Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mariah Carey albums discography/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Dabomb87 00:12, 31 August 2010 [1].

Mariah Carey albums discography[edit]

Mariah Carey albums discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PeterGriffin • Talk 04:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list for the following reasons.

  1. The lead is full of valuable information, that gives the reader a nice taste of what a career of 20 years has done for Mariah Carey.
  2. The lead is well written and has been gone over.
  3. All certifications are sourced by certification agencies and are done in a neat fashion. The sales are also sourced by only Billboard magazine, and other prestigious sources.
  4. All chart positions are sourced as well and are all updated.
  5. All sources are properly formatted and accurate and reliable. PeterGriffin • Talk 04:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One comment, this has the same problem we're discussing over at WT:GAN, when you cite a book, the page number you got the information from is required. Courcelles 22:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was just brought up though, so I didn't get a chance to correct that. I have done it though, the page numbers are included. Do you have any other concerns?--PeterGriffin • Talk 00:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]
A lot, actually. Oppose at least until the matter below is resolved. Courcelles 08:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope this matter should be clear, before this nomination begin to be reviewed. Baratayuda (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Category:Mariah Carey.
  • support Looks like info from above was removed/fixed..My only suggestion would be to find a better picture--maybe a crop of File:Hill and Mariah.jpg. Moxy (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry after seeing the change to the picture i see the one i picked is up for deletion...best to pic another.Moxy (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose I see no reason why this and Mariah Carey singles discography are different articles. See the excellent FL David Bowie discography for an artist who has released more albums and singles than Ms. Carey, yet has only one discography article. 114.143.169.4 (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you oppose because you don't like that there are two separates articles of her discography? both of Madonna's discography pages are featured lists, and she have released about the same amount of both albums and singles. I don't think this is a valid reason to oppose. Frcm1988 (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the problem has been fixed, and we had Moxy and Discographer agree (I believe)agree to this being a FL article, so lets make the final decision.--PeterGriffin • Talk 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This process takes ten days, at a minimum. Often longer. Courcelles 23:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Okay. One more question, can I nominate her singles discography at the same time, or do I have to wait for the verdict on this one first?--PeterGriffin • Talk 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you can have both nominated, but the article stills needs a lot of work, you may want to focus on this one first. Frcm1988 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No you cannot nominate another article untill you have the verdict on this one. At present there is no consensus to promote this list. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frcm1988, if I were around during the Madonna discography FLCs, I would've opposed those as well. But why the eagerness to have more than one discography article? Especially when I have shown the example of an large discog article that still manages to be elegant? I don't see why my oppose should be invalid. 114.143.168.35 (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So basically your telling us you would only support if they were merged??? So y is it your trying to push your POV on this type on article by votes..perhaps you should bring this up at the music project...Because spamming all the FLC of discographies with a Strong oppose is not helping at all...Perhaps if you can you could write your views and bring this up for consensus, because the way your doing it now is not going to get you anywhere. Moxy (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ref 69 need a fix and the infobox image need to be replaced because it would be deleted. TbhotchTalk C. 02:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 69 has been changed, formatted and is now functional. The photo has been changed as well.--PeterGriffin • Talk 21:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Infobox image caption should not have a full stop.
  • Why is army-base hyphenated?
  • U.S. or US, be consistent within the article.
  • "denoting shipments of over nine million copies in the United States and spawning four US number-one singles..." not really, the certification did not spawn four singles.
  • "By 1993, Carey achieved worldwide success " perhaps "had achieved", but this really needs defining.
  • What does Diamond certification mean?
  • "which has become one of the biggest selling Holiday albums of all time" this links to a US-only article. And also, why is Holiday capitalised?
  • "introduced a more sexual image" of what?
  • "The album suffered from poor publicity and thus became a commercial failure, receiving only Platinum status in the United States and becoming her second lowest selling album to date." unreferenced, and shouldn't second lowest be hyphenated?
  • "The albums sales" - album's.
  • "falling short of Carey's standards." what does this mean?
  • "and was a huge worldwide success" no need for "huge" here.
  • "produced "the biggest song of the decade," We Belong Together, " reference needed, what is the context for this?
  • "At the 2000 World Music Awards, Carey was presented with the Millennium Award for becoming the best-selling female artist of the 2000s." How was she awarded this in 2000 for the 2000s?
  • Cassette does not need to be capitalised.
  • Since "Playlist: The Very Best of Mariah Carey" didn't chart anywhere, where is proof of its existence referenced?
  • "10 record" hyphenate.
  • Check all refs have all available data, e.g. ref 8 could have an author and a date of publication.
  • Don't use all capitals in titles, even if the website does. (e.g. refs 17 & 18)
  • Foreign language references need to have a language= parameter added.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "studio album worldwide Music Box, " probably better as "studio album, Music Box, worldwide"
  • "large worldwide" remove large.
  • "She is also the recipient " was.
  • Notes B & C need references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed.--PeterGriffin • Talk 15:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Lead and infobox disagree in numbers.
  • "certified 9x Platinum " prose please, so "nine times" (besides, there is a specific "times" character to use, instead of x, see recently promoted FLs for examples). Check all lead.
  • I see no good reason for the Mariah Carey singles template. It's already in the Mariah Carey template in any case.
Well RamblingMan, thanks for your review. I have corrected pretty much all of your concerns, so please express how you feel towards the article now. As for mentioning her singles page, I think its necessary for readers who are not familiar with Wiki templates on the bottom of the page, to be able to easily access her other discography. The same takes place on many other FA level discographies.--PeterGriffin • Talk 17:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen a template being both used and referred to on the same page, it doesn't make any sense to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date formats in the references need to be consistent. (e.g. ref 9)
