Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2012

• Annoying, but I think all the "UNITED" in the reference titles should be "United" per MOS.
• Too many clauses in the first sentence, four commas... Split.
• "The team that Manchester United has met most in league competition is Arsenal, against whom Manchester United have contested 186 league matches;[2] 77 of these were United victories, which alongside United's tally..." count the "Manchester"s, then count the "United"s... needs reword.
• " which alongside United's tally of league wins over Aston Villa is a club record." -> " which, alongside United's tally of league wins over Aston Villa, is a club record."
• Presumably all those notes can be referenced by the StretfordEnd links?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iv'e addressed the aboves and refed those.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You could wikilink 1892–93 and 1939–40 season
• "The team that Manchester United has met most in league competition is Arsenal, against whom they have contested 186 league matches,[2] having won 77 of these matches,[3] which, alongside the league wins over Aston Villa,[4] is a club record." This is a very long sentence which could do with being split up. Suggest putting a full stop after "186 league matches" and start the next sentence "They have won...

Sentence needs splitting. NapHit (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done now.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• United was founded in 1878, yet this table (judging by the key) only goes back to 1892, i think you should include the rest of united's league record as well. The seasons list states they spent three seasons in the football alliance and one in the combination. I would include these records as well
• Why not include the For and Against columns in the home and away sections?
• I also think it would be useful to add the first and last columns to give the reader some context as to when united played these teams

NapHit (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to United not using non-competitive matches in its record books I did not add those matches in the Alliance and the Combination, But will rewrite it to say competitive league matches only. About the For/Against/First/Last, Due to table size Iv'e only added F/A in total and did not used the first/last and F/A in home and away, as when I used it the table went two screen size so Iv'e only picked what I found as most useful of the four (F/A in total).
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure about the Alliance and Combination records, as the alliance article states that it was founded as a rival to the football league which suggests it was competitive. The seasons list includes these records, while the luton league record list includes records from the southern league, so by this basis I think there are grounds for the records being included. Regarding the F/A bit, if that's the case then I would remove the width coding from the table which is making the club column too big, that should allow for more space to add the other columns. NapHit (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The alliance article does says that, but no source to confirm such a thing, while ManUtd stats books and website does not regard it as competetive and exclude it from its records. Yes United did play those seasons in those leagues, and yes it does mention them in the seasons article, but like I said they are not defined as competetive and the records from those matches are not included. Same goes to tournaments they played such as the Watney Cup and the Anglo-Italian Cup. If you look at the refs you can see Stretfordend does not include them in the teams played against. About the Combination, same as the 1939-40 league, records were excluded due to the league canceling and the issue with teams not knowing when its league and when its not. In addition if you look at the players who played for United in the Alliance you can see those records do not include in thier infobox nor the offical record books, Example: Willie Stewart, who was the top scorer in the time and those goals are not counted. About the table size, There is no width coding anymore and the size will be the same as mentioned above when I add the parts from above talk. Second of all, I also looked at another stats websites to see if those talked about are mentioned and they are not, using the Statto website which LFC list takes some of the records from it also exclude the Lancashire League (see LFC vs Blackpool), and the Comb. and Alli. leagues.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough if you can't reliably source the information then leave it. I was able to source it for the LFC list so I included it, but if you can't its no problem. The loughborough entry is causing the table to that wide, is there any chance you could shorten the name to Loughborough A.F.C? or something like that, then you at least might be able to squeeze F/A into the home and away columns. NapHit (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did so about the AFC but still end up doing the same or making each team in two lines which looks abit ugly, The space left is only allow to use F/A in either Away or Home without making the teams in two lines (also saw using nowrap tag). Also see comment of mine from bellow, I do have a source for them but ManUtd don't regard them as leagues but more like non-league thing.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Would be helpful from an accessibility angle if you added informative alt text to the {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}} symbols, e.g. something like {{double-dagger|alt=defunct}}
• Was only here to mention the alt text, but while I'm here... You're right about the Combination, which was chaotic and never completed. But Newton Heath LYR certainly considered the Football Alliance competitive, even if MUFC 2012 don't. Finishing second in 1891/92 got them elected to the First Division of the Football League rather than the Second like most of the rest. If you were to choose to include it, the results are on Stretfordend here, or on footballsite here (click on Results for each season).

hope this helps, Struway2 (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the alt, done, thank you. About the Ali. League, In the links above you can also see it says Non-League resluts for ManUtd, so thats why I prefer not to add false league information even if United in the 1880's might have found it important. The link in Stretfordend was something I was aware about, but like the non-competetive cups which also can be saw in the menu before the list I choose not to include them. Not to forget that WP:FOOTY, didn't used those stats in the infobox aswell.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by this link it appears the Alliance was a second division to the Football League. As a result I think these records should be included as well as at the moment it could be argued the list is not complete. NapHit (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, ManUtd sees it as a Non-League (non-competitive), and you mentioned the seasons article above, but if you look you can see the top scorer only includes FA Cups for those seasons which they competed in that league. (also those stats are not included in the players infobox which is acted as league apps and goals only). So therefore, that league should not be included, no matter what some "sources" might tell you or not tell you.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-League" means not in The Football League, not "non-competitive". In my opinion, every league competition that Manchester United and Newton Heath have contested should be included here. You'll note that in the Luton list you based this one on, I included results in both the Southern League and the United League, both of which, particularly the latter, are far more minor than the Alliance. You have the club's results in the Alliance in the relevant seasonal articles (here, here and here), with referencing already intact for a book reference. Same goes for the Combination, the results of which you have here (though no reference; you will have to find one). I would argue that unless the Alliance and Combination are included, the league is not complete as a "league record by opponent"; it is perhaps complete as a "League record by opponent", but nothing more. I apologise for not catching this earlier. If you would like I can give you a hand with this. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the non-League, I meant to say ManUtd stats regard it as non-competitive while a url from a user above said non-league. and few points bellow

