Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nicki Minaj videography/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/not promoted by Crisco 1492 06:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Contents
Nicki Minaj videography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): KaneZolanski (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have put a lot of effort into meeting all of the FL criteria. If you oppose for any reason, let me know and I will correct them to bring the article up to the standard. KaneZolanski (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments It's clear you've put a lot of effort into this. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
Cowlibob (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment if you open the first link in the article, you'll see that videography means "the process of capturing moving images on electronic media". It doesn't mean "a collection of music videos". This article should thus be moved to "Nicki Minaj filmography" or "list of Nicki Minaj music videos".—indopug (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- indopug, This isn’t just a list of music videos, or a list of films. it includes music videos, film, television, cameo appearances, commericals exc. which all fall under the process of shooting a moving image. On wikipedia, most lists of music artists' music videos and details of other filmed processes they have been involved in are catergorised under “videography”. For example, Rihanna videography (which has garnered featured list status). It seems as though, on Wikipedia, people who don’t have enough of a catalogue in each, such as film, television and music videos exc. are listed under a general scope of videography as it allows for a more comprehensive article, rather than small undeveloped sub lists. But even so, Madonna has both a videography and filmography, both of which have featured list status, also. From this, it is my understanding that this is just the way such listings are catergorised on Wikipedia. Thanks for your comment. KaneZolanski (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Quite a number of issues with this list that'll keep me from supporting from now, I'm afraid.
| Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments:
I altered the sentence to iterate the fact that it was her first solo music video released under her major.
This has now been removed.
I have since made the correct changes needed.
These have now been removed.
Discogs reference has been removed and replaced.
Italicised company names have now been reverted to standard text.
They are now removed. |
These are all just on first-glance; there's still quite an amount of comments which I didn't add regarding more minor problems which I have with this list in its current state. Sorry, but I'm gonna have to oppose for now; I think this was nominated prematurely and the article still needs some sprucing up. Holiday56 (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why split all her pre-2010 music videos as "pre-fame"? It's pretty subjective (and therefore impossible to adequately source) for one to determine the exact point when somebody becomes famous—she had quite a number of supporters even before she released her debut album.
- Holiday56, these were videos released prior to her signing to a major record label. Would you advise listing them as such instead?
- Quite a number of prepositions and articles which shouldn't be capitalised.
- Would you be kind enough to point these out so necessary changes can be made? KaneZolanski (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Directors need to be sorted by last name.
- Nabil has an article.
- Done
- Some of these refs are incorrectly formatted, such as ref 13. Why is there a duplicate link after the access date?
- Done
- Be consitent in your date formatting. Some of the accessdates use MM-DD-YYYY, and other use DD-MM-YYYY.
- Lots of refs missing fields (ref 47, 51, 105, 121, and a whole lot more).
Holiday56 (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WikiRedactor
edit- Four disambiguation links to address.
Done
- Vevo should not be styled as "'Vevo'" in the introduction.
Done
- "As of April 2014, 'Super Bass' has over 400 million YouTube views making Minaj the second most-viewed black solo-performer in history, after Rihanna's video for her song 'Diamonds'."
- I would clarify that the "Super Bass" itself is the second most-viewed music video by a solo black performer, and not that Minaj herself is the second most-viewed solo black performer.
Done
- I personally think that the "Pre-fame videos" table should be merged with the "As lead artist" table; her varying levels of fame don't determine whether or not she was the lead artist.
These videos were all released prior to Minaj signing to a major label and were in support of mixtapes, Would you still suggest a merger? Or maybe a retitling of the "pre-fame" section?
- I still think it would be a good idea to merge, especially since they use all of the same fields.
- WikiRedactor, one uses album and the other mixtape. how would you suggest labelling that column, if a merger is the best option?
- Please remove the wikilink for The Pink Print, since its article currently redirects back to the Nicki Minaj article.
Done
- The "V" in "Collaboration Videos" should not be capitalised.
Done
- I would suggest moving the "As featured artist" table after the "As lead artist" table, which I personally feel would be a better flow.
Done
- The "As an actress" and "As a personality" tables can be merged, since neither section is very large in the first place.
Those in "As a personality" aren't cinematic releases, thus there is no calculation of Box-office. Would you still suggest a merger?
- That's a good point; on second thought, I think it would be best to leave those as-is.
- Looking at the "References" section, I see several citations that lack publishers, dates, authors, etc. in their templates. I also see inconsistent date formatting; you should pick one style and stick with it throughout the article (I personally prefer writing the date out.)
