Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kylie Minogue singles 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 not promoted by Dabomb87 22:50, 14 March 2011 [1].

Kylie Minogue singles discography

edit

Kylie Minogue singles discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): I Help, When I Can.[12] 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC), ℥nding·start 23:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after many sleepless nights of laboring over this article, in now meets professional writing standards, is 99% verifiable, and presents all notable topics in a format that can be understood. I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—
  • I've always opposed separate singles/albums discographies except in the case of singularities such as Elvis. To be blunt: this article doesn't need to exist. I think a single discography article with albums, singles and videos, although a little long, would work fine.
  • Lead is far too long, repetitive and uninteresting. I don't see the point of naming so many singles and their chart positions; that's the tables below are for.
    • Lead shortened. I Help, When I Can. [12] 15:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not seeing the necessity to quote sources (in the references) so extensively (possible WP:COPYVIO??), especially since this is a discography article. How does this help?—indopug (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: In sources that had a different topic, I quoted the specific claim in the article that backs up the citation. I Help, When I Can. [12] 15:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - See WP:LEAD#Lenth as it should be longer than four paragraphs. Citation needed template in Other users. Ref 27 has a dead link template. MixKyle.com's About doesn't suggest to be reliable. Afro (Talk) 12:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose Sorry, this list is not quite ready for FL:
    • Some "charity singles" are not referenced (how do you know that they are charity singles?)
      • Note: I didn't source the charity singles where the featured name implies their nature, such as "Helping Haiti" and "Band Aid". The Coldplay one wasn't so obvious, so I created a note for it. I Help, When I Can. [12] 17:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see citation-needed templates. Find a reliable source for each. Done ℥nding·start 15:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • False publishers: AUS (Hung Medien), FRA (Hung Medien), GER (PHONONET), NLD (Hung Medien / hitparade.ch), NZ (Hung Medien), NOR (Hung Medien), SWE (Hung Medien), SWI (Hung Medien). The "publisher" you wrote is the "work" (the url isn't automatically the publisher). Done ℥nding·start 14:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
      • I don't see any changes
        • the items in brackets above should be the publisher; the work is the website.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 16:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does "[non-primary source needed]" exactly mean? Done ℥nding·start 14:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I don't like the table at all, but that's just an opinion)
    • "Work"-parameter should not be in italics, as they will be automatically converted to italicface Done ℥nding·start 14:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But, online sources should not be italicized. When the work parameter is un-italicized, the online sources also become italicized. – Novice7 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure what you want to say.
Okay, you said that the work parameter should not be italicized. I know Yobot removes the italics. So, what can we do to fix it? Shall I merge the work and publisher fields into one? – Novice7 (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be OK now-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Dates and accessdates"-parameters: Sometimes you write MONTH/D/YYYY, sometimes D/MONTH/YYYY, sometimes even DD(1/2/3+0-9)/MONTH/YYYY (incorrect per WP:DATESNO); one dead link; one "redirect does not contain ".,?&""; official website hasn't got any parameters per Checklinks-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't understand me what I want to say about the dates: Write (for example) 1 January 2010 instead of January 1, 2010 (only in the USA); Australian date format is DMY (like most of the countries, too), so it is correct. But a few references use the American MDY date format, which is wrong, as she is from Australia. Also never write a zero before a day number from 1 to 9, for example 01 January 2010. Instead write 1 January 2010.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make sure that all of the cites are DMY. If you can, could you tell me which ones aren't. I though I got them all. I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still one dead link and redirected url.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 15:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • I will review this list later and make comments if necessary. This list is near to get the status, but I have doubts about the quotes in the references. Also I see some mirror sites, and reliability is thus questionable.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those can easily be removed if they are a problem. ℥nding·start 20:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose CFORK of Kylie Minogue discography. Nergaal (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please elaborate. I Help, When I Can. [12] 02:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is it WP:CFORK? Can you please explain? – Novice7 (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both articles listed in the link I gave can be merged back into a single article. There is no point in promoting the two forks as separate FLs instead of a single FL. All the other artist FLs have a discography article that contains both the albums and singles. There might be a reason to fork those of Elvis or Michael Jackson who just have huge careers, but Minogue is not one of those. Nergaal (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were separated for a reason. The article was just way too big. This one alone is 60 bytes. I don't see what popularity has to do with it. The articles were huge, and full of content. ℥nding·start 05:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It peaked charts in Australia, New Zealand, and the greater majority of Europe." — What exactly is the "greater majority of Europe"?
  • "She took a break in May 2005 after being diagnosed with breast cancer." — "...took a break" seems a little tacky to me so I think this needs to be rephrased. Example: "In May 2005, after being diagnosed with breast cancer, she went on medical leave until [date]." Done ℥nding·start 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it may not be necessary I think it would look better if a uniform width is applied to all the singles charts.
  • A comment for all wikipedia editors: Should a decision be made to have a good "rule of thumb" on when to divide a discography into two (singles and albums), such as artists that have large discograhies (i.e. Elvis Presley)? — Jimknut (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you guys are saying, Kylie doesn't have as big of a discography as Elvis. But this article is an extremely notable, as well as extremely, in my opinion, well done. Just because she doesn't have as much of a discography as Elvis, it doesn't mean that she isn't entitled, or have enough to have her own separate albums and singles discographies. As I said before, this article itself is 60 bytes. I think also, you need to take into consideration the lengths of the articles. She's also been out just a few years less than Madonna, and I find it funny how her singles discography is a FL, but here there's all sorts of problems that two articles aren't needed. Hers went by with no problem with it at all. Hours and hours went into getting this article to FL standards, and pretty much just saying this article is pointless is a quite kick to the face to the editors who worked on it. And yes, I completely aware you guys review it with your best interest, but that's just how it feels. Correct me if I'm wrong, am I missing something here? ℥nding·start 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that Madonna article were at FLC right now, I would have opposed it as well. Related question: are "albums discography" and "singles discography" proper/legitimate terms? I doubt seeing them outside of Wikipedia articles such as these.—indopug (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Madonna's is better, in my opinion. Michael Jackson discography has like four divisions (including two separate albums discography). Size is the thing which leads to split. A discussion already took place at WT:FLC. — Novice7 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CFORK states, "Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article; Wikipedia:Summary style explains the technique." That what was really done here. The article was quite big, and it's, quite frankly, just going to get bigger. ℥nding·start 18:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - first off, looking at the fact that we have this article, the albums discog and the videography lists, I see no major problem with forking this out. So, with that in mind, some technical considerations:

  • Infobox image caption needs no full stop. Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "highest selling " shouldn't this be hyphenated? Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "produced several more singles." no real need for "more" Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I put "produced several more singles." because the singles before those are also singles from Kylie. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the aforementioned charts" i know you want to avoid repeating Aus and UK, but this is not ideal. Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems some inconsistency over the hyphenation of "the top-twenty" Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table captions, probably ought to include the decade.
  • "To avoid backlash " perhaps "To avoid any potential backlash..."? Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chemical Brothers is actually "The Chemical Brothers". Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth summarising her number ones? i.e. how many in Aus, UK etc? Just a thought (as she's had so many..)
  • Towa Tei -> Tōwa Tei. Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check titles of references meet WP:DASH (i.e. no spaced hyphens, use en-dash...)
  • Ref 11 has "Simon", who is this?
    • Note: Thats the only author name they had in the article. It was weird... I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See ref 8 vs ref 12 for differences in formatting the same text. Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2011 (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/Kylie_Minogue_singles_discography/archive1&oldid=1208174503"