Examples : LFCHistory which NapHit use the data from doesn't regard those pre-TFL as league games, see exemple James McBride - who scored in that 1892-93 season for LFC, but in the source you can see that that amount played in that current season is listed in the Other column, not league, I can give you dozen more like that, such as thier goalkeeper, Sidney Ross, Duncan McLean and all players who played in that talked season. (click the Appearances tab in order to see what I'm talking about). You can also see in LFCHistory website which used in the list bellow this list, LFC Games Competition Stats, which doesn't list the Lancashire League nor the "Test Matches" as league. And the most important is this LFC League Overall which does not list the 1892-93 season as league at all there!, and it says "Liverpool complete league history", I even checked Statto.com (see example LFC against Arsenal) which is used as source for some of the stats and you can see it doesn't list those seasons niether, so if LFC and ManUtd most used sources and even stats books doesn't regard those games as league games why should we?. During the First and Second WW, United competed in War Leagues (so is LFC), technically those are league games aswell (acording to people thinking) even tho the article says they are unofficial and are excluded, but we won't include those even that we have sources for those games. I also don't agree in the League vs league thing, as the next person will say, "Hey wait, Champions League and Europa League are "leagues" aswell, why don't you move the article to "XYZ domestic league record by opponent", as it doesn't include those stats". Now the final and also not less important, Iv'e looked at over a dozen of players articles in WP (many clubs), and their infobox doesn't include those seasons stats there (infoxbox is league only as you might know), so how can we say one thing and do another?, we should stick to what clubs regard as leagues and use it arround WP articles, not only in particular articles.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, regarding non-League football as "non-competitive" and omitting it from statistics only takes place where sports writers are being, frankly, lazy: for example, they may say quite misleadingly that player X "never played League football again", or, in head-to-head match-ups as we are dealing with here, only refer to matches in "the League" (a more extreme modern development of this phenomenon, often seen on television in particular, is referring only to records in the Premier League, which honestly makes me want to scream). I disagree strongly with the assertion that most statistical books do not regard competitions such as the Alliance as competitive: the book cited in the articles I linked, The Definitive Newton Heath F.C., certainly appears to – and is, incidentally, from the same series as The Definitive Luton Town F.C., a book I used extensively while creating the Luton list, which this one is based on. Interestingly, I do remember that The Definitive Luton Town F.C., which was published while Luton were still a Football League club, did not include non-Football League results in its "league record by opponent" table, though the Southern League and United League results were given in a separate section of the book. I had to add them in myself for the sake of completeness, reasoning that if we were only going to put Football League results in there, then we would have to omit results in the Football Conference (which Luton are now in). I am not suggesting there is any fear of this state of affairs potentially endangering Manchester United any time soon, but I do think it is somewhat dubious of us to apply different criteria to different clubs based on their present circumstance. United were not always a Football League club, and their results in league competitions other than the Premier and Football Leagues should (in my opinion) be included here if it is to be complete. Comparison of competitions such as the Alliance to War Leagues and the abortive 1939–40 Football League season are not valid, as those matches do not claim to be official and are never included as such in statistics such as these.

You are right that most internet sources do not list results in competitions such as the Alliance, the Southern League and so forth, but that does not necessarily make this correct. Certainly they are not only including Premier and Football League results, since most of these (so far as I can see) include the Conference. Where, then, is the line drawn, if all matches played in league competition are not to be included? It is an interesting and good point you make about the Champions League and Europa League, though if anybody were to make that point it could be easily argued that those competitions are not actually leagues but cups, and therefore not properly incorporated into a list of this kind. In any case, it would be no great tragedy to add the qualifier "domestic" to the article title, if it proved necessary.

Alternatives open for you are to include the Alliance results in a separate section, or perhaps to rename this list "Manchester United F.C. Premier League and Football League record by opponent" (or similar). As it stands, I am sorry to say that this is simply not complete, though it is of a very high standard thus far. —Cliftonian (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cliftonian on this. I don't think this list is complete until these records are introduced, yes they may be non-league records, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included. I think you're reasoning about LFC history is a little confused, as League history is referring to just Football League. League was and still is a common term for the Football League. If you see here League is separate from the Premier League, emphasising the point. That is why the stats are often in other than League because it refers to Football League. I'm still not sure why you're averse to including these stats, the alliance was a league competition, it may not have been a Football League competition but was still an important competition as the winner gained entry to the Football League. I think you are applying today's standards to a competition that was more important in its own time and that is wrong. Labeling these competitions as non-competitive is also incorrect. My local team Chester recently reformed and are now in the Northern Premier Division, and although it is a non-league competition it is very competitive, if man united regard these competitions as non-competitive then they are mistaken as they are. I think the evidence is here that these records should be included for the sake of completeness. This source indicates the Alliance was a rival to the Football League and as such a "competitive" league regardless of what united say. NapHit (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Football Alliance to the statistics as per the comments from NapHit and Cliftonian, the 1888–89 abonded season was not added as it is regarded as unofficial. In addition I also added overall record by competition. I put the RC template as it was all about the issue. Hope now you can support it.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For information, it's best practice for the nominator to allow reviewers to cap or strike their own comments when they're satisfied, so I've removed the cap. In particular, the comments capped weren't all about the Football Alliance issue. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the Busby Babes picture have any relevance to this list?

