous supports all the way back to late-March is troubling. I'm not convinced at all that any of those reviewers are aware of the requirements for FL. I will take this issue up with the directors and will focus on those reviews with all these early "support"s. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] That's fine, you do that, but fact is that I have done everything that everyone has asked... So I don't see why this still has oppose votes and no one who has opposed is acknowledging that I've done what they asked.  — ₳aron 21:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been 10 days since there has been any activity here and I've done everything suggested by certain individuals to improve this article.  — ₳aron 07:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Looks like a comprehensive, focused list. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 11:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you.  — ₳aron 11:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

Looking through this list prior to closing; some issues listed below. The sheer quantity of these (non-trivial) structural issues makes me feel that this list is not ready for promotion and backs up what other editors have been saying about drive-by supports:

• I'm utterly baffled by the first paragraph. So she was on three albums (no dates given), and "Put Your Hearts Up" was her debut single (was it on one of those albums? Doesn't look like it from the table, but the sentence is connected to the Victorious albums), but "Hearts" isn't listed in the table at all
  • I don't really understand what's baffling about it? I've already had to remove a lot from the lead a few weeks ago per comments above. No, PYHU was not included on those soundtracks. It's a completely new sentence. I've added PYHU (I can't source the writers though (I'm in China and Google is blocked) so it is unsourced for the moment. I don't think I could find anyway, which is why I didn't include it in the table.  — Calvin999
    • PYHU and its writers are in the table now, but no source is given. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "inauthentic and fake." - per MOS:QUOTE, punctuation goes outside the quote unless you're quoting a full sentence. You do this a couple times.
  • I moved it outside, as I only found one.  — Calvin999
• When you sort the table by year, Christmas Kisses shows up before Yours Truly, which doesn't seem right. It should really sort by release date, even if it only shows year for concision.
  • This doesn't happen for me. Not really sure what you're saying.  — Calvin999
    • The same happens for me. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I do think that if you're going to list all the writers of each song for an artist like Grande in the lead, 3 years from now the lead is going to be a massive slog to get through- it's already a bit much, all that information is in the table.
  • WP:CRYSTAL. I've nominated this list for what might happen in the future. You could technically say that for every single list which contains information about someone or something who is still active. I've never had this comment before. If she releases three more albums in the next three years (unlikely), then we will deal with that if and when it happens. Three paragraphs covering her debut releases, first and second albums, respectively, really isn't that much of a slog at all. Didn't seem to be an issue for Ricky Martin's list which has just been promoted..  — Calvin999
    • Ricky Martin's career has spanned over fourty years. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• You're linking Grande on the "Don't You (Forget About Me)" row in the table (but nowhere else)
  • Unlinked.  — Calvin999
• It would make sense to be, since you talk so much about them in the lead, to mark which songs were released a singles in the table, though I guess if that's not the done thing for these lists okay. I usually look at discographies, not song-ographies or whatever.
  • Yeah that's okay. I've done that for some previous lists.  — Calvin999
• So Christmas Kisses isn't mentioned in the lead? Actually, you don't mention any albums besides her studio albums.
  • It's not an album. It's just an EP release, and per comments by others above, the lead was too long, so adding this would add to the prose length, which you already think is a slog. The lead is just a summary.  — Calvin999 13:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Basically, I'm seeing a big mismatch between the lead and the table- the lead talks about her studio albums and singles from those albums and what writers those singles had and random facts about those singles, but a lot of her songs in the tables are from albums you don't talk about (even just "she has appeared on three other albums as a contributing artist, A, B, and C") and the table doesn't call out singles. And again, you're missing her debut single from the table. I don't get a clear picture from the lead of how many albums she's been on/released or how many songs she's done.
  • I disagree with this comment. I think it's pretty obvious how many albums, I say debut and second. This list is also not single-centric, it's about songs. That's why the lead contains a mix of prose about songs as well as singles.
• Sort by artist is sorting by first name, not last- use ((sortname)) to have it sort by last name instead
  • They are by first name...  — Calvin999
    • They're supposed to be sorted by last name, though. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirects (feel free to ignore): Sample (music), Childish Gambino, Tampa Bay Times Forum in lead; Lukasz Gottwald, Travis Garland in table; Seventeen (magazine), Nickelodeon Records in references
  • Thanks. Quite a few of these have been changed since I inputted them.  — Calvin999
• Consider archiving your online refs with a site like archive.org or webcitation.org so that changes/removals of content at those sites don't muck up your references in the future.

