This list was based on another featured list I had promoted, The Corrs discography. I believe this article satisfies the criteria as it is well sourced, the information is extensive although she has only released two albums. Please take a look and voice your opinions. Cheers. σмgнgσмg(talk) 11:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Resolved Stuff from Drewcifer
Comments Looks pretty good. I do have some suggestions though:
The first table gets squished by the infobox. There are two solutions to fixing this problem, both of which I would recommend doing anyways. First, epxand the lead a bit. Second, remove some of the unnecessary rows in the infobox summary thing. Specifically, the "No. 1 singles" should go (overly positive, POV kind of thing), as should collaborations and b-sides. Also, whatever you do leave, make sure the links are working properly.
"Chart Positions" should be renamed to "Chart peak positions" or "Peak chart positions", since you're really only mentioning the peaks.
Certifications should be wikilinked to Music recording sales certification, RIAA should be changed to US and CRIA to CAN. But only in the first table. That would help make things clearer to the layman.
Along the same lines, the "RIAA" column in singles is too vague. Replace it with "RIAA certifications".
All chart position titles should be abbreviated. Take a look at other FL discogs to see how to abbreviate each one. Along the same lines, that wouldn't require so much horizontal space for each chart row. Where releases didn't chart, there should be a "—" rather than an ugly blank space. Then at the the bottom say " "—" denotes releases that did not chart."
There should be a little bit more info concerning the albums. When did it come out? What label? What formats? etc.
The citations need to give full and proper attribution. ie. Title, date, author, publisher, etc. Some of them do, but some don't. To help you in this, I'd recommend using citation templates, as that does most of the work for you, but those aren't required.
Definately looking better. Still a few things that haven't been addressed however: the citations need to give full attribution. The certification column should link to the certification agency (RIAA and CRIA). Also, I'm not so sure about the label column. Can't that stuff go in the beullet pointed notes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewcifer3000 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Citation templates have been added but to be honest, it is quite a bother, particularly the chart references, as they only have the publisher, ie. acharts.com or RIAA or CIAA. In regards to the label column, User:I7114080 was unhappy with the layout and we compromised on the talk page. σмgнgσмg(talk) 05:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Still no links in the tables to RIAA or CRIA. Also, the citations still need a bit of love. #7 has an errant ]. RIAA/CRIA should be spelled out here, and wikilinked the first time. allmusic.com should be All Music Guide. Citation #16 needs a publisher. Arista Records in #15 can be wikilinked. I guess I can deal with the label column, though you realize that no other discography does that, right? Seems like an odd bit of data to create an entire column for. Drewcifer (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, to be honest, I didn't like that compromise as well as it seemed a bit wierd so, I've got rid of it as there was sort of consensus to it. Finished the citations problems as well, so all done. =) σмgнgσмg(talk) 09:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Getting closer... still, RIAA/CRIA should be spelled out in the citations, and wikilinked the first time. Inside Your Heaven certification cell is a little crazy. Also, the "Chart positions" in non-chart singles should match the others. Drewcifer (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I feel like a broken record here. Check the citations again: CRIA should be spelled out and wikilinked the first time. Drewcifer (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I could've sworn I fixed that citation. Oh well, now its done. Sorry about that. σмgнgσмg(talk) 08:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, this is getting silly. Take another look, it's still not all there. Maybe look twice this time. CRIA should be spelled out. Publishers should be wikilinked only the first time (Arista). I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Drewcifer (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So sorry... now it's done. My humblest apologies. σмgнgσмg(talk) 12:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Also, another minor thing, why are some of the chart positions blank, while some have the —? I understand that some don't apply, but some that you would think would are blank. Also, the fact that a particular chart wasn't applicable isn't really sourceable. So, could you replace all the blank cells with the dash, to take care of both problems at once? Drewcifer (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - some are left blank because of several reasons: a) the single was not released to that particular radio station or b) the Canadian Hot 100 was only established in mid-2006 to 2007, so some singles could not have been released to that station. σмgнgσмg(talk) 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - leaving them blank without explanation is a little concerning. You may know why there's nothing in there, Drewcifer and I now know, but what about our humble audience? I would somehow denote it, but not leave it blank. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
