Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rufus Wainwright 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 not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009.

Rufus Wainwright discography
I am nominating this list for FL status because I believe it meets all of the qualifications and I have made improvements to the article based on a recent peer review session. I believe I corrected all concerns raised during PR, except that I left the 13 chart columns on the album discography (I do not think it is excessive, and according to MOS:DISCOG approximately 10 charts are suggested; 13 is close to 10).

Also, it was suggested that the Operas section be deleted, though I would like to get additional feedback regarding that request. I realize this is a Discography, and the opera has not yet been recorded and distributed as an album. However, this is a major work and I still wonder if it is worth listing. At the same time, I am more than willing to remove the section if consensus reveals it should be eliminated from the list. Perhaps a list of composition could be created, since Wainwright has composed other pieces as well? If there is a "List of compositions" template or example I could follow, I'd be interested.

Sorry so long. Anyways, I think that apart from the aforementioned concern, this is an informational, highly-referenced list that I would love to see join the other FL discographies. Thank you so much for your time, consideration, and assistance. -Another Believer (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from 
 * Wainwright's self-titled, debut album was released under DreamWorks Records in May 1998.  - there is no need for the comma
 * Done. I have a comment of placing a comma between two adjectives.


 * His first music DVD, Live at the Fillmore, accompanied Want Two and features live concert footage from a March 2004 performance at The Fillmore in San Francisco, California. - features --> "featured" (past tense)
 * Done.


 * Wainwright's second EP, titled Alright, Already: Live in Montréal, was released by Geffen via iTunes in the U.S. and Canada on March 15, 2005, and later in Germany on March 29. - 1)no need for the titled 2)spell out the United States in its first occurrence 3)Unlink Canada and German, common countries
 * Done, done, and done.


 * All I Want, released under Geffen in April 2005, contains a documentary (A Portrait of Rufus Wainwright), live performances, music videos, and more. - and more is WP:WEASEL wording. how about All I Want, released under Geffen in April 2005, contained various pieces of work, including a documentary (A Portrait of Rufus Wainwright), live performances, music videos, and more. (you can replace the pieces of work if it doesn't fit well)
 * Done.


 * Want, a repackaging of Want One and Want Two as one album, was released under DreamWorks/Geffen in November 2005 and contains two extra tracks. - comma before and
 * Done.


 * Release the Stars, Wainwright's self-produced, fifth studio album, was released under Geffen in May 2007.  - no need for the comma between self-produced and fifth studio album
 * Done. Again, there is that habit of mine...


 * Coinciding with the album, Rufus! Rufus! Rufus! Does Judy! Judy! Judy!: Live from the London Palladium is a DVD release of Wainwright's tribute concert to Judy Garland, recorded in London during February 2007. - remove the comma after album (no need for it)
 * Done.


 * In response to the comment about the opera, I agree on its removal, its not technically its discography and stands out in the article.
 * Done. Thanks for the additional feedback!
 * Studio and live albums


 * For the blank entries on the certifications, add an emdash (the long dash) there. Empty spaces are unappealing.
 * Comment: Trying to figure out how to do this...
 * See WP:EMDASH to read on how to add it to the articles, the emdash is basically the dashes that are in this article's tables under the charts in which the piece of work did not rank on.-- TRU  CO   02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. I understand what the emdash is, I just cannot figure out how to display it properly on the chart. -Another Believer (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind! I was making things more difficult than they really were. DONE.
 * Compilation albums


 * Move the ref to the title of the album, not the format.
 * Done.


 * Capitalize the first word in the notes.
 * Done.
 * Extended plays


 * Move the refs to the album name, and add a ref to the 2007 album.
 * Done.


 * Capitalize the first word in the notes.
 * Done. I also capitalized the first word in the Description column of Guest appearances for consistency.
 * Video albums


 * Add emdashes to the blank certifications entries
 * Done.


 * What is verifying the 2007 album?
 * Done.
 * Featured performer


 * Why isn't this part of the compilation?
 * Comment: I am not sure what this means. I only have "featured performer" under the Singles section. If you are referring to "To America" with Joan As Police Woman... this is under the Guest appearances section since it is JAPW's album.
 * Yeah, that's what I am referring to, why isn't this under the compilations section since that's what it technically is.-- TRU  CO   02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "To America" is a song on Joan As Police Woman's album. This album is not a compilation. -Another Believer (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh okay.-- TRU  CO   03:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Contributions