--PresN 21:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: According to the nominators page, they are on vacation currently till May 26 so may not be able to respond to your comments. They have not edited since May 8. Cowlibob (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, it's only been one day Cowlibob ! It does say in the tag that I would be online. I will get back to these comments. in the next couple of days. 13:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did use the word "may". Great please do so when you can, I'm just aware this nom has been open for 8 weeks which is usually pretty close to the cut off for closure in promotion/archival. Cowlibob (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than continue to thread the comments above, listing here issues that are still outstanding:

• Para 1 says that she was in three albums from her tv series, but doesn't say when they were released- i.e. it never says when her career started. Put something like "Her music career started when she contributed to the soundtrack albums for the American TV sitcom, Victorious, in which she also starred from 2010 to 2013.[1] Three soundtrack albums for the show were released between 2011 and 2012 [...]"
  • Added years.  — Calvin999
• Para 1 needs something to indicate that she transitioned from tv acting/singing to also doing independent singing. Just, "In 2011 Grande also began to work an independent artist outside of Victorious; her debut single "Put Your Hearts Up", a bubblegum pop song, was released that same year."
  • Changed.  — Calvin999
• 'describing it as "the worst moment of my life," Republic Records' - comma outside of the quote
  • Moved comma.  — Calvin999 12:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Put Your Hearts Up" is now in the table, but needs a source
  • See my comment above in initial reply.  — Calvin999
    • I don't see a comment where you explain why you don't have a source for the release, nor would I likely find it justified. Her debut single as an already-notable artist was only in 2011, I'm sure you can find a source to put in the table for it. --PresN 15:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Here it is again: "I've added PYHU (I can't source the writers though (I'm in China and Google is blocked) so it is unsourced for the moment. I don't think I could find anyway, which is why I didn't include it in the table."  — Calvin999 05:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry, but "I'm in China" (use Baidu) and "I don't think I can find a source" (have you looked? She's kind of famous...) aren't really good excuses for leaving something unsourced. --PresN 04:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I'm sorry, but it is an excuse. Like I said (didn't you read it) Google is blocked, so how I am supposed to search for something, I don't know. Please enlighten me. I can't use Bing, either, because it redirects to Chinese Bing, which is all in Chinese, funnily enough. I'll be leaving China tomorrow, for the record.  — Calvin999 13:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • There are many search engines out there, and you could always have asked someone else. I suppose we'll see once you leave China. --PresN 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • I use Google and know of Bing, but aside from that, no, I don't know any others. But this is irreverent to this nomination, and someone else added a source already.  — Calvin999 13:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The year sorting thing happens when you sort by something else, like album, then sort by date. It doesn't happen if you sort by date before clicking anything else; this means that whether Yours Truly is showing up before Christmas Kisses or not is a coincidence, and depends on what else the reader has clicked on before. ((sort|2013-1|2013)) for the first album, and ((sort|2013-2|2013)) for the second will fix it.
  • Where are these supposed to go?  — Calvin999
    • In the table, where you are putting the years. --PresN 15:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • For every song?  — Calvin999 05:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would do it, but to spell it out- when you sort the table by [anything] and then sort by date, some of the albums do not show up in the actual date they were released in that year. It should be fixed. One way to fix it is to use the sort template (on every song from that album) to force one album to show up in the correct order. I don't much care what method you use to make the ordering be correct. --PresN 04:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see what the problem is though. When I sort the year column, it starts with 2011, then 2012, then 2013, then 2014, and lastly, 2015. So what is the problem??  — Calvin999 13:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem is what I said it was- when you sort the year column (after first sorting by anything else) the albums are not actually in chronological order. Yes, 2013 comes after 2012 and before 2014, but the Christmas album comes before the other album from that year, even though it was released afterwards. Fix it. --PresN 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've added the template you put above for the Christmas Kisses songs, but I don't know if it's doing what it's supposed to do though.  — Calvin999 13:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead is currently not a summary of the table. You can't say both "I'm leaving in these minor details about selected songs because the lead isn't too long yet" and also "I'm not going to mention half the albums/EPs she's been on because then the lead would be too long". You don't have to go into detail, but to not even mention that she's also had an EP and been featured on several other songs besides her two studio albums is really weird, when those songs are listed in the table.
  • But I did have more detail before, but editors above said it was too detailed. I can't please you as well as the other editors. You want more detail, editors above didn't. That's what I mean by making it 'too long' again.  — Calvin999 12:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You just told me up above that the level of current detail was fine for when she releases more albums, but now you're saying that you can't add a single sentence saying what other albums she was on? --PresN 15:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, some editors above still think the current lead is too long, so I'm reluctant to add anymore right now. It's completely different and separate issue to if and when she releases another album. I believe the lead is now fine as it is.  — Calvin999 05:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I don't. The lead is not summarizing the table, as it leaves out the majority of albums she appears in. You are telling me/other editors that the current level of detail is fine because if she releases another album you can just add another couple sentences and it won't look off, and also telling me that you won't add a ~15-word sentence to cover the rest of the table. That's a bit contradictory. --PresN 04:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • • So you want me to disregard what everyone else has already asked me to do? I might as well just reinstate the original lead I wrote, no?  — Calvin999 13:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • You seem incapable of reading what I'm writing. I'm asking for one sentence, which you've elsewhere stated is not a problem. I don't know what else to tell you. --PresN 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • • I've added the one sentence.  — Calvin999 13:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorting for columns of names should sort by the last name of the first listed person.
  • Now sorting by last name.  — Calvin999 12:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not done; sorting by "artist(s)" puts Grande first, as it's sorting her under 'A'. You don't appear to have made any of the artists sort by last name. --PresN 15:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well click on the edit button yourself and have a look then, because each and every song entry has been inputted to sort by surname. I should now, I typed out the template for every song on the article.  — Calvin999 05:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's fine now except that Big Sean sorts by B when it's "Ariana Grande featuring Big Sean" but by S on the one time it's "Big Sean featuring Ariana Grande". It should sort by B for that last one- "Big Sean" is a stage name, not a firstname-lastname. --PresN 04:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Ariana Grande featuring Big Sean" is sorted as ((Sort|Grande, Ariana featuring Big Sean|Ariana Grande featuring [[Big Sean]])) and when it's "Big Sean featuring Ariana Grande" it sorts as ((Sort|Sean, Big featuring Ariana Grande|[[Big Sean]] featuring Ariana Grande)). Is this wrong? I've sorted using surname both times.  — Calvin999 13:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I said, it should sort by B in the second instance- "Big Sean" is one name, "Big" is not a first name, it's the first half of his stage name. --PresN 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, that's not surname, is it. I've changed it from Sean, Big to Big Sean.  — Calvin999 13:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--PresN 19:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've about hit the limit of what I'm willing to put up with here. You said you're leaving China tomorrow so we'll see once you get back home, but at this point this nomination has been going on for almost 2.5 months. You have one oppose that you simply badgered off the page, a couple other abstains from people you never quite convinced but managed to get them to drop their oppose, and several supports from people who clearly did not critically read the list, given the number of objective (rather than subjective) problems I found with the list after them. We're down to the final four issues, for which you continue to either not read what I actually am saying, claim you cannot do from China, or just outright refuse to do even though you use the opposite logic when it suits you. I'm giving this list until Friday and will not comment here again before then; if I feel it is up to snuff then I will promote it or else I will not, but either way I'm ending the nomination. --PresN 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not understand that China restricts all those who use the internet in China as to what they can access? Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google, anything owned by Google, are blocked. Bing was in Chinese. I fail to see how I was supposed to search for sources using a search engine that is blocked and another in a different language that I cannot understand. I am no longer in China, but I see someone else was kind enough to add a source for me. So drop this issue now please, it's irrelevant to this nomination to continue discussing it when someone else added a source days ago. You're not assuming good faith by suggesting that I've twisted peoples arms in getting them to strike an oppose or change their minds. I've done all that they asked, so what else were they supposed to do? I feel I've done everything you have asked.  — Calvin999 13:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, final decision time- it's Saturday, since I was busy yesterday. There's a consistent theme in this nomination, which I've now managed to identify- you ask (sometimes demand) that reviewers give you exact instructions for what to change, and get noticeably angry/upset when they instead identify problems and leave them for you to fix as you will. It's why Crisco left his oppose standing and left the nomination, and why you and I kept going in circles. Anyways, in addition to Crisco and Harrias' opposes (though you noted that you've responded to Harrias' comments:

• Your changes on the 21st actually added new problems; for instance, the last two sentences of the lead now have no context and the Christmas Kisses sentence doesn't have a citation- not that it's required, but given that you cite every other sentence it jumps out.
• More tellingly, you still don't mention the Hunger Games track or the Dark Sky Paradise track, not even (as I asked 3 times) as "she was featured on two other albums".
• The sorting thing is still wrong- yes, you did literally the edit I asked for, but did not actually check to see if the sorting now works right: it does not, Christmas Kisses, when sorting by date, still ends up before Yours Truly even though it was released later in the year.

Look, it's not actually my responsibility to go this in depth, but please please actually read what I'm writing here: at FLC nominations you have to actually fix the problems raised. Reviews are not simply checklists of edits to make; they can also be notes of the underlying issues that you need to fix, which are left up to the nominating editor's discretion to find their own way to solve. Can't use Google in China? Maybe ask someone else at WP:MUSIC to find you a source, or just ask me to wait 4 days for you to leave the country. Don't tell me that you're just not going to do it, implying it's my problem for asking. Someone says that the prose needs a copyedit? Then find a way to fix it, but demanding a point-by-point listing of every problem and treating that as a checklist of edits to make or not make (i.e. if they don't list it then it isn't a problem) isn't the way to go about it. In this nomination alone you've managed to annoy two of the delegates (me and Crisco), which is 2 out of the 4 people who can promote nominations and therefore look at every one. Badgering reviewers to give you point-by-point grammar checks or to simply oppose is not a winning strategy- FLCs don't get promoted on a straight vote-counting basis.

I'm closing this nomination as unsuccessful; no prejudice against re-nominating. Please, however, tell WP:MUSIC that instant support votes on FLC nominations which then later get longer, substantive reviews are not helpful. I basically can't treat any of the initial supports on this nomination as valid, because so many issues were found after they reviewed that they should have caught at least some of. --PresN 01:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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