So, if a song wasn't released to a particular radio station, then it didn't chart. So the dash would still apply. Drewcifer (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added the dashes onto the mainstream singles table but I'm not sure about other charted songs, considering they were not officially released. σмgнgσмg(talk) 07:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I still see some which are confusingly blank. Like the CAN Hot 100 column, why doesn't that apply? It's just very odd to see blank spaces. Again, I think you should just put dashes in for all the blank cells. If a release didn't apply to a particular chart, then it didn't place on that chart, right? So the dash still applies. Drewcifer (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter because, the subscript said it wasn't established at that time. So there is no need for dashes. σмgнgσмg(talk) 08:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, right, you did say that. My fault. But what about the other charted songs table? And the "Some Hearts" US country cell? And actually, I just noticed that there's four columns in the Other charted songs table with no data at all. Why are those even in the table? Drewcifer (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but you've got a nasty habit of only listening to one part of a suggestion, so I've got to keep repeating myself. I think the blank cells should be replaced with a —, for all the reasons outlined above. I think this is the third/fourth post concerning this. Drewcifer (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I did do it... as with the CAN Hot 100, see the subscript in the article. But with the dashes in the singles table (excluding other charted songs) I had added them in. σмgнgσмg(talk) 01:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
(Undent)Well then why are there still a ton of blank cells in the other charted songs table? I don't get it. And why is there still the CAN country column (with no data in it?). Drewcifer (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Okay. Firstly, there are blank cells in the CAN Hot 100 before mid-2006 because the radio station chart had not established then. So, the single could not have been released to that particular radio station chart. The dashes in the article represents denotes releases that did not chart. There should be no dashes as it wasn't even released to that radio station.
Secondly, the blank cells in the other released songs table signify that the single was a) not officially released and b) it had received enough popularity in particular radio stations to continually play it and hence, qualify the entry for that particular chart. σмgнgσмg(talk) 01:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the Canadian Country chart in the other released songs, there are some songs that qualified for the charting, but was not that popular to make it on the chart. Hope I made sense. σмgнgσмg(talk) 01:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That does make perfect sense, and I assumed they were blank for a reason, but I still think dashes would make more sense. The little legend thing doesn't say "— denotes releases that were given to particular radio stations but did chart" and it doesn't say "— denotes releases that were official releases but did not chart". It just says "— denotes releases that did not chart" which takes care of all the bases. If a single wasn't given to a radio station, then it didn't chart. If it wasn't an official release, then it too did not chart. I think you're making things too complicated. The legend is worded broadly to cover all the bases, so that you don't have to worry about things on a per-radio station/per single basis. If it charted, put the number, if it didn't, put the dash. It's pretty simple. The only exception I could imagine is one like the CAN Hot 100, where the chart didn't exist. And the footnote explains that quite clearly. Does that make sense? Drewcifer (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, how about I just put "— denotes releases that were given to particular radio stations but did chart" on the other charted songs? Would you prefer that or have the whole table filled with dashes? σмgнgσмg(talk) 02:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer dashes all around (except for the CAN Hot 100) and no CAN Country column, since that's how literally every other FL discog has done it so far. Drewcifer (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Support It's been a long road, but all of my suggestions have been taken into account or shown to be stupid suggestions in the first place. Definitely a great list! Drewcifer (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose For some reason, a bunch of things I suggested have been reverted/undone. Changing my vote back to Oppose. Drewcifer (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I assure you that this was reverted and changed. Further discussion is required before changing the layout is changed again. σмgнgσмg(talk) 04:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems to have been reverted, so I un-reoppose. Or re-support. Or something like that. And for the record, Scorpion has a good point (about citations in the table headers), though this isn't a deal breaker for me. Drewcifer (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Most of the stuff I'd included already but someone reverted it. It is now there will further suggestions that you've made. Also, not sure about the source attribution, some sources don't have enough information on their attribution. σмgнgσмg(talk) 23:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't need album informatiom. If anybody wants to know album info, they can see in their pages. It doesn't look good and it is unnecessery.
How do you know that a song did release in some formats, but fail to chart?
Comment Firstly, although the article is a discography, it still requires information on the discographies mentioned, particularly albums as it is the basis of the artist's work. Secondly, the songs that failed to chart are verified by the sources that I've provided at the table. It is kinda obvious for example in Bless the Broken Road was a digital download, hence it qualifies for the digital charts, although it did not make the chart. σмgнgσмg(talk) 03:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Music Videos section should be Music videos, per WP:HEAD
"During the first week it sold 527,000 copies, making it the most successful female solo country artist since Shania Twain." - surely "...making Underwood the most successful..."?
