Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Beyoncé Knowles 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 Giants2008 10:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Beyoncé Knowles discography edit

Beyoncé Knowles discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —JennKR | ☎ 20:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discography was in a good place when I began working on it, but I've tidied up the lead considerably. Some of the references and notes were in a poor state and some of the chart information was poorly included, so I've replaced the dead links and ensured that the references are fully cited. Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 20:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tomica
  • Remove the see also from the top
  • Done Changed the style. —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the information about Destiny's Child is not needed, you should only start with Beyonce's stats since this is her discography.
  • Not Done It definitely deserves a mention (as with Kelly Rowland's page); six years of a fifteen year career. —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Done I think this figure is + DC sales, but I'll check it out. —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tbh, I think you should add her own sales here, because this Beyonce Knowles discography, not Destiny's Child (+ Kelly and Michelle). It's about the credit if you know what I mean. — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - 118 million was solo sales, but there are figures from 50 million up to the ridiculous 200 million. I've changed to 75 as it's consolidated by two sources. —JennKR | ☎ 13:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the sentence now, did she sell 118 million records or 75 singles + 13 albums or? I don't get it... — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 118 million claim is removed. 75 million records, of which 13 million in the US are albums. —JennKR | ☎ 21:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dangerously in Love would go on to sell 11 million copies worldwide; please use more simple prose here.
  • and the single later topped the US Billboard Hot 100 ---> remove later
  • Replace yielded with a better synonym
  • and as of October 2012, it has sold over 3.3 million copies in the US ---> remove the month and simply say how much it has sold
  • As of October 2012, million-selling singles ---> remove million-selling, it reads poorly
  • It deviated towards a more traditional 1970s R&B sound, incorporating 1990s rock 'n' roll also. ---> Remove it, it's trivial and needless here
  • Not Done I felt that the lead had been geared towards sales figures throughout (and this was some relief); should it be focused this way? —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's trivial and non-important, it's just doesn't fit. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (I see what you mean considering the other albums). —JennKR | ☎ 23:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either add the catalog number on all the albums, or remove it
  • Done (Removed)
  • "Party" (Remix) is not a promotional single (def. A promotional recording, or promo, is an audio or video recording distributed for free, usually in order to promote a recording that is or soon will be commercially available). That's not what "Party" (Remix) is; the song was released for digital download (means you can buy it) indicating it is a single. Same case as "Cockiness (Love It)" Remix.
  • Done Agreed (I checked and the original version wasn't a promo either). —JennKR | ☎ 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue like this: "Why Don't You Love Me" is also a single, not a promotional single. It received digital download treatment in Germany (If I search more I am sure I can find the release in other countries too), so please adjust the original article and put it in 'As main artist' section here. — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with 'Soundtrack appearances'
  • The references have some issues including wrong {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} used in places and wrong italicizing (Allmusic should not be for ex.)
  • Done I've sorted out the templates, but I think Allmusic is automatically italicized in the "work=" parameter (unlike its publisher Rovi Corporation). —JennKR | ☎ 22:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it, it's a good effort and I won't oppose, but it's really too early to support. Please fix this issues first. — Tomíca(T2ME) 21:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking the time out to look at this! Your improvements are much appreciated! Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 22:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • " who performs as Beyoncé" I'd stick with the wording of the main Beyonce article, i.e. "also known simply as Beyonce".
  • Remix and soundtrack albums aren't in the infobox.
*Comment - What are the soundtrack albums? —JennKR | ☎ 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tell me, the lead says "and twelve soundtrack and promotional singles". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Having sold 118 million records worldwide,[1] Knowles is one" just "she is one..." is fine. (Please note, I didn't say "118 million" was fine, I was referring to the rewording as I suggested).
  • Should have a link to explain what "certified" means.
  • I thought she was in Girl's Tyme before it became Destiny's Child?
  • "It debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200 chart. The album produced" replace the ". The album" with "and".
  • Consider linking the Billboard charts in the lead.
  • I heard some news about DC and Beyonce getting back together, albeit temporarily, like this talks about. This, if real, will need to be included in this list.
