Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Santana 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:33, 9 January 2011 [1].

Santana discography edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this discography for the second time, after I took an intensive clean-up. It will be the first discography that could be a FL by a mexian artist and the first in the portal. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I'm sorry, but there are still many basic issues with this article. If they are addressed I am very willing to reconsider, I'm fair don't worry.
  • Numbers in the lead are supposed to be spelled out, you have them in numerical form.
    • Think it's ok now.
  • Your confusing RIAA shipments with sales
    • Is it k now?
  • Only countries that are listed in the columns are supposed to be introduced or mentioned in the body or certifications. It adds unnecessary bulk. We know Supernatural was very successful.
    • done
  • Allot of the certifications are wrong. I don't see any 4x Platinum in France.
    • It's because I was confused with the french site. I firstly thought I should sum all certs. Done.
  • The lead could use better writing.
    • Hope its k now.
  • Allot of the sources are missing "works" and/or "publishers", allot of them.
    • I only found one, the santana official site, with not publisher. What do you exactly mean? I replaced "work" with "publisher", think you meant this.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • --AlastorMoody (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This is Santana's (the band) discography, not Carlos Santana's discography.. Create a separate article for the Carlos Santana discography page. --TIAYN (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Brianboulton requested a merge proposal, which took place here. So your oppose is false. And I also marked Santanas (a band with one definite member (Carlos Santana) and members see here) album and Carlos Santana (just a few) albums. I think you didn't watch more intensive.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree with him to an extent, as for the the Merge proposal there doesn't seem to be much of a discussion and a lack of consensus regarding the subject. Afro (Nice Beaver) 02:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't split off this disco into two. The Carlos Santana disco will be very, very short and not really necessery. And as I said, Carlos Santana's albums are actually the same as Santana's album, because only Carlos Santana was a constitutive member in the band and the band's members were non-session musicians. But albums marked with Carlos Santana are albums within the band, but other musicians (not session members, sorry made a mistake above) like John McLaughlin. You can compare this with Nine Inch Nails, a band with varying members again and again, except Trent Reznor certainly. And if I didn't convinced you, then I have to split this list into two lists, whereby one is a joke-list and huge non-sense and the other a good one. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article qualifies for FL because it includes uneeded information. Second, Carlos Santana has released ten music records, and has probably released some singles for his unsuccessful albums. There seems to be no reason not to create another article! There are ten items, her + some possible singles which are missing. A seperate article would meet the unofficial requirement for a list. --TIAYN (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither singles nor albums are missing here. A separation is useless per above and below.
  • Carlos Santana released no singles himself, but only 7 studio and 3 live albums.
  • Neither of them, except Love Devotino Surrender, received certs.
  • The band is full of session members, are not constant members
  • Most of the certs and sales publisher don't find any differences between him and the band, so as the books mentioned in the merge proposal.
  • As a solo-artist, half of the albums he collaborated with other musicians:
    • Love Devotion Surrender': With John McLaughlin
    • Illuminations': with Alice Coltrane
    • Oneness: alone (as Devadip Carlos Santana)
    • Swing of Delight: alon (as " )
    • Havanna Moon: alone
    • Blues for Salvador: alone
    • Santana Brothers: with his nephew and brother
    • Carlos Santana & Buddy Miles: with Buddy Miles
    • Carlos Santana Live: alone
    • Carlos Santana and Wayne Shorter: with Wayne Shorter

So thats 5/5; because he didn't released singles as a solo-artist and only with the band, the split lost, so no need to separate it.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok an alternative: I will split this disco into two discos off. If this will pass the FLC, I will propose a merger. Agreed?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to webpage Allmusic Carlos Santana has released three compilation albums and two video albums under his name, this means he has released a total of 13 records + 2 video albums = 15 releases. Even if he collaborates with other artists it doesn't make it less his! What you are saying about Santana might be true, but it is another entity than Carlos Santana's solo work. --TIAYN (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's a bit beyond my expertise to vote on whether this should be a Featured List, but I can point out that the OPPOSE vote from TIAYN above is a procedural error and therefore illegitimate. As others have discussed, separate discogs for Santana vs. Carlos Santana are not viable and it makes logical sense to have one comprehensive discog. Since that already exists as the item in the present discussion, TIAYN should vote on whether or not the existing article qualifies as an FL, which should be a decision based on article quality. A split proposal is a different process. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 06:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose as of now - Just making an official note regarding my comments. You already cover the small in the coding no need to include the html in the Singles header. Since its an extended discography I would suggest adding style="text-align:center" to the start of the coding for the tables, to remove the excessive use of align="center". All refs need to be in alphabetical order and there are few with spaces after the last character before the ref begins. You use SUI and SWI to define Switzerland, pick one and stick with it. How reliable is infodisc.fr, basic errors with the refs also Ref 21, 54 is a footnote, Ref 3 has no retrieval date, Ref 31-46, 48-52, 62-69 have no publishers also I can't work out if Refs 55-60 are footnotes or WP:CIRCULAR. Like on the previous nomination of this article I'll bring up the fact that the Videos section is a See also to elaborate this conflicts with the use of {{Main}} and also leaves an empty section, 2 choices expand on the section describing the history of the videos or create a see also section. Afro (Talk) 04:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your great comments. OK let's begin:
  1. This will take me hours to delete this aligns. I really see no problems with this alignment.
  2. SUI -> SWI
  3. see here
  4. Confusing with footnotes and refs (don't know where to start)
  5. Videos -> See also
  6. User:CactusBot added the updated template Allmusic and replaced ref citing allmusic with his.

I did everything except this with 55-60. Hope you will help me more. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still seem to have comments which haven't been addressed. Afro (Talk) 18:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mh, let's pass one more time:
  • You already cover the small in the coding no need to include the html in the Singles header. Since its an extended discography I would suggest adding style="text-align:center" to the start of the coding for the tables, to remove the excessive use of align="center".
    • yes, done
  • You still include the html tags in the header for the singles discog. My suggestion regarding the style code and align code seems to of been pushed aside, I only raise the issue of coding regarding the article size of over 70k in an effort to reduce space and loading time. Afro (Talk) 20:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's strange, because User:Rambo's Revenge commented to this list in the first archive, but he mentioned that the singles inline-citations should be in the header. So it isn't really necessary to do this, because the album citations and the single citations in the header aren't the same. Regarding to that point of alignment and styling: Yes, it will reduce the loading time, but it is indifferent regarding to nominate an article. Most of the discos use the same alignment as me. So again, I see no problems with that.
  • I'm not addressing inline citations regarding this comment. Its strictly regarding the coding, recently promoted Mariah Carey singles discography does not use excessive coding. Afro (Talk) 23:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's be quite clear: I don't know where you brought this suggestion with the alignment (maybe you contrived it yourself). And if you brought it somewhere, you didn't cite any sources which states that this is not allowed (e.g. from discussion pages). Also I couldn't find any proof, that it is recommend (Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style). There, at the bottom, it says:
  • Every artist is different, and therefore no two discographies will be exactly the same. Therefore, if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the above guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document an artist's body of work, then ignore all the rules and go with what's best for the article. It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible, so a strict adherence to the guidelines listed above may not always be the best way to accomplish our goals. In an ideal situation however, any deviations from the guidelines should be with a clear purpose that is unique to the particular artist and situation in question. See WP:IAR for more information on ignoring the rules.
I found many of the discogs which use this format as me, and they are all featured! A justifications like "article size of over 70k in an effort to reduce space and loading time" isn't really well-conceived. Yes it is true that it increases the size, but the problem is, that I edited discogs with this format since I joined wikipedia! I also plan to nominate more discogs with the same format. And changing this only because it increases size is not fair. This is my opinion.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't buy the it's not fair approach, WP:LENGTH#Exceptions: Lists, Tables states "the list or table should nonetheless be kept as short as feasible." if it means cutting a few lines of coding I don't see what the problem is, I'll do it myself if you're having trouble. Afro (Talk) 11:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you will do that, you might not remove your oppose. I also found a disco, similar to that mariah carey: Madonna albums discography, here the format is the same as mine. Is it really a must-do to change this alignment?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you being smarter with the coding helps with the loading time for users and when editing. it wont help shake my oppose as there are still somewhat unaddressed concerns regarding the references. Afro (Talk) 11:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All refs need to be in alphabetical order and there are few with spaces after the last character before the ref begins.
    • Oh, forgot to delete this spaces before the refs, sry! Done
  • You still haven't placed the references numerically (sorry used wrong word before). Afro (Talk) 20:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok placed it in numerical order
  • You use SUI and SWI to define Switzerland, pick one and stick with it.
    • yes, done
  • How reliable is infodisc.fr, basic errors with the refs also Ref 21, 54 is a footnote, Ref 3 has no retrieval date, Ref 31-46, 48-52, 62-69 have no publishers also I can't work out if Refs 55-60 are footnotes or WP:CIRCULAR
    • ref 3 done, infodisc reliable (number 3), the refs with allmusic template I explained above, ref 21, 54, 55-60 are footnotes and I see no problems with that.