"Singles weren't..." - "...were not..." for featured content.
""—" detonates releases that did not chart" - what does blank mean? Not even released in that country? Needs to be stated (in my opinion).
"Platinum" or "platinum"? Be consistent.
It may be me but I'm confused by the Independence Day row in the table - it shares Gold with the row above and then has "Inside Your Heaven Single" in the album column. I'm sure it makes sense to discography aficionados but not to me!
The Gold certification is not cited while the platinums are. Why?
"During the first week it sold 527,000 copies, making Underwood the most successful album by a female solo country artist since Shania Twain's Greatest Hits." still doesn't make sense - Underwood isn't an album, she's a performer!
Some Platinum, some platinum - consistent capitalisation.
Does "w/" mean with? just say with if it does, if not then what does it mean?
compare these 2. in the second one the notes make every row spacious. that is not a good thing. so I suggest several ways to avoid this, but Omghgomg did not listen.
the label: I suggest that we can move to a new column, like Reba McEntire discography. or if the artist has only a label at this time period, we can mention at the top. but it seems like that Omghgomg didn't allow any notes at the top, and he thinks repeating things is good, like his model example, The Corrs discography.
the format: this part is deleted, but I have to mention it again. most albums release in CD format, and sometimes in digital download form. they are similar in every album, so we don't have to repeat again and again. I think the best solution is add a note at the top.
the release date: like I've said, we can briefly know when a album is out by looking at the year column. month and date is not very important because most country artist do not release 2 albums in the same year. it is not really necessery. and, do we have to do the same thing to singles too?
the certifications: for this part, I prefer the first one because it is clearer than the 2nd one.
if over 90% of discographies are edited like that way, I won't argue again. I know some featured discographies did that way, but that is not a rule. we don't have to skick to other pages. if we can save some space, why don't we? and a my point is to factorthe same things out, and don't repeat the same thing so many times.
2.Singles & Other Charted Songs
I like the note system very much. it works much better. one day I will make a change in all country discography.
one thing I want to point out is the horizontal lines. the note says, ""—" denotes releases that did not chart." what do you mean? is it release to all formats but fail to chart some of the formats or release to that format but fail to chart? Like "Some Hearts", the song release to pop and AC format only. hot 100 contains any format of music, so I don't know if the song fails to chart. but it didn't release to country radio, the song don't have to chart. it is the same thing in other charted songs. the songs there didn't even RELEASE. the lines there should be deleted.
I think the chart positions of "Do You Hear What I Hear" and others should be move to this section, either merge or create a new box. they are the same, but separated into 2 different sections. it is weird.
it is an irony here. Omghgomg created another column to denote directors but didn't allow me to put label in a new column. what reason is that?????
since Omghgomg have come, making changes become more difficult. I've suggest a way to change this: "change first, then leave a message, and we can discuss keep it or kick it." I think it is better than "discuss first, change later," in that case we might never change a thing because no one answer to it at all. we should also copy the messages to the featured list discussion, so everyone can see them.
there are too few poeple to response to making changes, and because of the old way, we can never change a thing. compare to these 2 pages, 2006 in country music and 2008 in country music, you can see that the 2008 one is not worse than 2006 one. and please don't say "no other pages do that". it is ridiculous.
Okay, I will aim to address these issues one by one:
A column should only be used if it is discussing another aspect of information, in other words, looking at the topic from a completly different view. The label column is not necessary as it only provides a few information about the CD itself. Mind you, I've simply using other featured list discographies' templates to create this one. Out of all the featured discographies, only Hilary Duff discography, Wilco discography and Red Hot Chili Peppers discography don't have this format because they don't mention the record label at all. Remember, this article must comply with the WP:WIAFL criteria, and in that, it must be comprehensive. Being comprehensive means that it covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject. This also applies for the format and release date(s), as the article needs to be thorough. So what if it takes extra space, it doesn't matter. As for the table on music videos, the extra column for directors is necessary as it is showing another aspect of the information, the director. If you think it is hypocritical of me, then we can delete the column and place the director of every music video in every row. I don't mind.