  • Comment No, I think that's speculation (after they performed together at the Super Bowl for the first time in years). —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This link you use to quote 118 million also refers to Beyonce as being 28 years old. She's currently 31, a couple of months from 32. This claim of 118 million either needs to be updated or caveated.
  • Done Updated 75 million claim. —JennKR | ☎ 21:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " seven million copies worldwide,[15] and has sold over 3.3 million" comparable numbers should be formatted similarly, so either "7 million" or "over three million..."
  • "Her third album" -> "Knowles's third album" (or "Knowles' third album" if you're like me).
  • " I Am... " vs "I Am…". be consistent.
  • The release date for each "release", which territory is that relevant to in each case?
  • For EPs, for instance, you have eight charts where nothing has actually charted. What's the point?
  • Where is "Amor Gitano" referenced?
  • Same for "I Care".
  • Where are the non-charting promo/charity singles referenced?
  • Check all refs have all applicable fields, e.g. 112 is missing accessdate, 54 has no publisher info....
  • Done Corrected mentioned instances and I'll scan for others. —JennKR | ☎ 21:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "recognized Knowles as the Top Certified Artist of the 2000s" - stipulate that this is the decade, not the century
  • "Knowles' career began as lead vocalist of Destiny's Child; a band which sold" - semicolon should be replaced by a comma
  • "It debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200 chart and..." - this is odd linking. I would recommend "It debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200 and..."
  • "In 2003, "Crazy in Love" peaked at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart for eight consecutive weeks while "Baby Boy" maintained its number one position for one additional week on the same chart." - ambiguous. Did "Baby Boy" follow "Crazy in Love" for one week, or did it reach number one for nine weeks by itself?
  • "both reached the top ten in several worldwide charts" - makes it sound as though you are referring to global charts
  • Done "worldwide charts" > "charts worldwide" —JennKR | ☎ 10:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NED" is the standard abbreviation for the Netherlands, I believe, rather than "NL". Also "SUI" rather than "SWI"
  • Comment "NLD" is correct (not "NL" as I had) but "SWI" is the correct abbreviation. —JennKR | ☎ 17:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "IRE" for album vs "IRL" for singles
  • There are inconsistencies in the "Bubbling Under" positions. These notes should be placed in the column of the chart that they "bubble under", not next to the title, and next to an em dash, not next to 100+x
  • "The Star Spangled Banner" note states "Charity single recorded live at...". Chop the "charity single" part; it's already under such a header
  • Check that all the notes have the correct syntax (D/Summertime and G/Lost Your Mind are playing up for me).
  • Run through reference formatting a couple more times. At a first glance I see broken parameters and inconsistencies ("Apple" without any "iTunes Store")
  • Done (Fixed parameters/Apple refs) —JennKR | ☎ 12:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Other charted songs", why are the English and Spanish songs separated?
  • Comment She released an EP Irreemplazable, which was select songs from her album B'Day sung in Spanish. It didn't impact on her usual demographics, but did quite well on the US Latin charts (so it's there to distinguish). —JennKR | ☎ 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this too. I think every table should list the same charts, for consistency. Also, "Si Yo Fuera un Chico" is a Spanish single, but it doesn't have the US Latin chart listed. I would tend toward consistency and NPOV. Adabow (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done I see what you mean, I suppose it tries to make the point it charted somewhere else purposefully. —JennKR | ☎ 23:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "DVD/CD" vs "CD/DVD"
  • I think the release dates listed should be the first release dates, not (necessarily) the US ones
  • I don't think this needs clarifying; I would suggest removing the bracketed countries next to the release dates. Adabow (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Done - I was asked above to stipulate the territory. —JennKR | ☎ 22:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of February 2008, B'Day had sold over 7 million copies worldwide,[14] and has sold over 3.3 million copies in the US.[15]" - different sources, different dates (the US sales are not as of Feb 2008)
  • Done' (Updated to 2012 source) —JennKR | ☎ 10:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear about this. It makes it sound as though both figures (worldwide and US sales) are valid at February 2008, but they rely on two sources, so the US figure will be valid at a different time (as of...). Adabow (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I updated the sentence so no month claim is made. Ha! I never! I think I must of done this mentally. —JennKR | ☎ 21:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think another national chart should replace the US R&B (a bit NPOV/US-centric)
  • Not Done I think she charts on it the most (as her domestic country and key genre); the FA Kelly Rowland also uses this. —JennKR | ☎ 11:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this. With that reasoning, we could replace another (eg Swiss) chart with the UK R&B chart. The US R&B chart doesn't make a good comparison with other national charts. I'll see if other editors have an opinion on this. Adabow (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*While I understand the noting of "Bubbling Under" positions, I don't think that the statements "Although X did not chart among Knowles' usual demographic, it charted at number N on chart Q" are sensible. We can't list every chart here; readers can click through to the relevant articles.

