Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kelly Rowland discography/archive1


 * 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.

Kelly Rowland discography

 * Nominator(s): Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * do you think it is sufficient now? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support all my issues have been resolved. Mister sparky (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - All of the issues i had with the article have been addressed. Great work on the article :) (CK)Lakeshade ✽ talk2me  23:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Ref 33 redirects to the main page of the website instead of going to the specific article. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * resolved.--Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * In Kelly Rowland discography, the two endnotes, [a]  and  [b], go nowhere; should be removed or targets added.
 * resolved --Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed these to use normal refs and a 'note' group so that they're consistent with site norms. Note how the second one now gives you two uplinks to the two spots the ref is invoked. Jack Merridew 03:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * More seriously, the entire table scheme used in all WP:WikiProject Discographies pages is completely at odds with several sections of WP:Manual of Style (accessibility):
 * The use of rowspans and colspans in the header directly contravenes WP:Manual of Style (accessibility). There are current threads at WT:Manual of Style (accessibility) that relate to some of this. Such spans are problematic for more reasons, too, such as their preclusion of useful features such as sorting; see WP:Manual of Style (tables) and Help:Table.
 * The tables also flagrantly flaunt the guidance at WP:Manual of Style (accessibility), specifically the part about inline HTML and CSS styling. These tables are a veritable sea of hard-coded inline markup, pretty much on a per-cell basis. This is all inappropriate and the approach to the implementation of discographies as tables is in need of serious overhaul.
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * response I have yet to to implement the accessibility changes because so far I've yet to find an FL Discography that does comply. To best of my knowledge the accessibility thing is a recent development and there is an on-going discussion going on at MOS:DISCOG#Accessibility issues. I was waiting for more guidance as its obvious that changes were made to the use of data tables without informing other projects so we're having to play catch up. MOS:DISCOG has not been updated to reflect the new access formatting so I refrained from making changes until it was 100% confirmed at the guidance. Currently Kelly Rowland discography follows the appropriate manual of style for discographies at MOS:DISCOG just as other FL discogs do. Its quite confusing if the MOS in different places states different things.If the FL directors wish me to follow the new accessibility guidance and wish to implement the changes then of course I'm happy to do so but you have to understand that consulation did not take place regarding the change and so like I've pointed out MOS:DISCOG does not reflect the new requirements (so I doubt if any existing FLs do). So of course to me its feels likes it quite big changes that have been sprung upon us and so at the time when nominating the article I did so with an understanding of the standards that were acceptible then. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that this is a recently noted issue; regarding discographies, at least. The page I'm seeing at MOS:DISCOG is just a WikiProject page and is not a guideline; it amounts to WP:CONLIMITED. I'm referring to long-standing aspects of the site-wide MOS, which trump WikiProject preferences when conflict arises. I'm not surprised that you're not seeing any FL Discographies that comply with the MOS; I didn't see any that did. The problem here would seem to be a WikiProject ignoring the MOS over time, which is inappropriate. The discussion I just read at WT:WikiProject Discographies/style is quite off the mark on some points, such as the row and column spans being acceptable. That discussion is mostly focused on the  scope="col"  issue, which I didn't even comment on, above. See the links I gave, which concern long-standing MOS guidance. I'll be glad to advise your WikiProject on the appropriate directions to take. Next week, though, as I'll be off. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * See RexxS's comment about this, back on my talk; one of our large threads there. He pointed us at Template talk:Cite web. 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) 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)

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)
 * Question


 * 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 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)


 * 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)


 * Judging by the recent history of WP:ACCESS, the relevant parts of the guideline are unstable. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * this article still has my support. by reading through all the arguements/discussions that are littered about all over the place regarding discographies and the accessibility issues, it seems they are still up for much more discussion and nothing concrete has been decided. before all discographies are forced to change what has been going on for a long time there needs to be some concrete guidelines agreed by overall consensus. this has not yet happened. Mister sparky (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That puts the cart before the horse. Guidelines describe the consensus of what is done, not prescribe how to do it. Featured articles and lists should represent the very best work on Wikipedia and by ignoring genuine, specific issues that are already documented in MOS, we fossilise poor practice and create yet another example for others to misapply. Just as the lead image lacks alt text, rendering it worthless to a blind reader, the tables are unnecessarily difficult for a text-to-speech reader. In what way would removing the excess inline styling (for example) contravene the MOS? And yet, if I view the first table on my 17" screen laptop at its native resolution, I have problems reading the 75% text – and I don't class myself as visually impaired. Several tables can cause problems because they rowspan the first column ("Year"), and yet even WP:WikiProject Discographies/style states: "Each release is given its own row, with various pieces of information creating a series of columns.", but in the Singles chart, the row for "Train on a Track" actually has no "Year" or "Album" information. Why isn't "Train on a Track" the row header? It's the unique identifier for the release, not the (non-existent) year. There's no reason not to fix problems like these, other than a desire to control the format to such an extent that is only appropriate for part of our audience. --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thank you, that's much more legible now. I see you've started to remove the Small Text 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)
 * 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)
 * Cutting the style="font-size:75%;" and   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)
 * 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)


 * if everybody thats been working on FL discogs has been using bad examples to follow and "copy", why doesn't somebody who knows that they're doing (ie Jack) make the kelly rowland album and singles tables that adher to MOS perfectly? then we know exactly where we're going wrong and actually have a correct template to follow. all these discussions/arguements that are all over the place are going nowhere. Mister sparky (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, I see no issues and am not getting involved in any MOS discussions. I'm fine with the tables as is but would likely still be fine if modified. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Support I guess I was making issues out of nothing Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Closing note I have promoted this candidate to featured status. A couple editors raised concerns with regard to the accessibility guidelines, which FLs must normally comply with per criterion 2. However, these guideliines are currently in flux right now. The thrust of criterion 2 is to promote stability and consistency in the style, but this purpose is defeated when the style guidelines themselves are constantly changing. I encourage discography editors and the accessibility experts to work together to create a stable, consensus-backed guideline that everyone can follow to make our articles accessible to as many readers as possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.