 * There are some entries that don't have references, what is verifying them?-- TRU  CO   00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know these entries exist, but I am still trying to find online references for verification. Can Amazon.com be used for track lists? I found this library entry and this for Hear Music Volume 7: Waking, though I am not sure if either are considered reliable . -Another Believer (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Library entries are reliable, the other ref isn't. Amazon isn't really reliable since the track listing is placed there by the person selling it.-- TRU  CO   02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I shall use the library entry. -Another Believer (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I simply cannot find a reference for Eklektikos Live, though I know he appears on the album. Should I just remove it from the list since it cannot be verified? -Another Believer (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO its best to remove it because leaving it in the article will violate WP:OR and is WP:UNSOURCED, which can be challenged and removed. If in the future, a reliable source can be found, it can always be readded.-- TRU  CO   03:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Eklektikos Live has been removed from the Compilations list. DONE. -Another Believer (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have another question. This is a compilation album compiled of songs CHOSEN by Wainwright. He does not perform on the album. It is a collection of songs he likes, plus two of his songs performed by a string quartet ("Hometown Waltz" and "Cigarettes and Chocolate Milk"). Does this belong anywhere on the list? -Another Believer (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, he didn't release it for his promotion so its more like a tribute type albums.-- TRU  CO   02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I didn't think so, but Allmusic has it listed under his Discography so I thought I'd ask just in case. -Another Believer (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its good that you ask.-- TRU  CO   03:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for all of your assistance! I hope this addresses all of your concerns and suggestions! -Another Believer (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your welcome!-- TRU  CO   22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.-- TRU  CO   22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes http://www.soundtrackcollector.com/catalog/soundtrackdetail.php?movieid=75992 a reliable source?
 * Comment: I'm afraid I cannot find any newspaper articles or other more reliable sources with the track list. If this, this, this, or this cannot be used, I will simply have to remove the entry. I think part of the problem is that this film was released in France so there is little English text about the film/soundtrack. -Another Believer (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you show that any of these listed sources are reliable through support by a reliable third-party institution, being cited by a reputable publication/institution, or methods of fact-checking? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I've gone ahead and removed the entry. I can add it back later if I come across a reliable source. -Another Believer (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Likewise http://www.radio-canada.ca/radio/emissions/document.asp?docnumero=51525&numero=1354?
 * Comment: radio-canada.ca is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's French site. I've update the reference to display Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as the publisher, rather than Radio-Canada. I hope this helps.


 * You need to add a publisher to the Billboard sources. Billboard is the work, and Nielsen Business Media, Inc is the publisher. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you so much for your time and assistance! -Another Believer (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Very thorough, but I do have a few complaints that I hope you can address. I have some other more minor style-based complaints, but those are my two main ones. I don't have time to do a full review at the moment, so I'll save those for if and when the other two are addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My complaint has to do with the 13 charts. Yes, 13 is close to 10, but I see no justification or rationale for going past the suggested 10.  On the contrary, there are many reasons not to go past 10, which are in fact the same reasons why 10 is suggested in the first place.  I think it would be very easy to trim the fat on this: the German, Austrian, and Spanish charts aren't particularly notable or useful in my opinion, and that would bring it down to the magic number.
 * My other main complaint is that the list is over-referenced. (Yes, there is such a thing as too many citations).  For instance, it's extreme overkill to provide a citation for every single release, when one or two general references would suffice.  Take a look at the reference section of The Prodigy discography for an example of what I mean.
 * Thank you for your comments. The difference between the Rufus Wainwright and The Prodigy discographies is that the latter does not list 77 contributions to soundtracks, compilation albums, and albums by other artists. I do not think the article would look "over-referenced" if it were not for that extensive list. However, I feel the contributions list is very helpful and necessary, showing the extent of his involvement with many projects. If I could find a single reliable source that listed many of his contributions (including track name, album title, etc.), I would reduce the number of references. Since I cannot, I will leave the list as is for now. Thanks again! -Another Believer (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting getting rid of citations that aren't coverable by general references, and if the soundtrack contributions need specific citations then that's fine. But for a start, a citation for every studio album, live album, compilation, EP, and  video album seems unnecessary.  A single link to allmusic covers alot of this.  And a single link to his website covers alot of other stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So just use the allmusic link you provided to reference all of the albums? It just seems the references provided (that direct to Billboard) note more information--album name, date, release formats, peak positions, etc. In other words, they provide details allmusic does not. In no way am I unwilling to change/improve the article, nor do I take offense. I am really just trying to make sure I understand why the article should be edited to contain fewer references when those references may be more useful to the reader. I hope other users will express their thoughts on this issue. Are there any other issues that need to be addressed in order to earn your support? -Another Believer (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, well let's compare the Poses pages from Allmusic link and Billboard link. They both have title, label, catalog number, and release date.  Billboard has some chart positions (though so does Allmusic, it's just one click away rather than on the same page).  So for this one release they're essentially the same.  The difference being allmusic has a all-inclusive discography page link, where as Billboard does not.  So that is why I would say Allmusic is better, since one link can provide information for a whole bunch of releases, rather than one link per release.  Hope that makes sense.  It also looks like Allmusic is a little bit more inclusive, as it includes Yellow lounge, but Billboard does not.  I think this may be because Billboard only lists things that have charted, though I could be wrong.
 * The reason less citations is preferable is because 124 of them is just data overload, and it implies that if the reader wants to find out more they need to go to 124 places, rather than a few all-inclusive ones.
 * Aside from the citations bit, there's still the 13 charts thing that needs to be addressed. And I'll try and find some time soon to do a more thorough style-based review of the list. Drewcifer (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.