  • Ref 31 needs an en-dash. Check all.
  • "topped the charts in most countries worldwide" - most countries? Like, 150 countries?
Fixed!--PeterGriffin • Talk 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Please see the remaining comments above. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest RamblingMan, I don't know what you mean with "Ref 31 en-dash" or "ref 9 date format." I don't see the inconsistency. If you explain it to me, I'd be glad to go over each reference from there.--PeterGriffin • Talk 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, see ref 74. It needs an en-dash rather than a spaced hyphen. Ref 32 needs one too for the year range. (per WP:DASH). Check all other references. And see ref 18 for odd date format compared with all the others (e.g. you have "Published 6/16/09 by." and then "Retrieved 2010-07-25." This is another WP:MOS failure. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is now fixed. I still don't fully understand what you meant, but someone helped me so I think the issue is resolved. The other with the source was removed because in turns out the source was contradictory, so thats also solved.--PeterGriffin • Talk 02:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Two parts in the lead are not supported by the sources presented. Music Box, which was certified Diamond in the United States and topped the charts in many countries around the world. It have RIAA as a source, Im pretty sure that the last part of the sentence can't be mentioned in there.
  • The Emancipation of Mimi produced "the biggest song of the decade," We Belong Together, which topped the US Billboard Hot 100 for fourteen weeks, and became a success across the globe. It have Billboard as a source, no where in that page they mention something about it being a worldwide sucess. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, that claim is fine, in the chart there are sourced chart positions for the album. Anyway, I placed a source there as well with some of its top positions, proving my point.
I changed the words to reaching the top five in most music markets, and provided a source for its chart positions. So i believe your pointed out issues are fixed.--PeterGriffin • Talk 02:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is half of the countries equal to most of the countries, it didn't reach the top 5 in Belgium (Flanders nor Wallonia), Germany, France, Austria, Sweden, and Norway. And also "the biggest song of the decade" should be clarified because that was only in the US, not worldwide.
I'll tell you how. That is on the given list, but putting into consideration all the other countries around the world (which I can provide sources for each), it is most. The song reached the top-five (or better) in Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Europe, Ireland, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States = 10. Now the rest which are not top-five are Austria, Belgium F, Belgium W, France, Germany, Hungary, Norway, Sweden = 8. As you see, that is most. You see? if you want refs I'll be glad to provide. The second issue has been fixed.--PeterGriffin • Talk 02:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You already mentioned the US, so how can that be included as a worldwide market? and Europe is not a country. Frcm1988 (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so then it will be 8 - 8, so I'll just put "many" countries. That way I'm not saying more than half, but I'm saying a nice amount. Work for you?--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but one thing Billboard should be in italics: like this Billboard Hot 100, and songs should be in quotes not in italics "We Belong Together". Frcm1988 (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gotcha, yup thats fixed now.--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I favor merging this with Mariah Carey singles discography into Mariah Carey discography. --Dan Dassow (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please sign your edits. Secondly, as Frcm1988 indicated, that is not a reason to oppose the article. That issue was discussed here seven months ago, and a consensus was reached, with all 5 editors voting for the split. We are not going to just change it, or fail the article, simply because you decide or because you do not approve.--PeterGriffin • Talk 19:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for similar reasons as Dan Dassow above me. A talk page vote on splitting is not immunity to 3B opposes at FLC. Peter, what you need to argue is Why this "could not be included as part of a related article"; i.e., why two articles are necessary. Not point to an eight month old discussion among those who worked on the article. FLC is designed to generate critical, hard commentary on an article. So, explain to us why this needs to be separate from her singles. Courcelles 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure if you would like. Mariah Carey has a career spanning 20 years. She has 12 studio album, soon to be 13, and has over 61 singles. Now In order to give the reader a neat and clean-cut explanation and definition on her career, I feel that one article is not enough. I mean, take a look at her single discography, she has certifications on almost every single from various countries around the world, I don't feel there is a way to place all this information in one article. Some editors may say, well then you can remove unnecessary certifications, and sales from her pages, and you know what, then we could re-attach them. But Wikipedia, is to give the reader a broad understanding of the subject. I feel it is more important to have a broad and neat experience for the reader, and include allot of information, then to be bland and knowledgeableness in oder to be able to mash all of her info into one article. I feel quality and good information would need to be sacrificed in order to put it all into one article, a change I am not willing to uphold. I'm not going to bring up other pages and artists for reasons not to do it, but I'm going to try my best and explain to you why it is necessary to have both articles separate.--PeterGriffin • Talk 19:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge and oppose (for now) FL nomination. Why are the references in teeny tiny print and under the heading "Notes" ? Change it. You must go through each reference because they need reformatted. You have incorrect work/publishers, some refs are not formatted correctly (EG: Mariah_Carey_albums_discography#cite_note-71). There not major issues just please correct them. Also WP:OVERLINK is a big issue. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its all fixed Lakeshade, let me know if you have any other concerns. Thanks :).--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing I forgot to mention Courcelles. This article is about 42KB long and the singles discography is around 60KB long. According to Wikipedia rules, an article should already be considering a split after around 60, with a very strong urge at 100. This article would equal around 103, with more info by November when Carey releases a new album. So as you see, having this split is required.--PeterGriffin • Talk 10:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i now support. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:12, 30 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Mariah_Carey_albums_discography/archive1&oldid=1142499925"