The certifications do not need to be in the way you proposed. Sure, you may like it, the users that have reviewed the article were fine with the current layout.
As for the dashes, I will quote from User:Drewcifer3000 who has had much more experience in writing discographies than me (he mentioned it in the discussion above):
"The little legend thing doesn't say "— denotes releases that were given to particular radio stations but did chart" and it doesn't say "— denotes releases that were official releases but did not chart". It just says "— denotes releases that did not chart" which takes care of all the bases. If a single wasn't given to a radio station, then it didn't chart. If it wasn't an official release, then it too did not chart. I think you're making things too complicated. The legend is worded broadly to cover all the bases, so that you don't have to worry about things on a per-radio station/per single basis. If it charted, put the number, if it didn't, put the dash. It's pretty simple. The only exception I could imagine is one like the CAN Hot 100, where the chart didn't exist. And the footnote explains that quite clearly."
I've already explained to you the differences between the miscellaneous appearances and other charted songs. Let me reiterate that: "There is still a very big line that seperates these two. Other charted songs are songs that have garnered attention to be popular enough to have airplay on the radio. Miscellaneous appearances are songs which Carrie Underwood has collaborated with, that are featured in other albums. These two can sometimes inter-twine, but their differences are still evident."
Hope that addresses your concerns. Cheers. σмgнgσмg(talk) 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
of course those answers don't address my concerns.
what about didn't allow any notes at the top? did you even see it?
Miscellaneous appearances: you've missed my point.
the ceritfication: if you are fine with original one, then I will change it back. it exists quite a long time before you came in.
dashes: if you don't mind, we can delete dashes in other charted songs and we can denote that the blank is that "release but didn't chart."
you completely ingore Making Changes section. please tell me your opinion.
answer these question:
why do we always have to follow other featured discographies? why can't we change?
my whole point is: to factor out repeated words, and make it simpler. why it is not allowed?
by Langdon (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080
Please clarify what you mean... but I like the way that you've reorganised the layout of the article.σмgнgσмg(talk) 07:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The layout did not work... let us make this simplier, the table of Other Charted Songs contains the peak chart position of songs that are from Miscellaneous Appearances and songs that are not her miscellaneous appearances but still weren't offically released as a single. σмgнgσмg(talk) 07:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sick of all the disputing, so I've requested third opinions from other users. Feel free to voice what you think should be addressed in terms of the layout. σмgнgσмg(talk) 07:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Support - just add the album for "Bless the Broken Road". (Also, consider having the relase date of label of albums as seperate columns). Tompw (talk) (review) 20:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
"Bless the Broken Road" didn't really have an album, it was only a digital release, so I'd just placed a dash on it. σмgнgσмg(talk) 06:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. The lede is a little short for my tastes, but it's well-cited, which is good enough. The layout is pleasant and easy to understand, and the color coding beneath the artist picture is a particularly nice touch. Citations check out as reliable, and everything looks good from the point of view of someone who knows absolutely nothing about the music industry. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Support There really isn't a solid consensus as to how discography tables should be sorted, but otherwise, everything looks fine to me. I see no reason to oppose; everything seems to meet featured list criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't like some of the format edited by Omghgomg. I'm going to hold a vote. the catigories include: notes under albums, certifications, dashes, the position of albums in single and song table. I need everybody's opinions.
Please see WP:Voting, in particular the quote "Voting is not a substitute for consensus." My own opinion is that the scope of this particular discussion has gone beyond this single FLC. I would recommend closing this FLC with the intention of renominating it later, and posing the question of formatting elsewhere (Wikipedia:WikiProject Music or the WP:FLC talk page would probably be the best place to start). That way, a discussion (rather than a straw poll) can be started beyond the scope of Carrie Underwood fans. Drewcifer (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - We can't have blanks in an article because in the article, there is a table with blanks in it already. That is in the singles table. The blanks represent the fact that the CAN Hot 100 was not established at the time of the single. σмgнgσмg(talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty clear (to me, at least) that there is no consensus whatsoever on any of these formatting concepts. This FLC is not really the place to discuss a manual of style for these - I suggest (as I believe Drewcifer did above) you centralise this discussion at WP:MUSIC and close this FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, let's fail this nomination for now so we can improve and resolve the ongoing dispute. σмgнgσмg(talk) 08:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.