See Cliftonian comment from bellow; As they played some of those games I myself don't see a reason why not use it instead of the squad picture prior to the season start, unless you don't agree we can always change it back.

What bothered me was that it shows players lining up for a European match, not a domestic league match, which is the topic of this list. Not sure whether I can think of an image particularly appropriate to a league record by opponent, unless you were lucky enough to have one that showed action from NH/MU's first/last/only match against someone. Struway2 (talk)

• The Accrington team that played in the FL in 1893/94 was Accrington F.C., not the unrelated Accrington Stanley. Stretfordend have it wrong

Fixed thank you.

You'll need an alternative/additional reference, to verify it's not the club listed at Stretfordend Struway2 (talk)

• Bootle should be listed without the (1879)

There are two Bootle clubs, one whos currenly active and the former (original) team which is defunct (the one which United played against) thats why the 1879

The present-day name for both clubs, the live one and the dead one, is Bootle, so that's what should be listed here. We have the double-dagger to show the reader it's the defunct club that NH played, and the wikilink to get the reader to the appropriate article Struway2 (talk)

• Loughborough is defunct

Fixed thank you.

• Are you sure Nelson is defunct?

Not anymore, they joined the North West Counties First Division. so fixed

• Don't think NH/MU ever played Southampton in the league when they were Southampton St Mary's, or Millwall when they were M.Athletic, or Rotherham County when they were Thornhill (per above comment).

Fixed, I have rechecked all and changed those.

• I know people tend not to bother, but if the stats go up to a specific date, then the accessdate for their online source should be consistent with that date.

I usully update the accessdate to the ones which United played the latest, guess I forgot yesterday to do so, fixed thank you.

hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What you've listed as Rotherham County is a combination of two distinct clubs. The 1890s team was the first Rotherham Town F.C., only the 1922/23 season was Rotherham County. As the first R.Town has no connection at all with the current R.United, Stretfordend is particularly misleading on this

Fixed

Again, you'll need alternative/additional reference(s) Struway2 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I should probably say that I added the Busby Babes picture because the picture that had been there before was already used at the top here. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have addressed the above with comments bellow each line.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put new refs to those teams, Dealt with Bootle, and I have also retored the previous picture as better something than nothing I belive as it is team picture prior to season start.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, this is radical, but following my own nominations of List of ICC Cricket World Cup finals and Premier League Manager of the Season, I think the lead here is too short and should be expanded to describe the matches each time round. This is the only article (i.e. it's not just "CZW Iron Man Championship winners") so it should comprehensively cover the subject matter.
  • Not really sure what else there is to say. I've done several of these we all know, and I've included everything in the lead that is normally noteworthy. Only things I haven't included is which cities the title changed hands at, that CZW is an Ultraviolent promotion, and pretty much a detail of each title reign.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's why I said it was radical. It would be nice, in the prose, to describe the various championship fights in more detail than just the bare facts... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want I can add the notes from the table into the lead, which I believe would suffice what you are asking for in my opinion?--WillC 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or better still, leave the notes and expand upon them in a "History"-style section (see those FLs I linked to for examples or the current FLC, List of Malmö FF seasons, which summarises the significant points in a history section). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright, I'll start on that section in a subpage later today and add it when its finished along with some more sources. I assume one similar in nature to IWGP Tag Team Championship is whats wanted?--WillC 10:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sounds like a good idea to me! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Alright, finished and done. Section plus several new sources have been added.--WillC 07:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Infobox caption needs a period.
  • Done--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Why link vacancy to Wiktionary and then to Wikipedia wrestling terms? Be consistent (prefer Wikipedia).
  • Hadn't noticed I did that.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "is a professional wrestling championship" I thought it was defunct, so surely "was"?
  • To an extent, however it is still a championship, just not active so I thought is would be better.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "The title is currently inactive, having been deactivated on July 11, 2009. Prior to deactivation, " repetitive use of "active" in various forms.
  • Flipped them around a bit.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• In the table, why do en-dashes sort between the 0's and the numbers above 0? Same for location, N/A really shouldn't split the real locations.
  • The vacancies are not supposed to be of the overall history, which is the reason they are sorted in that way.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, so they're not part of the overall history but they sort within the history, i.e. after the 0's and before the numbers? Shouldn't they sort before the 0s? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its however most of the tables are sorted, always been difficult finding which way to sort them as this is brought up in every FL. They are sorted as 0.0 to remain out of the normal sorting. I guess I could find a way where reign 1 is sorted before them if that is what you want?--WillC 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand why you would think it better that these sort within the valid numbers. You can always force them to be -1, say, which would sort them always bottom or always top, not in the middle like a 0. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright, shifted them to "-1".--WillC 10:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrestler name sorting needs looking at, I don't really see, for example, why Brain Damage sorts as D (Damage isn't his surname, is it?!).
  • I'd see Brain Damage as a two part name like any normal name, with Damage being the last name and Brain being the first. That is the reason it is sorted as such. Wrestlers with a pure ring name such as Franky The Mobster sorts by F, while DJ Hyde sorts by H.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref. should be Ref(s).
  • Done--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Massive dependency on CZWrestling.com, is this significant outside of its own world?
  • Yes, I assumed to the PWTorch and Solie refs would help solve this issue. In the process of looking around for more results for each of the later reigns.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments - history section, well done.