  • Infodisc seems nothing but a fansite by the Contact info, As for the bot changing the template I see no reason why a publisher parameter can't be present. There needs to be a clear distinction between your sources (eg AllMusic) and your notes (eg Ref 54-60). Afro (Talk) 20:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced it with reliable source. Please see the Allmusic template, you can't add the publisher (take your time and think about it, why not)
  • {{Allmusic}} is within the {{Cite web}} I did look at the coding when I first thought of bringing up this issue you know. The Chris Brown discography FLC although not promoted still implements the publisher and work. Also I don't appreciate snide comments, and please remember to sign your comments. Afro (Talk) 13:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • done. I added "work=Allmusic" and "publisher="Rovi Corporation". Hope it is correct now.
  • Like on the previous nomination of this article I'll bring up the fact that the Videos section is a See also to elaborate this conflicts with the use of {{Main}} and also leaves an empty section, 2 choices expand on the section describing the history of the videos or create a see also section
    • yes, done
  • Regards-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T20:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also other issues regarding the use of small html tags as an example ""While My Guitar Gently Weeps (feat. India.Arie & Yo-Yo Ma)"[59]". Afro (Talk) 20:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:TEXT "Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities such as headings or through carefully designed templates.". Afro (Talk) 13:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • done
  • Question: What are the publisher of the refs 8,9,11,12,13,14,15? Is it Hung Medien or is it correct now? Please reply.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you just answer your own question? Afro (Talk) 20:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? I didnt' answered.
  • Thank you for this comments! Thanks also to help with the alignment. Hope everything was done. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have a look at the article again when I get to a computer next and make some new comments if need be. Afro (Talk) 14:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of my big issues is still with the lack of separation between your notes and inline citations. Examples of this are Ref 21 and I'm now assuming 54-60. Also you only cite the German row which leaves a ton of uncited material. Afro (Talk) 17:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think the stars need to be sourced in the Singles table. Also the language in the language parameters should have capital letters. Afro (Talk) 06:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my position regarding the list, I shall remain neutral until the present issues presented by other editors are resolved. Afro (Talk) 15:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Many issues currently exist with the writing in the lead. Copy-editing would be helpful.
  • "The discography of the latin band formed by the Mexican-American rock guitarist Carlos Santana". First, I thought Latin was usually capitalized. Second, there's a comma directly following this which throws off the flow of the sentence. Either remove it or add another before "formed".
    • done
  • Why is "currently" used in this sentence? It seems like an unneeded word to me. If it wasn't current, it would concern me. If it becomes outdated, just update it.
    • They are going to release more comps, so I thought I should add "currently". However, I removed it.
  • Tense conflict here: "Their breakthrough began two years after its foundation." The group is treated as a singular (its) and plural (their) in the same sentence. Pick one for the whole lead and be consistent with it.
    • Singularized
  • "legendary Woodstock Festival" sounds POV to me. And why does this say "established in 1969"? It was the only one, not a continuing series.
    • It was not the only one but also not a continued series of live concerts. Removed.
  • "and released their debut album with the same name." This is confusing, especially since the last thing mentioned is Columbia, not the band's name. How about "their self-titled debut album", without the italics (they're not actually in an album title)?
    • Reworded
  • "Santana released on September, 1970...". Should be "Santana released their second album, Abraxas, on September (date), 1970,". If the date is unknown, say "in September 1970".
    • Reworded
  • "This album has been sold nearly 27 million copies worldwide." Remove "been".
    • But it might selling more. Removed.
  • "which only one of them, his debut album Love Devotion Surrender with John McLaughlin, receiving a certification." "which" → "with".
    • Reworded
  • "such as Chad Kroeger or Steven Tyler". "or" → "and".
    • Changed
  • "whilst diversifying into other genres." "while" would be a bit less overly formal than "whilst".
    • Changed
  • Why is the Supernatural sales information repeated?
    • The first mention was about the certification, and the second about the sales.
  • Reference 6 needs an access date.
    • Added
  • Reference 65 needs a publisher.
    • Added
  • Why are two sections entitled References? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has AlastorMoody been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recently looked at his contribs; his last edit was 12 December... I don't think he will come today, but maybe in a few weeks.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is useless to wait one or more weeks until he will address his comments. Therefore I decided to wait till tomorrow, 20.15 P.M. If I see that he didn't address, then I have to withdraw this nomination. Yes, it is sad, but I have no alternative.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still comments which haven't been addressed from TIAYN regarding the split of this page, its not just AlistorMoody. Afro (Talk) 18:18, 9 January 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/Santana_discography/archive2&oldid=1138488855"