Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Madonna albums 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 22:44, 17 November 2009.

Madonna albums discography

 * Nominator(s): --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this is a complete list featuring Madonna's albums (studio, live, compilation etc). Since her catalogue is huge so there are two separate articles for singles and albums. This is the albums discography of Madonna. I believe the article is worthy of being Wikipedia's best. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should have a maximum of four paragraphs. This article has five.
 * Made 4. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure making the third paragraph so bulky was the right way to go. I suggest splitting it again and just getting rid of the last paragraph, it's pretty trivial. — ξ xplicit  05:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya I feel so now too. Removed. :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The following references should be updated, as they redirect to different titles: "Madonna's label sues record giant", "Madonna Makes a $60 Million Deal", "Thank You For the Music! How Madonna's New Single Will Give Abba Their Greatest-Ever Hit".
 * Replaced with working references. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Discogs is a user generated site and not a reliable source.
 * Replaced with Billboard. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Some references do not use templates (specifically the book references). Considering using the harvnb template.
 * Whoahh. This was tricky but done :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More than one reference contains, despite having different content. Please correct this.
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This reference is used more than once. Consider combining duplicate references. — ξ xplicit  02:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Separated to respective urls. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done Dabomb :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Matthewedwards : Chat  02:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a few suggestions to the nominator before he brought it here, so I'm pretty happy with it right now, and don't have that much to offer, especially after the reviews that have already come. Generally it's very good, although I'm a bit concerned that the sales figures will date and may become unverifiable. Some are referenced to books from 2002 and 2004 -- surely they're more than that by now?
 * Actually I did try to find references as current as possible but its very difficult for pre 1990 albums when Nielsen Soundscan didnot track their sales. Hence the recent most book is used. Sorry about that. :(
 * No problem. I know we work on the "WP:V, not Truth" principal. :) Matthewedwards : Chat  04:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The book by Maury Dean is listed in the references section, but no notes use it.. is that a mistake?
 * Well here's a mistake. I'll remove it. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, one final thing is that I don't think the 3 "List of bestselling albums in..." are particularly necessary in the see also section, but it's a personal preference and nothing that's a big deal. Support Matthewedwards : Chat  04:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional support on fixing the overlinking in the References section. The list appears comprehensive and well sourced. However, you should de-link pretty much all of the wikilinks in the references section. We already have wikilinks for most these in the article (such as Billboard or Australian Recording Industry Association) and the others (e.g. BBC or The Daily Telegraph) aren't really helpful IMO. Colin°Talk 14:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I understand about wp:overlink on Billboard and ARIA, but how does a single link of BBC and The Daily Telegraph violates wp:overlink? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. I just mentioned that "IMO" those weren't really helpful but if you disagree then that's fine. The issue was the overlinking. Colin°Talk 09:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. So do you feel that I addressed your concern for the overlinking? Please check. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Though I've now noticed that your "work" and "publisher" parameters to "cite web" are the wrong way round. Have a look at the template help. Colin°Talk 10:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Support from


 * Why are the publishers in italics? Also, why is, for example, The Official Charts Company used in conjuction with Chart Stats? Dt128   let's talk  16:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the jargon of template:cite web and template:cite news. As for why The Official Charts Company is used with CahrtStats, the original work is by OCC, Chart Stats is just the publisher, that's why. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know but, for example, Allmusic is a website, not a publication that should be in italics. Surely the "work=" parameter should be left to such publications as Billboard? And yes, such websites as Les Charts and Chart Stats get their chart information from the chart sources, but are not published in conjunction with them. Dt128   let's talk  17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated before this italicization is only due to the template:cite web and its jargon. Nothing can be done reagarding this if the jargon is not changed. As for Lescharts and Chartstats, it is more important to note the authors or the original workers when they publish not in conjunction. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why haven't album catalog numbers been included? Dt128   let's talk  17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Catalog numbers are not a necessity to be included. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Websites and chart names should not be in italics. See this sample edit to guide you. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected such links. Please check Dabomb. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; looks good now. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.