Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lorde discography/archive1

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 21:05, 06 April 2014 (UTC) [1]].

---

Lorde discography

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

• Featured list candidates/Lorde discography/archive1

Nominator(s): Adabow (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nearly a year since she commercially released her first piece of work, Lorde has come a long way, and is arguably the biggest Kiwi musician ever. Happy to hear any constructive criticism on the list. Adabow (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Decodet

• "Released: 27 September 2013" where was the album released on that date? NZ? US? Worldwide? Is it the first release date of the album? I think you should put a country in brackets following the date.
  • Isn't it convention to use the first release date, just as in {{infobox album}}? Adabow (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I've said that because there are some featured discographies that do that, I thought it was a standard but then I checked other FL and I realized it's not, so nevermind. decodet. (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" and "The Hunger Games (...)" are overlinked.
  • Fixed. Adabow (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• "MTV News", "MTV" and "VH1" are not publishers on Ref 2, 6, 55 - they are works. Publisher would be "Viacom Media Networks" for both.
  • Fixed MTV News, but MTV and VH1 are not "works" per MOS:ITALIC. Adabow (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Not the television channel I guess, but the websites and its content are published by Viacom. And sorry but I couldn't find anywhere on MOS:ITALIC saying MTV is not a work. Could you please be more specific? decodet. (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Viacom added. Adabow (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Ref 3, 9, 16, 25, 33, 38, 40, 45 have publisher missing - it would be "Prometheus Global Media" for all.
  • Per {{cite news}}, "Not normally used for periodicals." Adabow (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh, I didn't know that! Nevermind then. decodet. (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Ref 11 and 14 have their languages missing.
  • Done. Adabow (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• On Ref 28, 34, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54 you need to put the country of the iTunes Store you used as a source.
  • Done. Adabow (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Ref 42 has its language as well its work missing.
  • These damn autocitation templates... Done Adabow (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Ref 45, 51 the publisher for AllMusic would be All Media Network.
  • Done. Adabow (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Ref 53 has its publisher missing.
  • Per {{cite news}}, "Not normally used for periodicals." Adabow (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think Vimeo is a reliable source (Ref 56). Perhaps you could use a MTV or VEVO link?
  • Done. Adabow (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There may be other issues that I missed, since I'm not an expert on reviewing. However, I noticed those issues and I would be more than happy to support this article when they are resolved. Overall, you've done a good job in here! :) decodet. (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

After all those issues being addressed, I support this nomination now. Everything looks good in here for me, congrats :) decodet. (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Query - could you clarify what exactly a "promotional single" is? I ask particularly in the case of "Royals/White Noise" - if this was available to purchase singly (and it must have been to have charted in the UK, where the charts are based solely on sales), in what way was it different from a "normal" single? My understanding of a promo single is that it is one that is given away for free to DJs, etc, but maybe the term's usage has changed and I'm just not down with the kids ;-) ..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think the term is well-defined and it confuses the hell out of me. "Royals/White Noise" has been moved to the singles table. Per WP:PROMOSINGLE and promotional single, songs that were released via digital retailers for a short amount of time as part of the album build-up are deemed "promotional" (most of those songs listed here fall under this category, and have actually been delete from the iTunes Store website). "Bravado" is a bit contentious, but there is some sort of consensus that since it was released only digitally in a few of the more minor markets, it is not a "full" single. I hope this helps a bit... Adabow (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blimey, it certainly was easier back in the good old days when if a hunk of vinyl was present on the shelves of the local Woolworths then it was a single and that's all you needed to know. The explanation above makes sense, though, so I support the nom -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Image could use some alt text.
• Any reason why "chart positions" is wikilinked in the singles table but not the albums tables?
• Same goes for why the year, title and director columns are sortable in the music videos section – seems inconsistent with the other tables in the article.
• Perhaps some table captions could be added? I've seen them being included in most featured discographies.

And that's about it, I guess. I'd argue that "Bravado" should be listed as a single rather than a promotional single, but keeping it there won't stop me from supporting the list. Good work, overall. Holiday56 (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Holiday. I suck at writing alt text, and it's not part of the FL criteria. I have unlinked chart positions; people aren't stupid. I have made the 'Other appearances' table sortable, but the more complex layout of the other tables means that even when made "sortable", they won't sort properly (try for yourself to see what I mean). Most discography table captions I have seen just repeat the section and column titles, and don't actually serve any purpose; from [2], "A data table needs a table caption that roughly describes what the table is about." In my opinion, these would be redundant and clunky in this situation. Adabow (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll support, then. Holiday56 (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Quick Comment: In the references section, all content derived from Billboard should cite Prometheus Global Media as the publisher since it is the owner of the website and magazine. Otherwise, it's a solid support from me.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Per {{cite news}}, the publisher field is "not normally used for periodicals." Editorial oversight and fact-checking make a source reliable, not which company makes the money from it. Adabow (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.