Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Santigold discography/archive1

< 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 Crzycheetah 17:27, 5 September 2009 [1].

Santigold discography edit

Nominator(s): Drewcifer (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Been working on this on and off for some time now. Finally hunkered down and finished it, and I believe it passes both FL criteria and MOS:DISCOG. Any comments and suggestions are appreciated and welcomed. Drewcifer (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "White's discography under the name Santogold consists" Then why is the list titled "Santigold"?
  • It is a little confusing. She used to go by SantOgold, and this is the name most of her material has been released under. But she has since changed her stage name to SantIgold. I've tried to explain it a little better in the lead.
  • "but reached #2 and #6 on"-->and reached #2 and #6 on (not contradicting the previous phrase) FIXED
  • "N.E.R.D." No period after the "D". FIXED
  • "White has also produced and written music for many other artists, " FIXED
  • "and so does not"-->and therefore does not FIXED
  • In the references, does "PSYOP" stand for something? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PSYOP is the production company that made the music video. Drewcifer (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

Oppose

  • "White's discography under the name Santogold consists of her eponymous debut album, four promotional singles, a mixtape, and four music videos." - Extend the wikilink to include the word "her". FIXED
  • "In 2009, White released a download-only, live Eextended play via iTunes, ..." FIXED
  • "... which peaked at #20 on the Dance/Electronic Albums chart." - In what country? ADDED A MENTION OF BILLBOARD
  • "Burned Again and their 2003 EP Sex Sells." - Write "extended play" out instead of wikilinking it (again). If you feel the need for abbreviations, introduce them in parentheses after first occurence of the term, as per the manual of style. FIXED
  • What makes ChartStats.com a reliable source? REPLACED
  • Ref. 11 is missing a title. FIXED
  • Several references give the name of the respective website (belongs into the |work= parameter of {{cite web}}) instead of its publisher.
  • I think this is a somewhat moot point. Regardless of which attribute the website itself is in, it is presented in the citation in the same way. The only difference being if it is put into the work parameter, the website is italicized. Website's shouldn't be italicized in the same way a movie or a book should. So to get around this I've put them in the publisher attribute, which places the website in the same place/format, but un-italicized. Drewcifer (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The documentation of {{cite web}} seems to disagree with you. It clearly indicates that |work= should be used for websites. What I'm more concerned about than italicization is the lack of actual publisher information in those references. Goodraise 23:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodraise 10:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure if I follow you here. Which refs in particular are you concerned with? Some refs only have one pub/work/website, since it's redundant. PopMatters is publisher by PopMatters (or something like PopMatters Inc or PopMatter LLC). The ASCAP site is published by ASCAP, etc. Drewcifer (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'd format
ref. #02 like this: "Santogold". Ultratop.be. Ultratop & Hung Medien. Retrieved 2009-08-17.
ref. #03 like this: "Santogold". Lescharts.com (in French). Hung Medien. Retrieved 2009-08-17.
ref. #04 like this: "Santogold". Dutchcharts.nl (in Dutch). Hung Medien. Retrieved 2009-08-17. and
ref. #18 like this: "Trouble Andrew...The Male Santogold?". Altsounds.com. Altsounds. Retrieved 2009-01-12.
  • BTW, note that I skipped the language parameter on #02, as the page is in English. (I wonder why in the article it says "in German" while the page itself says "Belgian Charts".) Goodraise 18:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed 2, 3, and 4, including the language thing in 2. There is some German dispersed on the page, but you're right, it's mostly in English. As for #18, I think it is a bit redundant restating Altsounds. Is there an MOS that requires the website and publisher be stating even if they're one and the same? It seems clear to me that AltSounds' website would be AltSounds.com. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, there isn't. Wikipedia:Citing sources basically boils down to: "Do whatever you want, just try to keep it consistent." However, it does not seem "clear to me that AltSounds' website would be AltSounds.com." It might just as well be AltSounds.org, AltSounds.nl, or something completely different. Keep in mind: "A featured list exemplifies our very best work." The style guidelines set a bare minimum that is meant to be exceeded, not only met. By the way, I believe Dutchcharts.nl and Lescharts.com should be capitalized per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). Goodraise 10:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, "work" is supposed to be used for publications (newspapers, magazines, journals). Many editors use work also for when a website is part of a larger entity, say Baseball-Reference from Sports Reference LLC; the improper italics are an unfortunate byproduct. What Drewcifer did here is actually stylistically correct and a neat workaround; I wish I had thought of it 12 months ago. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you say that the |work= parameter "is supposed to be used for publications (newspapers, magazines, journals)", when the template's very own documentation says otherwise? What does it matter what other editors do? Many editors vandalize pages, that doesn't make it right, does it? And since when is italicizing the name of a website "improper"? APA style for example, which is an acceptable style per WP:CITE#HOW, requires them to be italicized (as far as I know at least). As for sticking information into a template parameter that wasn't intended to hold that information in order to get the result you want: Templates change. Abusing them in such a manner is not "neat" at all. It's an unpredictable source of errors. If you don't like the way the template is supposed to be used, don't use it at all. Fork the template or use plain-text citations instead. Goodraise 18:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at this discussion that I started some time ago. There never really was a solution reached, but suffice to say that there doesn't seem to be a consensus about how to fix the situation, and that neither of us are crazy. So until something gets fixed, I'm comfortable with this work-around. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's alright. The source code of the article shouldn't matter to the FLC. I won't oppose based on this. However, I won't encourage this practice by supporting either. Goodraise 10:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we don't follow APA guidelines; we follow Wikipedia's style guidelines—the MOS—and the MOS says to italicize newspapers, magazines and journals, not websites and news channels. Compare the article on The New York Times to CNN or CNET. The citation templates' documentations are confusing, internally inconsistent and contradictory, which is why many editors don't use them at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's style guidelines are "confusing, internally inconsistent and contradictory", not to mention oftentimes vague, imprecise, plain unhelpful, saying nothing and hard to navigate. However much you and I may wish them to be more precise and more strictly applied (I certainly do wish that was the case), they're not policy and, as you are most certainly aware, even policy isn't absolute. As I said above: The style guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources explicitly allows APA and several other styles to be followed. What I don't know is which one of our countless style guidelines actually "says to italicize newspapers, magazines and journals, not websites and news channels." I simply don't see it. Anyways, we're mixing several issues/straying off topic here. Whether the website names are italicized or not is irrelevant to me as far as supporting this nomination goes. More or less the same is the case for what's happening in the source code of the page. As much as I frown upon this kind of abuse, only the end product matters and it was/is only the lack of naming the publishing entity in the references that I took/am taking issue by. Goodraise 10:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jpeeling (talk · contribs)
Comments
  • Can you check the release date of iTunes: Live from SoHo in some other sources. According to both these sites ([2], [3]) the performance was on 20 February 2009. I imagine 1 January is a default date when the actual one isn't known.
  • Good catch. Couldn't find the actual release date, so I've removed it from the cell. On the plus side, your link led me to discover a download-only single she released some time ago which I was unaware of. So it has been added. Drewcifer (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7, added by the IP, needs formatting. The BPI link also needs fixing. FIXED
  • Shouldn't Ref 13 link to singles rather than albums? YUP, FIXED.
  • Infobox currently has 5 Music videos but list has four, is there one missing? TYPO IN THE INFOBOX. FIXED.

--Jpeeling (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should 'Your Voice' add towards the infobox count? FIXED.
  • Should Lindsay Lohan's Revenge in the release column have the quotation marks or should it be italic-ed?
    • Quotes is correct, since it was a non-album single. Drewcifer (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few minor linking differences: in the lead you mention two songs - one's linked, one isn't. Also in the list part of the page a few artists are linked on multiple use (GZA, Spank Rock, N.A.S.A.) but some aren't (Benny Blanco, Spank Rock [3rd use], Res), can this be consistent. FIXED BOTH

--Jpeeling (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all comments resolved. --Jpeeling (talk) 16:28, 3 September 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/Santigold_discography/archive1&oldid=312085173"