• Suggest changing "Title history" to "Champions" so as not to clash with the new "History" section.
  • Changed to Reigns to match other formats.--WillC 11:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Since you've said "less than a day" in the lead and in the summary table you have <1 for Domino, shouldn't Domino and Wifebeater have <0 in the main table instead of 0?
  • Well they were champions for a day technically but not the full day, so that is used to show how it was less than a day. The other would represent it being less than no days.--WillC 11:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I meant <1. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah I understand what you are saying now. Its due to the age in days template. Never really thought about trying to set it up to look like that. I guess I could for consistency.--WillC 12:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "pinned at CZW's Trapped by LuFisto" would prefer "pinned by LuFisto at CZW's..."
  • Done--WillC 11:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 11 needs an en-dash.
  • Done--WillC 11:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• You don't need Category:Hardcore wrestling championships as Category:Combat Zone Wrestling championships is a subcategory of it.
  • I didn't find that cat in there anywhere.--WillC 11:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables don't comply with WP:ACCESS at the moment, MOS:DTT provides details of how to rectify this. Basically you need to add col and rowscopes to the table and a caption as well.
  • Crap I was hoping I wouldn't have to do that for lists. Been having to do it for PPV results. Kinda thought it made them look poor. Alright, it's switched over.--WillC 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• At the moment, the reader is unaware the tables are sortable, as there is colouring obscuring the sort keys. There are two ways around this; either remove the colouring altogether, or add -color to style="background to get them to show up. Up to you which one you choose I have no preference as long as the sort keys are visible
  • Done.--WillC 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I would a caption to the key table, just so the reader is aware that is the key to do this simply add |+Key
  • Added to both.--WillC 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "At 364 days, Steen's reign came to an end when he was pinned by LuFisto" is there a wikilink for pinned? some readers may not be aware of wrestling terminology
  • Ahh I figured "pinned" was a common enough term to not always need a link. Alright, linked.--WillC 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "The title was vacated twice during it history before being retired in July 2009" typo in this sentence
  • Fixed--WillC 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sami Callihan can be wikilinked in the history section
  • Done, figured it was so close to the lead a link wouldn't be needed.--WillC 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The table currently fails MOS:DTT you need row and col scope to the table to bring it up to speed. NapHit (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Man, that row thing is a huge pain to set up. Done. --PresN 18:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt text would be nice for the lead image. Done
• Note at the bottom of Other charted songs: "denotes releases that did not chart or was not released." This should be fixed in the style of the other similar notes, particularly since "releases" and "was" are a bad grammar match. Done
• In the music video tables, the directors are sorting by first name when they should be sorting by last name.
  • Not sure how to do this? Oz ^talk 03:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll need to use sort templates for the names. Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play is a good example from the current batch of FLCs. Follow the formatting in that list and it should help you fix this issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 12:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Done[reply]
• Also, when I click on the director column's sorting, the director's names disappear in cases where more than one column is covered by one director. Without good knowledge of what's causing this, I'd recommend having one director name per song, and repeating them when needed. Done
• In the refs, remove all caps from the titles of refs 14 (4x), 46, and 48. Done
• Minor point, but the em dash after the first external link isn't in a good MoS format. Try making it a spaced en dash, or make the existing dash unspaced. Done

Giants2008 (Talk) 02:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• " team The Clutch.[1] As a member of The Clutch" repetitive. Done
• "artists such as " would prefer "artists including". Done
• "in 2004... In 2006... In 2007"... would prefer some more elegant prose, e.g. the odd "The following year" or similar (as long as its clear...) Done
• Slightly confused, why would you have rowspan years in the Album appearances table and make it not sortable while then going on to make the Music videos table sortable (and hence without rowspans)?
  • Problem fixed. Oz ^talk 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If you insist on keeping the table sortable, link every linkable item every time.
• "Taj" is a dab link.
  • Removed (theres no article for the director). Oz ^talk 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Check refs for spaced hyphens which should be spaced en-dashes (e.g. refs 8 & 9) Done
• You link Rap-Up every time in the refs, but not Billboard (for example). Be consistent. Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The album's lead single, 'SOS', were written...". "were" → "was".

  Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Comma needed before Good Girl Gone Bad in the second paragraph.

  Added. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "which critics noted as an step away from her previous more care-free persona." → "which critics noted as a step away from her more care-free persona from past albums."?

  Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  This looks the same as it was before. Giants2008 (Talk) 12:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ooops. Done now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "The albums lead single". "albums" needs an apostrophe before the s.

  Added. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Alt text would be nice for the images.

  Every image has an alt. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• In the Michael Jackson photo caption, the song title has an extraneous apostrophe at the end of the song title. Also, this caption and the Avril Lavigne one need periods at the end.

  It is Somethin', not Something. That's the name of the song, so it's not extraneous. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The parenthetical "website" shouldn't be showing up in ref 34. Pipe the link. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Piped it. Thanks for your comments. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• ref 1 needs the first name of the author as well

  Added. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "Rihanna's sophomore album" is that a common term when referring to a second album? I've never heard sophomore used in relation to the music industry, surely it would be easier to say second?

  There's nothing wrong with the term but I've changed it anyway. No one thinks debut is a term not used in the industry, sophomore is the same. Widely used. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Well, I've never heard that term before and second album is clearer, especially to readers with no knowledge of the industry, so its more helpful that way. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The production duo co-wrote and co-produced 10 songs out of 16 included on the album" included on the album is redundant, the previous sentence mentions the album to begin with and the sentence after this one mentions it again, so this last bit is not needed

  This list is about songs. They wrote 9 out of 16 songs on one album. So this stays. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

I know the list is about songs that's not the point. The point is you've already mentioned what album is being referred to in the previous sentence, so they are aware you are talking about one album, so "included on the album" is not needed. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "...co-writing and co-producing two songs out of 13" MOS:NUMBERS states "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures" change the two to 2

  Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "Stargate penned three tracks for the album..." who is stargate? there is no mention of this person beforehand, also is there no wikilink?

