Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ne-Yo discography/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 15:32, 7 November 2009 [1].

Ne-Yo discography

edit
Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because there was still a few improvements to be made and they have now been done. Mister sparky (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reviewer, but a couple of things I noticed: In the "featured artist" section, the song "baby by me" is listed as peaking at 122. this is not sourced. also the next song, "good night good morning" needs a reference to confirm its existence as no wiki article or charting information is presently known. Also, link checker shows a couple of dead billboard links. Suede67 (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey thanks for that, a couple of things i missed. but does anybody know where i can find the r&b bubbling under archive? Mister sparky (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No probs! If i'm right, The bubbling chart can only be viewed on the billboard.biz site, which is a paid site. Suede67 (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Dt128 (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from Dt128
as there is only one, have removed. Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the featured artist table, why not have in brackets (with ...), for example, "Make Me Better" (with Fabolous).
there seems to be no clear consensus on this because on every FLC i work on the reviewers want them set out a different way. but have changed them this time. Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oops forgot about that one! changed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard needs to be in italics always.
changed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not sure what you mean here? Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for a "Peak chart posistions" section in the compilation albums table, as the album was only released in Japan and therefore unable to chart on the listed charts anyway. Dt128 let's talk 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the section is included because the album is going to receive full international release in november so will chart then. Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i am aware of that. but have adjusted the column header. Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changed. Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • You have not included any of Ne-Yo's album appearances. Dt128 let's talk 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the only appearances i have found are already mentioned in the "other charted songs" table. unless you mean songs that he has written for other artists? which shouldn't be included. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens at Allmusic. What says that writing credits can;t be included? Dt128 let's talk 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
they are just writing and producing credits. and as you mentioned with the "other charted songs" section below, they were not officially released so shouldn't be included in a discography, because it is a discography not a songography as MOS:DISCOG states. however, some discogs include them, some don't. its quite confusing :( Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But they were released, just on other artist's albums. Dt128 let's talk 09:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, the page appears very messy, and you may want to consider make the second column widths on all of the tables equal. Dt128 let's talk 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
please explain what you mean by messy? and the column widths for the 2nd column are the same width... Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything seems very rushed.
again, please clarify why you feel that? Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The column widths are the same, but there is an overflow of information on the second table, making it wider. I would suggest increasing the size of both until they are the same. Dt128 let's talk 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
they all look the same width on my screen. Mister sparky (talk)
  • There are redlinks in the "music videos" table.
have been advised in previous FLC's that redlinks are perfectly acceptable for music video directors. Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the only countries in which Ne-Yo has been certified the UK and the US? Dt128 let's talk 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
am working on finding sources to find that out. Mister sparky (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has any progress been made on this? Dt128 let's talk 16:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
have been advised before that "Inc" isn't necessary in references? Mister sparky (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the some of the publishers consistently linked in every ref, whilst some aren't? See WP:OVERLINK. Dt128 let's talk 18:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
because have been told previously that refs should always have wikilinks. Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would WP:OVERLINK not apply to references? MTV and Viacom are wikilinked 18 times in a row. Dt128 let's talk 08:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINK also states that tables are an exception to the rule. "in which each row should be able to stand on its own" Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
because the website is published by Billboard magazine? Mister sparky (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


General
  • Dabs check out fine.
  • The alt text should be jumper suit not just jumper
changed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref # 25 leads to a dead external link.
Lead
  • [The discography of Ne-Yo, an American pop and R&B singer-songwriter and record producer, consists of three studio albums, twelve singles and several other appearances.] -- A)No need to link to discography or singer-songwriter B)several other appearances is to vague, elaborate.
"discography" and "singer-songwriter" are wikilinked because have been told they have to be previously. but added to the end. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [In 2006 Ne-Yo's debut album, In My Own Words, debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 in the United States.] -- Comma after 2006
added. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [In the same week, his second single, "So Sick", debuted at number one on the Billboard Hot 100; it was also Ne-Yo's first UK number-one single.] -- Since the previous sentence used the year and not an exact week or date, saying in the same week is redundant--use year if possible or change the sentences up
changed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Other singles released were "When You're Mad" and "Sexy Love". ] -- This shouldn't even be mentioned, what makes the exempt from all his other singles--unless you state what makes the notable.
removed then. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [The album contains the singles "Miss Independent", "Mad" and "Part of the List".] -- same with this one
removed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you mention the RIAA for the US, mention the one for the UK--unless they are the same of course.
added. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Year of the Gentleman has been certified platinum in the US.] -- has been -> was
changed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [In September 2009 Ne-Yo released his first greatest hits album, Ne-Yo: The Collection, in Japan.] -- Comma after 2009
added. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other charted songs
  • Why not just put this under singles?
because they weren't singles. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
have been removed now anyways. Mister sparky (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other album contributions?
  • Like Dt128 stated, this is vital information missing.
see above. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • billboard.com is not the publisher, Billboard is the publisher.
fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref # 20 needs to be properly formatted.
fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Truco 503 17:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images: Licensing looks good and alt text is present. Goodraise 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

