Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Pink 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 promoted by Juliancolton 01:10, 22 October 2009 [1].

Pink discography edit

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because the article was nominated prematurely last time because their was alot of problems. The issues surrounding content, formatting and sourcing have now been resolved so i am re-nominating the article. Mister sparky (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the comments of the previous nomination are all resolved, the references are correctly formatted and everything seems FL quality. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also support, I noticed major improvements and the sources are reliable. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Nice work on finishing this off, I've spotted just a few minor things:

  • There's a little bit of overlinking with the "Certifications" and "sales thresholds" links being repeated, the compilation albums table repeats the chart links from the studio albums table, and the "as featured artist" table repeats the chart links from the singles table. "Sales thresholds" also needs brackets in the first table and doesn't need repeating in subsequent tables.
fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:LINK says repeated links in a table is OK, as "each row should be able to stand on its own".  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  14:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at FLC (at least in all the discographies that I've seen go through) has been for a long time that rows in a non-sortable table don't stand on their own. --JD554 (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. As I am very new at FLC, I will defer :)  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  03:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all the tables, the Australian chart column precedes the UK one, except the compilation album table.
completely forgot about that one! done. Mister sparky (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "title" column in the music videos table would be better if it was the same width as the "single" column in the singles tables.
fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "I Don't Believe You" hasn't been released yet, so either shouldn't be part of the discography or should have a due to be released date with citation.
have added a footnote. if i remove it'll only be constantly replaced. Mister sparky (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clearer, I meant it needed to say what the "due to be released" date is along with a reference so it doesn't breach WP:CRYSTAL. --JD554 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
haha no worries, added now. Mister sparky (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead and the singles table (when excluding "I Don't Believe You") has 24 singles, when adding the 2 "featured artist" singles, that makes 26, but the infobox says 28.
another thing i forgot to change, the lead said 24 lol. changed now. Mister sparky (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--JD554 (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All my issues have been addressed, I support. --JD554 (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment Some of the music video directors still don't have a source. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they do now. Mister sparky (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead says 24 singles, infobox 25.
fixed, its 25. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe worth a note that her first album, while not her most successful, still went multi-platinum?
mentioned. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could #link the Lady Marmalade link to the correct version.
done. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Arista Records lose the Records part of their label name between 2001 and 2003? Same comment for LaFace?
fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it M!ssundaztood or Missundaztood?
on the albums cover it is written as "M!ssundaztood" so have changed all occurances to that. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have a link for OST?
added wikilink to soundtrack. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1 - could place an "on" before the date.
makes more sense, added. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mix date formats in the references e.g. ref 32 has a mix of human-readable and ISO formats. Same with ref 38.
changed. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Improved a hell of a lot recently. Good work. Aaroncrick (talk) 19:53, 11 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/Pink_discography/archive2&oldid=1138488546"