  Have explained in the first paragraph. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  the link you provided has a typo. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• ref 2, 22, 31, 37 and 38 need to add the author

  There are no authors of CDs. Have added authors to websites where one was given. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  I meant 3 and 18 instead of 2 and 22 my mistake. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• ref 32, the author needs to be formatted to be consistent with the other refs

  She was the publisher, not the author.

  Where is the name Lynne Segall mentioned in that ref I don't see it anywhere, so what qualifies her as the publisher? NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

No it's not I still see Lynne Segall in that ref. NapHit (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is the publisher! Her name is in the publisher parameter! Aaron • ^{You Da One}

I know here name is in the publisher parameter, but when you click on the ref there is no mention of her name anywhere on thet page, so again why is she is the publisher, when there is no evidence to support this. NapHit (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It lists her as the publisher of the publication on the Wiki page. Stop making things so awkward. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

I'm not making anything awkward. If you had told me she was the publisher of the publication from the beginning the issue would have been sorted. Anyway it appears she is so no problem. NapHit (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do use cite web for MTV news refs instead of cite news, surely you should use the latter? Also mtv news should be work and Viacom publisher

  It's not a printed publication, so it shouldn't be news? And yes Viacom is the publisher. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  BBC is not a printed publication, yet you would cite news for that same applies here. Regarding the viacom issue, you have both MTV news and Viacom in the publisher parameter when only one is the publisher, so MTV news should be in the work parameter. NapHit (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has not been done either, MTV is work not the publisher. NapHit (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has, I changed them all, you just haven't checked properly. Trying clicking on edit and have a look. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Fixed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Refs should come after punctuation, currently ref 6 does not, move to the comma after tainted love
• Ref 3 work is MTV news not mtv

  I've been told before to not merely just put MTV, but rather MTV News, MTV UK, MTV Buzzworthy etc. to distinguish. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• There is no need to force the size of the columns, so I would remove the coding that does this
• Would be nice if you could indicate what songs were singles. Perhaps using colour to indicate this. At the moment with some cells having links and others not its a bit confusing as to why

  This is simply a list of songs, not a list of singles. That is what the Rihanna discography is for. I will amend your other issues tomorrow. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its a list of songs, but some of those songs have been singles, yet at the moment the reader has no way to tell which ones were released as singles. It would also help with the link issue, as I assume most of the linked songs were singles. Some readers would get confused as to why some are linked and others aren't. BTW was there any need to have an edit summary of "No." I am trying to help you get this list to featured stated not hinder you (which by looking at it from my perspective you seem to think I am doing) if you carry on with this negative attitude and blunt remarks, then I'm not sure if I can continue reviewing the list if I'm not going to get helpful responses from you. After all you nominated it on the proviso that you were going to get comments and wanted input from the community, to react brazenly to some suggestions is out of order in my opinion especially as we are trying to help you, which you don't seem to realise. NapHit (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking a lot better now, just one last concern regarding the sorting. You have four cells that are sorting out of kilter, they need to be fixed. NapHit (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Which ones? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A million miles away, the last time, the last song and a girl like me. NapHit (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But I used the sort you gave me on them? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 21:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ye I know it's not your fault, I'll try and fix this myself, as I'm not sure what's causing them four to sort like that. NapHit (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you want to help but some of your comments are simply irritating. If you want to know which ones were singles, you can go to her discography page. If you still argue on this, maybe we can delete her discography page. Or better, we can merge her bio page with the discography, the videography, all her albums, all her singles, this list and everything else related to her. Of course, I am joking. My intention is only to show you how far this point of yours was wrong.

It is clear that you are not very familiar with music-related articles because you are assuming a lot. A song does not need to chart to have a page on Wikipedia if it meets WP:GNG. Similarly, a song does not need to be a single to chart. And a song can be a single but yet not chart. I believe you should familiarize yourself with music-related article first.

And about the comment on the reference with regard to the work parameter; whatever Aaron has done is good because MTV News in not supposed be in italics. It is neither a magazine nor a newspaper. Even if he writes ''MTV News'' in the work parameter, a bot will automatically release the '''' the day he will do a cleanup. And I don't think an FLC should have wrongly formatted references.