I am not all that familiar with the process of correctly inputting such information. Would you be able to assist or give tips? KaneZolanski (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC) WikiRedactor (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll give you an example I saw in the article:
<ref>[http://www.mtv.com/news/1644594/nicki-minaj-explains-her-violent-death-in-your-love-video/ Nicki Minaj Explains Her Violent Death In ‘Your Love’ Video - MTV<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
This template would be considered incomplete, because it is missing information about the author, publisher, date, and access date. I would use the cite web template for these kinds of situations, and after filling in all of the necessary fields, it would look like this:
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mtv.com/news/1644594/nicki-minaj-explains-her-violent-death-in-your-love-video/|title=Nicki Minaj Explains Her Violent Death In 'Your Love' Video|last=Reid|firts=Shaheem|publisher=MTV News. Viacom|date=July 28, 2010|accessdate=May 26, 2014}}</ref>
I see that the cite web template is used in some spots in the article, so I recommend that you go through and convert all of the other references over to this format. DONE WikiRedactor (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiRedactor, would I have to manually convert and fill in every single reference, or am I mis-reading? :) KaneZolanski (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that this will have to be done manually, although perhaps there is some bot that I am not aware of? WikiRedactor (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiRedactor, I'm not aware of bot that would help either. It seems this is going to take quite a while. thank you for your reply. KaneZolanski (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that this will have to be done manually, although perhaps there is some bot that I am not aware of? WikiRedactor (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done references (finally) KaneZolanski (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX
editOppose as I see many flaws, mainly with references:
- "The videography of Trinidadian-born American rapper Nicki Minaj consists of....." would read better as something like "Trinidadian-American rapper Nicki Minaj has starred in....."
Done
- "This method of certification is a means of recognising videos that have reached over 100 million views, It was introduced by Vevo in June, 2012." simply doesn't belong
One of the other editors on this page suggested I outlined this, but it has now been removed.
- There is no need to link years in the video sections
Done
- Vibe (magazine) should be italicized
- Publisher for Vibe is Spin Media
- IMDb is not a reliable source
- Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, ′ should be ', ″ should be "
- When using multiple articles from the same source (i.e. I see you have many MTV refs), only link the work and publisher in the first ref used from said source
- Remember to keep references consistent (i.e. don't use "MTV" in one ref and "MTV.com" in another when citing MTV, include publishers for all or none of a recurring source)
- MTV shouldn't be italicized
- Publisher for Billboard (magazine) is Prometheus Global Media
- Daily Mail is not a reliable source
- "Rap-Up.com" should just read Rap-Up, and publisher is Devin Lazerine
- Publisher for Spin (magazine) is Spin Media
- "E! Online" should just read E! and not be italicized
- Publisher for E! is NBCUniversal
- YouTube is used rather excessively
- Publisher for Idolator (website) is Spin Media
- Publisher for VH1 is Viacom (or Viacom Media Networks)
- Complex (magazine) should be italicized
- Thatgrapejuice.net is not reliable
- Publisher for Digital Spy is Hearst Corporation
- "Hollywood Life" is a questionable source at best
- Try to cut down on the iTunes refs
There's my input. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from HĐ
editOppose Multiple ref issues: they do not go with {{Cite web}} and some of them are unreliable sources (such as "ThatGrapeJuice", is a trash source) — Simon (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Prosperosity
edit- Could you define what being Vevo certified means? I assume it means being viewed a certain number of times, but are those views exclusively on the Vevo channel? What is the threshold for number of views?
- Is it possible to get sources outside of Youtube for the mixtape videos? If the videos were deleted or moved the sources would no longer be usable, so it's better to have a source that can be archived.
- The references for "Lookin Ass Nigga" need to be done up, they're still bare URLs with bot titles. I can see a couple more Bot generated title ones too, they need to be fixed.
- Why does the featured artists section have pictures, but the artists one doesn't? Maybe some pictures of her regular collaborators/directors would be good.
- There's a big reliance on mtv.com for references. I'd suggest using a couple of other sites to increase variation (such as the Japanese database by Space Shower here
- "ft" should be written "featuring"
- How can she make a cameo appearance when she's "pre-fame"? I'm fairly certain you can't call performing songs at a concert (i.e. Britney Spears Live: The Femme Fatale Tour) a cameo, either, she's just a performer.
Definitely all the practically bare URLs need to be attended to first. --Prosperosity (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegate's Comment - This nomination has been archived. The nominator is requested to wait at least two weeks before nominating this or another list at FLC. The time should be spent addressing issues brought up during this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.