Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Meghan Trainor 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 archived by Crisco 1492 08:28, 7 May 2015 [1].

Meghan Trainor discography

edit

Meghan Trainor discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe I have worked hard on it and it satisfies most of the criteria. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from HĐ (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Azealia911
*Quick comment: Writing credits need sourcing, and although I see it's not essential to have on a discography, I see Trainor has no videography, would it be worth adding her music videos?
  • Comments: I have replaced the superior lead paragraph wording that was implemented by NeilN but removed by another editor. The better wording mentions the article subject, while the inferior wording mentions Trainor first. The reader's focus should first be on the article subject. Have made some wording simpler (we are supposed to write for readers in such a manner that the average 6th grader can understand it), removed a redundancy or two, fixed some punctuation. Removed WP:OR and WP:SYNTH peacocking not used by or verifiable through reliable references. Question: Is there precedence for the nomination of such a short list article with its sub-subject being a brand-new recording artist with only one major-label album? Time will tell if this article is a viable candidate, I suppose. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ariana Grande discography is an FL with two albums, Lorde discography is an FL with just one major-label album. This article is definitely a viable candidate. This is not a random decision, you have to put a support vote if you support or give something to improve on. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 15:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "have" to do anything. You wanted comments (see here [2]), I provided some. See WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed with how the article has shaped up. Just the lead section can have some c/e by a GOCE member, and it should be fine. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: The lead was just copy edited by a member of GOCE and looks great now! All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 20:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article is up to my expectations, it has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Billboard is uninitialized in several references
  • Why do you list tracks for two albums in the "Studio albums" section but not the others?
  • Her first three albums were taken out of circulation as a build-up effort what's a "build-up effort"?
  • I don't see anything referenced from "IFPI Digital Music Report 2014", p. 15.
  • and preceded Trainor's debut EP, Title (2014) which comma needed after "(2014)
  • Trainor's second single release, "Lips Are Movin", on October 21, 2014, which peaked at number four on the Billboard Hot 100. this isn't a complete sentence...
  • This marked Trainor's second consecutive top-five single in the United States. I don't think this is needed, especially with the "third-consecutive" comment mentioned later in the lead
  • The song preceded Trainor's fourth studio album Title (2015), which replaced her EP of the same name. I'm not sure "replace" is the correct word; it didn't "replace" the EP, it was just released afterwards
  • Upon release, Title debuted at the top of the Billboard 200. the EP or the album? Clarification needed here.
  • Her third single, "Dear Future Husband", a track from Title the EP or the album? Clarification needed here.
I think I addressed all your concerns. As for the tracklist, there is consensus that tracklists for albums that don't have their own articles should be provided on the discography. I dnt see any probem with it though. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 08:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the songs within the track lists aren't notable, why should they be included?
  • It topped the national charts of 58 countries I don't see this referenced in the citation given
  • It was certified double platinum by the RIAA. reference needed
  • the album debuted at the top of the Billboard 200 → the album debuted atop the Billboard 200
  • Her third single, "Dear Future Husband", was certified Gold by the RIAA reference needed
  • Ref 23 needs an access date
Done, although I think you are confusing the Swedish chart and Swiss chart. The article lists the swiss one which correctly lists DFH at number 73. And the track lists, per Chase's comment above. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 18:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been four months since the Spotify Sessions album has been released; why isn't it available for sale in those regions? Shouldn't those just be ndashes if they didn't chart?
    • Spotify albums aren't released for sale on a whole. It's a streaming service, accounts are created and used for free, there's no transaction fees involved. See Lorde's EP's for example. Azealia911 talk 13:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thoughts, changed it back, the EP was released in all countries, but not for sale, only for streaming purposes. The note below the section states ""—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart." but the EP doesn't fit into any of these categories. Azealia911 talk 22:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the "—" means that the album didn't chart– which it hasn't. Its commercial status doesn't matter; it didn't chart. The note should be moved to the "Sales" section. Seattle (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't believe this is notable on the grounds that she simply hasn't released much music at all. As such, only one album has charting info, and only three singles have been released. Her discography is not notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. There was nothing wrong with including the Title charts table and a singles table in her bio, and a singles table on in the article for Title itself. Until she releases another album and has more of a discography, I won't be able to support this nomination. For someone who has only released one commercially successful album and three singles, the article looks very fluffed up to look more than what it is, such as including three albums which never charted anywhere. I don't want to be rude, but I think this unnecessary article is a case of WP:FANCRUFT.  — ₳aron 07:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't really need "commercially successful" albums to warrant a discography. Charli XCX has a discography, Lorde has a discography (which is an FL by the way), Carly Rae Jepsen has a discography, even Iggy Azalea has a discography (which is also an FL). There is a lot of support above. There is also consensus that Trainor is notable enough to warrant a discography. As for your accusations of CRUFT, I don't see anything of that sort. But I respect your opinion, and if you think there is cruft, please point it out so I can remove it. Trainor has four, reliably sourced, albums. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 10:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean is that the first three albums have 0 information with regard to charting, sales and certifications, so the reader doesn't actually gain any information about them at all. With regard to those singers you mention, I have just explained why I have given my oppose in comparison on my talk page (for anyone else reading this, see User talk:Calvin999#Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Meghan Trainor discography/archive1.) My comment about fancruft is more to do with you as an editor rather than the list, specifically. I often see you being warned about edit warring on Trainor-related articles, and I believe that this very short, not detailed and 'un-comprehensive' list is a creation of your fandom, which I do not mean as an insult in any way, shape or form.  — ₳aron 12:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to let the closer make the call on this one but I essentially see no reason as to why you would consider a 4-album list fancruft. There is clear consensus for the discography's existence. Although, all I can see is that there is nothing here that I can improve upon so... All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 12:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, it is ultimately up to whether the closing delegate decides if your supports provide solidarity in opinion to outweigh my oppose, or if my oppose brings up issues of notability which outweighs those supports. Again, I'm not saying that a four-album discography is fancruft, I'm saying that the creation of the entire list in the first place is what I believe is fancruft. There's no denying you're a Trainor fan, and I think you have prematurely created this list with what is a very, very small discography which I don't think is notable at all because you're a fan. You're not quite understanding my point on that. There are things you can improve on, it's not a perfect article, but I'm not going to list everything that needs correcting or changing when I don't believe the list should even exist (yet). And there are quite clearly a lot of issues, per the editor's comments above.  — ₳aron 12:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Calvin999 it's not the fact she has a large discography, it's the fact she has a large main article. Her article would be too large then. And you can't claim fancruft on me, as I actually dislike her music, not even tolerable to me. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a moot point to make, and I'll explain why. Meghan Trainor article is not large at all. It's actually very short. If someone like Trainor had a large article for what a little discography she has and her age, then something would be wrong. If you think Meghan Trainor is large, then I'd like to know what you think Mariah Carey's is, or Celine Dion's, or Beyoncé's. Trainor's discography would be far better suited to being in Meghan Trainor. That's why it's a moot point. (And I'm not sure why you're making a point on me "claiming fancruft" on you).  — ₳aron 13:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ₳aron. Nom is premature as article shouldn't exist -- his Captain Obvious comment that this article exists as a result of fandom is right on. It's already been nominated for deletion once, unsuccessfully so. While the article is now well-written, construct isn't the problem: one major label release and three singles doesn't make for a discography with notability. Should be a part of the Trainor article and definitely shouldn't be a FL candidate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at this time per ₳aron's comments. I will add that his concerns are particularly relevant to #3b of the featured list criteria: "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article."
  • "meets all of the requirements for standalone lists" – Not sure. The notability guidelines for standalone lists require that the list topic be "discussed as a group or set [emphasis not mine] by independent reliable sources." Has Trainor's discography as a whole – not just "All About That Bass" – been discussed extensively in reliable sources? It would seem doubtful given that she's only distributed one album in wide release and she hasn't even been famous for a year, but I'm willing to be proven wrong on this.
  • "does not violate the content-forking guideline" –  Met.
  • "does not largely duplicate material from another article" –  Obvious fail. Almost all of the content in the lead is included at the main Meghan Trainor article.
  • "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" –  Debatable, but probably could. Trainor's article is not that large. A few extra tables wouldn't hurt it IMO.
I appreciate the work that has been put into this, but sorry, not right now. And MaranoFan, whether or not other similar lists should exist (or be FLs) or not is completely unrelated to this FLC. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:26, 5 May 2015 (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/Meghan_Trainor_discography/archive1&oldid=1136456902"