Last but not the least, Aaron's attitude may be negative but your comments are somehow responsible for it. And that's reason for which I comment only on topics to which I am familiar. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't hurt a reviewer to raise a concern that (s)he feels should be raised. I personally don't see any of his points as irritating. The nominator is free to disagree with concerns as long as (s)he has a reasonable rationale to. Telling NapHit to get familiar with music articles is not helpful either. This may be the first FL of its kind, so we don't necessarily have to follow other lists like these. There is no problem with identifying singles either: the article should be independent. All we need to know here is which songs were singles, nothing else. The discography dives into things like sales, charting and certification. But this is just a list of songs, many of which were singles. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 12:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous, referring to comments as "irritating" when I'm trying to improve the page is just plain stupid. Maybe a song does not need to chart to have a page on wikipedia, but it still begs the question, why some have pages and overs don't. Therefore adding a colour to allow the reader to see which songs were singles is helpful. Why should I have to go to the discography page when the info could be displayed here easily, it's a no brainer! I do not need to familiarise myself with music articles at all. Your suggestion that you don't review something you don't know about and I should too is stupid. Often the best reviewers are the ones that no nothing about the subject, as they can pick up on things that are not so obvious to people who are familiar with the subject. The list is supposed to be easy to understand for everyone not just people familiar with music, so if I don't understand, its more than likely they won't, which is why I'm suggesting these changes. Its a ridiculous assertion that my comments are somehow responsible for his attitude how are they? I have not done anything differently to the other lists I've reviewed and none of there reviewers have reacted in the manner he has. There seems to be an uwiilingness to co-operate which i don't understand, as the whole point of flc is to canvas opinion from the community. That means all members of it not just music editors. NapHit (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you want colors? Okay. But there are not only things like songs and singles. We also have promotional singles. We have cover versions. We have soundtrack singles. We have songs recorded to promote a brand. I strongly believe all these will complicate things. By the way, your list of football and tombs are not comprehensible to me. As you see, it does not only matter to review a list. Also having some knowledge about it is always welcome. Those lists are like reading Chinese to me. Sorry but this is how I feel. Perhaps, I won't comment any further because you simply will not agree and I don't want to make this FLC look bigger. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Jivesh, you're wrong. It's always a good idea to have someone who doesn't necessarily understand or is an expert in the subject matter. It provides an outside perspective and one that sometimes is overlooked by the "experts". I try to review each and every list (and have done for a couple of years) that gets nominated, and far from being expert in each of the individual subject matters, I believe I have a good level of experience on what would make a list featured. A shame that you and Aaron seem to think the reviewers here (who have invested their own personal time in trying to help) are deliberately trying to irritate you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm wait, can I know why you are using the word single? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A single table, i.e. one table. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now if a reader wants to see all the singles that were in a certain album they have to scroll up and down the page looking for them... - Should I explain the differences between a song and a single? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think NapHit means songs in that context. But it's a useful point, it would also be beneficial to know which of these songs have gone unreleased as singles. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is too much now. We should even say which song was released as a single? Released on an album is not enough? Excuse me but this is becoming too much. I have been telling since yesterday that some information is best to be verified at the album's page itself. Lists of songs are generally bulky, there is no need to add to that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ye I did mean songs, sorry that's my fault. But the point still stands, if the reader wants to know what songs were in an album, they would have scroll up and down the page, whereas with a sort facility available its a lot easier for the reader to navigate, which is the key issue. In its current guise the list is not easy to navigate, which contravenes WP:WIAFL part 4 as TRM pointed out above. Jivesh its not too much, you're assuming readers already know information about rihanna, some may not, therefore clarifying what songs were singles is useful to them, as not every reader of wiki has an in-depth knowledge of rihanna. NapHit (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never edit Wikipedia assuming that everyone should know about an artist. But what I hope for is at least for people to have some knowledge in this field. For instance, I would never comment on an article about submarines or football teams if I am not interested or know nothing about them. You can visit an artist's discography to know which songs were released as singles. You can also visit his/her videography to know for which songs videos were shot. By the way, it's good for you to know that all songs are not recorded for albums. So according to you, a single list which will have more than 200 songs consecutively will be easier to navigate through? And there is no need for you to know which songs were on the same album as this is a list about songs, not albums. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll bite. Please explain why it would be more difficult to navigate through a single list with 200 songs? I've shown you examples of long single lists with TOCs based on anchors... What's the problem? If the coding is too difficult, you just have to ask. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the lists you have shown me is that long. None of the list you have shown me list so many details. Your list of tombs do not even mention who built the tombs. I know this my sound foolish but this is how I want to show you that we also need to least the writers of the songs. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have, see List of Premier League hat-tricks. Cheers. Mind you, this is becoming pointless, you are determined to keep it "as you like it" without considering the usefulness of sortability. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could have said the same thing about you. I am still not convinced. The list is not that long and it is not about songs. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not useful in this circumstance. It would throw everything out of sync and balance. It is not functional for this list. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not about "songs" but it's a sortable list and it is longer. Please stop saying "it's not a song list", there are no other song lists this long so we need to relate it to something relevant and comparative. This list proves that it's not difficult for readers to access, it's sortable, useful and appropriate. "It would throw everything out of sync and balance. It is not functional for this list." - i.e. I don't want to do it. "throw everything out of sync", like what? "not functional" how? Many longer lists do sorbability. You need to accept this. Thanks! Your objection is baseless, and my oppose stands. And I'm now unwatching this because the "debate" is going nowhere. Feel free to email me if you need a revisit. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My dear, there are other lists of songs. I edit music articles here and I know what I am talking about. On the other hand, I have never seen those lists you mentioned until yesterday. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) well perhaps you should familiarise yourself with what a current featured list looks like and provides to our readers. I already told you there is only one list of songs which is featured. You made some excuses. You obviously aren't aware of what we now consider to be the standard required for a featured list. And this really, really is my last post here. Oppose stands, and disappointed that the nominators weren't open to exploring the possibility of making the list better, more functional, more interactive, more intelligent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is one though it is about unreleased songs and is around one twentieth the size of the Rihanna article which is about songs released. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think so. Not when there are this many songs. That's just a hinderance. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose then, "a hinderance" to whom? A sortable table which can be easily navigated using a TOC based on anchors is an advantage to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think that's quite a poor reason to oppose based on your personal preference. The idea of having them alphabetised and in separate tables is for exactly that reason. Having them sortable would completely disrupt when the first songwriter or album is wiki-linked and the order of the songs. Not to mention that editing a table that big would become a lot more difficult to navigate around. One assumes that you will also oppose other lists that follow exactly the same style. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WIAFL part 4. And see WP:REPEATLINK. For whom would "a table that big would become a lot more difficult to navigate around"? Not the reader, that's for sure. And it's not a "personal preference", it provides tangibly good, additional capabilities to our readers. And yes, I will oppose other lists of the "same style". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It passes part 4. This proves it is down to your personal preference. It is easy to navigate around; want to see who wrote Take a Bow? Just click on T. There are section headings for each letter and there are table sort facilities. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 14:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, where is the sort facility? I can't see the little up/down arrows on my screen... How do I sort all the songs that appear on Talk That Talk togther please? I don't believe I can. So my oppose stands I'm afraid. Don't forget I am just a single reviewer, others may disagree with me in which case the closing director is more than welcome to ignore my oppose. I also have to say that I haven't reviewed the rest of the list, which I will do in due course, but only if a single table is used. Still don't understand why you believe it will be more difficult to navigate...The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is TOC where you can choose which table you want. This is a list of songs, not a list of albums, if you want to see the songs from Talk That Talk, you look on the album article and look at the track-listing, don't you. Don't you think if you way was better, then other lists of this standard would be using it? Having one large table would also interfere with the pictures, as they are aligned with each table specifically. Having sortable columns would mean that pictures do not correspond to the correct letter, not to mention that pictures would not be able to be included (appropriately). Aaron • ^{You Da One} 14:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's commonplace amongst many lists to be a single sortable table with the images down the right hand side, initially sorted in alphabetical order. Most lists are this standard. Cheers. Just in case you missed them, three of the last five promoted FLs did exactly that 1, 2, 3. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Greetings. First of all let me quote this - "How do I sort all the songs that appear on Talk That Talk togther please" - If you want to know which songs are on the album, the simplest and most logical thing to do is go the album's page. All albums by Rihanna have their own album pages. Now - Most lists are this standard - Since when should all lists be by this standard? Sometimes, it is better to ignore some guidelines or rules just to facilitate reading or should I say, in this case, navigation! And how can you compare a list about tombs to a list of songs? Fellow editor Aaron is absolutely right in whatever he has been trying to explain. How many tombs does that list contain? Did you see how many songs Rihanna has? And those tombs were built were built from the fifth to sixteenth centuries. Rihanna has been recording songs since 2004 and judging from the way she works, she will not stop till 2050. If in seven years she has recorded thrice the number of songs than tombs that were built in around 1200 years, what will her list of songs look like in another seven years? Last but not the least, a list of songs has to mention the writer(s), the album(s), the year, featured artist(s), etc. The list you you gave does not even mention who built those tombs, etc. You see how these two list do not follow each other? All other list of songs recorded by XYZ follow the same format Aaron has used. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is just one featured list of this "songs" kind of list (List of unreleased Britney Spears songs) which is a single sortable list, not split alphabetically like this one. The only reason I linked the tombs list was to show an example of a single long list with anchors for navigation, I wasn't expecting you to compare tombs with songs, not the point at all. More importantly you should look at the list of Liverpool players, much larger, more relevant and, once again, a single list, not split by surname alphabetically, and one which is bound to grow way beyond the Rihanna era. Size should not prohibit this kind of thing, look at List of Premier League hat-tricks, a single sortable list which is maintained on a weekly basis. I have no idea why you and Aaron believe that excluding sortability for some unknown reason is a good idea. But as I've said before, my oppose stands, but it just one opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you listed another short list. It is absolutely normal that a list of unreleased songs will be short. This list is about released songs. In short, they are different by miles. And again, I will say this is not a list about tombs or football players. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The hat-tricks list is far from short and allows sortability, has many different columns to sort by. Why you believe that our readers wouldn't want to navigate (using a TOC) and have sortability in this list, I have no idea. Irony is, by the time you and Aaron are done arguing about this, you could have implemented it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And let me try another example or two of why sortability may be useful. How do I easily list all the songs written by Sturken? Or how do I list all the songs recorded in 2010? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list is not about the songs written by Sturken. A separate list can be created for that. If you want to know which songs were recorded in 2010, you should go to the wiki-page of the album that Rihanna released in 2010. Simple. And why should we implement something that we feel is not working well? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand what the list is about. If you think it may not be useful to find out which songs were recorded in 2010, why list the recording year at all? And why do you feel sortability and navigation using an anchor-based TOC "is not working well" on this list when it works perfectly on a number of other featured lists? I'm not pursuing this further, my position is clear. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because unlike that number of other featured lists, this list is about songs. Most importantly, Rihanna has far too many songs. It is not a sort list. Having a single table will make everything look never-ending Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Make sure the initial sorting order is maintained on the first sort, i.e. all songs which start with "A ..." currently move on the first sort.

