Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Janet Jackson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hey People!!!

OK, guys and gals, its here! Our first objectives are to recruit other editers and to tag all articles related to Janet. If you know anyone who might be interested send them that message I sent all of you. Really they should have an interest in Janet or Music in general. If you can think of any other Wikiprojects worth informing tell them too.

Secondly we must tag all articles relating to Janet. Albums, singles, tours, dvds, family members, sub articles (eg these), superbowl incident etc etc. If your not sure that an article should be in the project, dont tag it, instead bring it here for consensus.

To tag articles go to their talk page and copy this {{WikiProject Janet Jackson|class= |importance= }} onto it. You should try to fill in the class details and importance details too if possible (ive left some guidelines to help further down). Here is an example of me adding it to the Michael Jackson article seen here. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Class and importance details

The Class be it FA, FL, GA, B, Stub etc is easy to find out, its written clearly on the relevant talk page.

The Importance detail is up to us, the Janet community. I would suggest, but we can debate this freely that the importance detail be as follows.

Ok, this is all I can think of, lets get a consensus on everthings importance before we go tagging, cheers. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add the template to the front of the page? That way users will know how to tag an article without having to go to the discussion page. Most WikiProjects have the "how to template information" on the front page and an example. K.H (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ive directed everyone to the talk page, i didnt want people running of tagging things until we had a consensus on article importance, we can add it to the front later when we have a general idea. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I think these guidelines are appropriate (mostly because I've already added these to several articles and would appreciate if I didn't have to revert my own work), although the Super bowl incident should be of high importance to the project as it was a major controversy. K.H (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If everyone else agrees to these youll be fine, its not to big an issue, it only involves changing a few letters.— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 03:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I would like us to work on Janet's 10 #1 U.S. hits and bring them up to GA starting with "All for You" and working backwards. It's listed here that lead singles are more important than the other singles, but I would say "Together Again" is more important than "Got Til It's Gone" and "Again" is more important than "Just A Little While" etc. That's just my opinion. Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Generally the lead single is the biggest but Janet seems to be an exception lol. What if we call it "All US Hot #1's and Lead singles". --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 05:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry I went and tagged all the albums already, but I agree with the format Realist2 laid out. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What needs tagging & List stats

OK everthing is tagged and added to the Stats list with the exception of some singles. Ive done her 10 #1 singles and her lead singles. We still need to do all the secondary singles (which you should label as "Mid") and update them onto the stats list. Please fill up the stat section when you tag these remaining articles tagging, seen here --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 06:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Greatest Female Artist Of All Time?

"Janet, the Queen of R&B, is often regarded as one of the greatest and most influential solo female artist of all time." Doesn't this sound a bit biased to you guys. I don't know how article rules differ from project rules but "greatest" seems a bit too opinionated for a neutral encyclopedia. K.H (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, on projects your allowed to say whatever you like as long as its civil and doesnt breach BLP. Lol, i asked the same question last year dont worry. ;-) --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You're more freer to say what you say on a "project" then post it on the person's article, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MJ

Why is Michael jackson a part of this wikiproject? I know he collaborated with her, but its still kinda redundant since he has his own WP (run by pretty much the same people). Same goes for JJ being a part of his WP. indopug (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Janet was always a part of his project so he is a member of hers. All family members will be in both. At the moment theres only 3 people that are members of both camps so there definately not run by the same people, at least not yet anyway. Furthermore we're not treating him specially, his importance stat is "Low", the same as an average JJ single. He wont be getting undue attention. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 08:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Its somewhat unavoidable. Yes, they are independent artists, but the fact remains they are siblings and have had a great deal of influence on each other in a number of different ways. Janet credits Michael as her primary musical influence and their collaboration on her first album and the song scream warrants them as associated acts of each other. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems very redundant; are you also listing all MJ songs and albums with the JJ WP (and vice versa)? indopug (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh hell no, just the main article on each project. With the exception of "Scream" obviously. Its harmless at most. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 09:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not merge them both into a Jacksons WikiProject? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, already suggested, went down like a lead ballon. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 09:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No. They share two articles; scream and each others respective personal biography. That is it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggested it mainly because many of the same editors are working on projects devoted to Jackson siblings, so why not pool resources and cover the scope of the entire family as well? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
We understand, but most editors (including myself) associated with the two current projects are only interested in one sibling or the other. There are only three editors who are actively contributing to both. If a Jackson family project were created, the rest of the family would be most likely be ignored. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Family issue

OK I checked the MJ wikiproject and Janet was the only brother or sister in it. He has...

Therefore I suggest we only have the following at ProjectJJ;

So is this ok? Makes our job easier. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 16:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • comment: I never realized before that the Jackson 5 was listed as an associated at. They arent. She's never collaborated with all five siblings, only Michael. That one should be removed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Associated acts are not a list of people an artist has collaborated with but the different bands s/he has been in. So for Janet, it should be empty. indopug (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Singles Importance

OK at the moment her 10 #1 singles and lead singles are all labelled "High". All her other singles are labelled "Low". Some of these "Low" singles should probably be moved up to the "Mid" section so I would like suggestions for that here please. To help, here is a list of almost all our article with their stat details. Cheers. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 05:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything to peak within the Top Five should be bumped up to Mid. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, will do. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
DONE. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 16:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UWC

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart - Incase you use this as a source in any of your articles, dont, it will only have to be removed at GA/FA. The source should no longer be used in any Janet Jackson article. I would actively remove it from any article you see providing this link, cheers. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thriller/Single

I just remembered that Janet did backing vocals on a songs from the Thriller album. Should the album/song or both be added to the JJ wikiproject perhaps? The song was P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing). Thoughts? — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's so minor, I wouldn't add the song or the album to the list, but that's just my thoughts... Thankyoubaby (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)