  • "Amor Gitano" and "I Care" still have notes which are undue Adabow (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you suggest (it needs to be said they were singles - is this enough alone?) —JennKR | ☎ 22:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are under the singles section, so that is already clear. Adabow (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All uncharted singles must be sourced someway. —JennKR | ☎ 21:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then just place a reference beside the title - no need for a note. By the way, that fact that the chartings are sourced doesn't verify a song's single-ness... so I'm not sure why the releases of uncharted singles must be referenced, but not those of charted singles. Adabow (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (Not sure either). —JennKR | ☎ 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources don't verify the fact that those songs were released as singles, which is what I thought you meant needed sourcing. There's no point providing a ref for a charting which is not included in the list. Adabow (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated both, they should be ok now. —JennKR | ☎ 10:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is [2] a reliable source for single release?
  • I've replaced it with one from the Spanish publication La Nación that gives some background to the song (and the fact it's a single). —JennKR | ☎ 19:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't verified any chart positions

Adabow (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Star Spangled Banner" redirects back to this page.
  • Still many ref problems. Please go through each and examine each citation for reliability and formatting. For example:
    • Discogs is not a reliable source.
      • Comment The Discographies WikiProject allow its reference (see here). —JennKR | ☎ 13:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ref for Fever (currently #91) is of a different title format to other iTunes refs. Ref for Si Yo Fuera un Chico (#89) specifies "Apple" but not "iTunes Store".
    • Some iTunes refs specify the country of the store, while others do not. Be consistent. I would suggest removal of countries.
    • Inappropriate italicisation in refs 8 (MTV Rapfix), 10 (IGN)
    • RadioScope is down indefinitely. There is an archived URL listed at WP:GOODCHARTS
    • NZ charts can and should be linked to individually (ie a chart that lists the relevant certification)
      • What do I do if the single (as is the case with "Crazy in Love") gains its highest certification when it isn't on the chart. I can only find "Gold" certifications for that single and also "Baby Boy" (when this page and the page of the single says they were both Platiunum)? —JennKR | ☎ 22:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have identified a potential offline source, which I should get my hands on sometime tomorrow (7/7 NZ time). Adabow (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only certifications that the book gives are "Crazy in Love" gold, Dangerously in Love platinum and B'Day gold. These are as of 2006/2007, so I doubt that they actually went higher, seeing as the RadioScope refs cover the time since this. Go with the highest certifications that are verifiable by RIANZ or RadioScope. Adabow (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done I have sourced two, but three out of the five that needed sourcing could not be, and either certified after they fell off the chart or never at all (and someone has introduced factual errors here). Either way, the RIANZ is rather inaccessible at the moment, so we can only work with what we have. —JennKR | ☎ 13:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I removed the unverifiable certifications. Lastly, tidy all the RIANZ refs up so they are consistent and include the chart dates in the citation templates. Adabow (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Done I think I've got all of them. —JennKR | ☎ 22:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until 1 January 2010, Billboard was owned by Nielsen Business Media, and the publisher parameters of citation templates should reflect this.
    • Ref for Irish release of 4 (110) is dead
    • Some publishers are given in brackets, while others are not.
      • Not Done: I'm sure this is the cite web / cite news template; with news citations the publication e.g. Billboard is italicized with the publisher in brackets "(Prometheus Global Media), however when citing using the web template, the publisher isn't bracketed. If your referring to a specific source like Billboard (where the publisher is sometimes in brackets and sometimes not) this will reflect the reference of news articles which require the news citation template, and the charts which use the web citation template. —JennKR | ☎ 19:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Billboard - Hot Digital Tracks" (#94) uses a WebCite archive, but should also list the original URL. The title should be "Hot Digital Tracks", the date entered into the date parameter of citation template, and Billboard.biz→Billboard (Nielsen Business Media)

Adabow (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I still disagree with listing the US R&B chart rather than another national singles chart, but this may just be personal preference. Adabow (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to directors: I am a somewhat involved editor in this list, although many of my edits have been as part of this FLC. Adabow (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The contributor seems to be really engaged with its quality, so far his doings have impressed me, the list structure, its content and source are really well formated. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 21:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS specifically states "On singles discography tables, do not add 100 to the corresponding Bubbling Under peak if the song never entered the Hot 100. Doing so would violate WP:SYNTH by creating information not directly supported by the source (i.e. the notion that the Bubbling Under chart is an extension to the main chart and the position). It should be indicated as an uncharted song with a footnote to indicate the Bubbling Under peak. In the song's article, just indicate it as a Bubbling Under peak, so long as it is verifiable" - therefore Hot 100 positions of 105 for "Halo (live)", etc should not be shown -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
class="" style="font-weight:bold; background:transparent; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background: ☎ 21:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is for the table however. It was an issue that was brought on that FLC and has become a standard since. Erick (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —JennKR ;"| ☎ 22:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Erick (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
style="font-weight:normal; background-color:transparent; text-align:left; border:1px ☎ 21:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is for the table however. It was an issue that was brought on that FLC and has become a standard since. Erick (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —JennKR solid; padding:10px;"| ☎ 21:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you sure that's the rubric for discography articles? The Jennifer Lopez discography does not use this ("Lopez has sold over 12.4 million albums in the United States and between 75 to 80 million records worldwide.") —JennKR

Comments –

  • Note F: "except for in South Korea were it was distributed...". "were" → "where".
Done Thanks. —JennKR | ☎ 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also should come before the notes.
Done Switched. —JennKR | ☎ 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref 52, MusicWeek should be italicized as a print publication. Also, does it have the space between words like in ref 44?
Done Italicised, and it does have a space, so I've updated that also. —JennKR | ☎ 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphen in ref 127's title should be an en dash instead for style reasons. Giants2008
Done Updated. Thanks. —JennKR | ☎ 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk) 20:25, 12 July 2013 (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/Beyoncé_Knowles_discography/archive2&oldid=1138479154"