  Doing Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Repeat links every time please, permissible in WP:REPEATLINK.

  So for example, every time The-Dream is mentioned, he should be linked? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Provide a TOC using anchors as described above.

  Doing Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• No writer info for "Straight Up Beautiful"?

  No. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  So format the blank cel consistently with other similar cells. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Make the unreleased songs table sortable as well.

  I have. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Either use brackets or parentheses for "inlay notes" etc but not a mixture.

  I can't seem to change the Mylo Xyloto one to [..] for example. They appear to be pre-coded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Hand-code the references in that case to make sure they appear consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I fixed it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Check you formatting of the various MTV news sources and make sure they're consistent. And be consistent with linking.

  Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Check publication dates, e.g. ref 1 has incorrect date.

  Fixed.

• Add publication dates where they're missing e.g. ref 11.

  Added. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Refs 27 and 28 don't mention Rihanna at all.

  They are sources for who wrote Redemption Song which credit Bob Marley as the songwriter, which she covered. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Where's the source that Rihanna covered it? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  [7] for example--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've already put that in the articles. Thanks anyway. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the † being used along with the colour for each single release.

  There's no need for it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Yes there is per WP:ACCESS. Looks like it's been done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  They are there now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• You need to make sure the list sorts in alphabetical order correctly, i.e. in the same order you initially have the list (so, for instance, if you wish to initially list "A Child is Born" as a C, it should sort as a C, not as an A which it currently does).