  • What makes chartstats.com a reliable source and who publishes the site?
chartstats is recommended as a UK source at WP:GOODCHARTS and is used as UK source in recently promoted FL's Pink discography, George Michael discography, Lily Allen discography as examples. and it takes its information from the Official UK Charts Company archive, which isn't searchable, and makes it searchable. Mister sparky (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my questions. Goodraise 18:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i did. if it wasnt reliable then it would'nt be recommended at [GOODCHARTS], its reliable enough for the 3 example discogs and takes its data from the OCC which is most definitely reliable. Mister sparky (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chartstats.com is clearly an amateur site, and is used as a convenience link. The problem is that the official site, www.theofficialcharts.com, doesn't provide reasonable archiving: it has slightly less than two years of data available, and, since it provides no search facility by artist, has no method of sourcing a discography column: each and every peak needs an independent link to substantiate it, and all of those links go dead in 100 weeks or less. In fact, it doesn't source peaks at all: a link to a song with a given number on a given week doesn't source the concept that it wasn't higher on a different week.
Because of that, I can't describe the use of chartstats.com as ideal, but it seems to be the best of a group of bad choices. None of the other archives are better in terms of having a recognized publisher, and the only archive that is published by a recognizable publisher isn't usable. In terms of being reliable in the traditional sense of "can be trusted to provide accurate information", I'm not aware of any problems with chartstats.com.—Kww(talk) 22:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is way out of my normal area of editing, so please excuse if this is a stupid question, but are there no print sources listing this kind of information? In any case, I will not oppose soley because of the use of chartstats.com, but as long as it is used, I won't support either. Sorry. Goodraise 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that last sentence just contradicts itself... you wont oppose because of its use, but you won't support because its used?! but you still havent said why? Mister sparky (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't contradict itself if you take into account my option to neither oppose nor support. I will not support a nomination that uses what I perceive to be sub-standard sources, but I will not stand in the way of a promotion if this particular source is accepted by other reviewers. Goodraise 23:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and the only non-web uk charts source is the Guiness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums, which hasn't been published since 2006 so is useless for this article. Mister sparky (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back to Goodraise's question: yes, there are printed copies of the individual charts. With some additional research, it would be possible to determine an issue of Music Week that published the physical copy, find someone with the physical copy, and from that find the page number, article titles, etc. required for a physical citation. That process would need to be repeated for each song, as no summaries are available in print form. Ironically, the best way to find that would be to start with the data from chartstats.com to determine the week of the peak occurring. Technically, that information would still not truly source a "peak", because the physical list can't predict what will happen the following week, while chartstats has the luxury of being continuously updated. As Mister sparky points out, the publishing of paper anthologies is infrequent, and, with the advent of the internet, it wouldn't surprise me if no further editions were published.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional point: One other thing to consider is that while none of the online chart sources for the UK is ideal, they can be checked. Acharts, everyhit, chartstats, and zobbel all independently claim to archive the Official Charts Company. Within the top 40 positions for the last 100 weeks, that can be directly verified. Outside of that, the data can be crosschecked between the different archives. I've done random spot-checking in the past, and always came back satisfied. Would specifically cross-checking the data on Ne-Yo alleviate your concern?—Kww(talk) 10:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After going over the current versions of WP:V and WP:RS, I find myself back at my original position. The website does not seem to fit the definition of reliable sources as given by said pages. To quote policy, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Using decent sources is the least I expect of "our very best work". Goodraise 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well its decent enough for every other reviewer of featured list discographies. including the examples above which were only promoted in the last couple of weeks. i don't want to appear rude, but its just really frustrating when reviewers constantly contradict each other :( Mister sparky (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your frustration. However, my vote is based on community wide consensus as documented by policy and guidelines. If you can change WP:RS in such a way that chartstats and co. can be considered reliable, then I will no longer oppose because of their usage. If you can't, then it's your failure to consult WP:RS in the first place. Goodraise 14:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Raised at WP:RSN#www.chartstats.com.—Kww(talk) 15:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add PhonoNet as publisher of ref. 8, 14, 18, 21, and 31.
added. Mister sparky (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add Nielsen Business Media as publisher of ref. 13, 25, 33, 34, and 36.
added. Mister sparky (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use ' instead of " for quotations within quotations (reference titles).
changed. Mister sparky (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's more. Goodraise 18:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so there were. i forgot about the video's lol. Mister sparky (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is too US/UK centered.
  • Ref. 13 gives the website's name as billboard.com. Some other references call it Billboard. Which one is it?
changed. Mister sparky (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference titles aren't free-style. Give the title of the page, not a description.
could you clarify what you mean? Mister sparky (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title of reference 1, for example, is given as "Ne-Yo Billboard albums discography". That is a description of the contents of the linked page, not its title. Goodraise 18:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
made some changes. Mister sparky (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-English references should be marked as such.
marked German, Dutch and French. Mister sparky (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At present, I have to oppose this nomination. Goodraise 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At present, I have to weakly oppose this nomination. Goodraise 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At present, I have to oppose this nomination, mainly because of sourcing issues. Goodraise 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

have removed the position. cannot be sourced via billboard or allmusic. Mister sparky (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Think the alt text could be expanded - you don't mention that he's black and that he's wearing a flat cap for instance.
  • "debut album, In My Own Words, debuted at number one" - debut overdose for me.
  • "certified platinum" I think we can find a link to sales certification or similar here?
  • Also possible to link greatest hits I believe.
  • Lead is a little, well, uninteresting. Any interesting nuggets other than just repeating the "album x, number y in UK, number z in US"?
  • You have a section 2.1 but no 2.2? Always find that odd. If it were me, I would have 2.1 - singles as a solo artist 2.2 - singles as a featured artist.
  • The Compilation albums table is pretty odd - you said in the lead it was only released in Japan and then don't list Japan as one of the charts it could have featured in. It's a rather uninformative table!
  • As ""Finer Things" (with DJ Felli Fel, Kanye West, Jermaine Dupri, & Fabolous)" didn't chart anywhere, we have no direct reference that it actually exists...
  • Hyphens in the references (e.g. BPI - certified awards search) should be spaced en-dashes.
  • Also, for those generic search engine links, you should provide instructions on how I can reference your statements.
  • Do we need to link Billboard, MTV and Viacom so many times in the refs?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2009 (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/Ne-Yo_discography/archive2&oldid=1207843562"