  I don't understand how to fix this. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  You need to use a {{sort}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand how to apply it, what should I replace with what? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  That's what sandboxes are for. Read the documentation about {{sort}} and learn how to use it. It's really very simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah but if I don't know what I'm mean't to be doing, it won't work, will it. I don't know what you want me to do with it. That page doesn't explain what it is or how to use and neither have you. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  I have explained about three times, as have others but never mind. You want "A Child Is Born" to sort by C rather than A, so you use the template {{sort|Child Is Born|A Child Is Born}}. It will sort by the first parameter and display the second parameter. Oh, and on "A Child Is Born", the article you link to talks mainly about a drama, and doesn't even mention the Rihanna song. Would consider making it link to a more appropriate article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No one has actually said that and written an example. It makes things so much easier and less hassle. I have done it and have unlinked it too. Done the same for The Last Song and The Last Time. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  The template instructions couldn't be any clearer. There are other examples you need to fix as well, e.g. A Girl Like Me. Check all. And also please check the quote marks around S.O.S and Take A Bow as they don't sort properly either. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Some but not all of your image captions have (pictured). I don't think this is necessary when there's only one subject in the image.

  Yeah there is. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  No, there's no necessity to say "pictured" when there's just one person pictured and you're only talking about one person in the caption. And if you believe there really is, then you should do it for all images, not just some of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Only ones with certain people mentioned now say pictured. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Chris Brown needs to have it removed, for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Ref 23 looks odd.

  Fixed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• So does ref 10.

  Fixed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Ref 4 is just a Wikipedia mirror so shouldn't be used.

  ? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Ref 4 is a BBC page which is a copy of a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a reliable source so you can't use ref 4 because it is a "mirror" of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. I replaced it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I can't really see how you can say "intended album" for, say, "Goodbye", the reference doesn't explicitly state that.

  The source talks about it in relation to not making Rated R and how it is reminiscent of Good Girl Gone Bad. Look at the date, it's Feb 2010, Rated R was recording from Feb 2009-Aug 2009, so it was clearly intended for that album. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  No, that's your intepretation of the details you've given there, who's to say she wasn't writing a completely different album in secret? You mustn't use original research in your articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No I know it was for Rated R, but I've put n/a anyway. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Well find a reliable source that explicitly states it and you can include it. I don't count you as a reliable source. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "I've put n/a anyway" Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I don't see the point in linking Chris Ivery since the article redirects and says nothing about him other than he married an actress from Gray's Anatomy.

  Unlinked. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Our article calls him Scott La Rock (not LaRock).

  Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• J.R. Rotem -> J. R. Rotem.

  Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Otherwise looking better. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 33 is now erroneous, and ref 19 doesn't have a publication year. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  19 is fixed, but I don't see what is wrong with 33? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ref 33 now appear fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Should this Brown/Rihanna collaboration be included now it's been released? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Turn Up the Music? Only if there are sources for who wrote the original as well as Rihanna's part. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, there's clear evidence here from a reliable third party source that Rihanna has recorded another song which isn't in your list, hence your list is incomplete and should be tagged as such unless you include it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Turn Up the Music... Rihanna features on it. It can be included on the list but only the songwriting credits for the original version of the song can be included, as we don't know who wrote Rihanna's part on the remix. See what I am saying? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really. You can include it with "not known" if appropriate. Incomplete lists should be tagged with {{incomplete list}} The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  His album hasn't been released yet so there are no songwriting credits, that box is marked as n/a. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

It looks worse, but whatever. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 20:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've changed the table would mind addressing my other points as well? Also i suggest looking at the tombs list to see how you can use anchors to allow readers to navigate by letter, seeing as this was one of you concerns. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I will. I do have a life outside of Wikipedia. I don't spend every waking moment on here! Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin, co-operating with reviewers makes the difference from an oppose to a support. Everyone has a "real life", just remember that. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this list of tombs? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you need to calm down, I'm trying to help I know you have a real life, but as you had changed the table I assumed you would have done the other comments as well, no need to get aggressive. The tombs list is mentioned on this page, in TRM's initial comment. NapHit (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how that has been done at all. Looks confusing to me. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy the coding and use Trial and error, have a go in a sandbox. That's what I do when I'm unsure of how to do something. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure about the "N/A". How can a song not have writers? That's what N/A means. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not that there weren't any, it's that they are unknown... Aaron • ^{You Da One} 20:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well "N/A" means not applicable. So, the song has no writers. You can use a dash and in the legend, say what the dash denotes. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that the issue of the opening sentence has already been discussed above, but I think that it could still stand to be a little tighter. I think it can be generally assumed that a reader who clicks onto this list will have an understanding of who Rihanna is, so there's no need to so explicitly state "Rihanna is a Barbadian recording artist". I feel that "Barbadian recording artist Rihanna has recorded material for her etc. etc." would flow better.
• "whom she had previously collaborated with" -> "with whom she had previously collaborated"
• "Some" is a vague qualifier of size, and should probably be removed.
• For "If I Never See Your Face Again", I think Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded needs to be listed before It Won't Be Soon Before Long, so that it sorts alongside tracks from the same album.
• Any reason why Rated R is not wikilinked in the "Rude Boy" and "Russian Roulette" rows?
• In the caption of the Britney Spears image, should "is featuring" not be "features"?
• Also in the Britney caption, S&M needs to be in quotation marks.
• From what I can discern from its Wikipedia article and a brief amount of Googling, the soundtrack album to Confessions of a Shopoholic wasn't actually called Confessions of a Shopoholic Soundtrack - it was simply called Confessions of a Shopoholic.