Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Deftones discography

Comment Looks really good! I'm glad to see someone finally looked at other FL discogs before nominating. I do have a few minor comments/suggestions though:

• I never thought I'd say this, but I think the lead is too long. The main problem being that I think it goes into too much detail about each release.
  • I've cut out a huge chunk on the band's formation (ashmedly, it was lifted straight from the Deftones article itself) and removed some cruft.
• There is a bit of over-linking. For instance, Maverick Records is linked every time it's mentioned: you should only link it the first time it's mentioned.
  • I've taken out some extraneous wikilinks. I think it's a dangerous proposition to go delinking too much in a discography, as it intended to be a repository of information, as opposed to a stream of prose read consecutively. A reader might wish to dip in halfway through the article, and find the entry not linked.
• The U.S Sales column is a little problematic. Mainly since RIAA certifications doesn't not necessarily equate to sales. The RIAA numbers are based on how many units get shipped, not sold. So using that as a reference for the column doesn't really work.
  • I actually did this a while ago, but Phorque reassured me it was OK. For now, anything unknown is just blank.
• The certification column is also a little wierd. Since they're all US certifications, it might be better to rename and relink the name of the column to RIAA certifications, and then take out the redundant (US) after each certification.
  • Very true, done and dusted.
• It might be helpful to put a pound sign in with the catalog number, since otherwise it's just an indiscriminate set of numbers.
  • Done.
• Since none of their EPs charted, were certified, or have sales data, there's no reason to have those columns.
  • Done.
• Also, the note about the success of Back to School's single is good, but you may want to put it before the table rather than after. Same thing with the notes in the Live versions table and the Music videos table.
  • Yup yup.
• All the tables after the singles section are a little weird: why is the legend contained in the box? Also, why is the font small?
  • I was just trying to keep things small, tidy and sexy. But seeing as it looks odd, I've changed it.
• The Music video table is great (I never thought to put the edit length in there), but the column order is a little weird. Logically, I would recommend putting the album column last (or maybe before the notes section), since it is a table about the video for the song specifically, and the album it came from is kind of the least important part of the table, having the least to do with the music video itself.
  • I've done this too. It was an idea I was toying with a while back, but couldn't decide on.
• A few external links would be great. Maybe to discogs or to the band's official website.
  • This is straight up something I'd forgotten to do. I've done it in other discographies I've worked on, so it was silly not to. Done.

I know that's alot of suggestions, but everything seems fairly minor, I hope. Drewcifer (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thankyou very much for your input; it was all valid, constructive and pertinent. Seegoon (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking very good. There's just two more minor things I notice:

• What I meant by "External links" is that you should add an external links section, but not as general references, as they are now. Mainly because discogs and music brainz are not considered reliable sources. So putting them in an "External link" section gives the reader an opportunity to learn more, but doesn't propose that the information in the article is from those (unreliable) sources.
  • I've done this; I see your point.
• Also, the small font in the notes section still kind of bothers me. Drewcifer (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The issue here is that if you make the notes full size, then they end up dominating the table, making entries that might only be two lines three, and so forth. It just looks a tad cumbersome. If it prevents you from supporting, however, I'll change it without any real qualms.
    • This is a pretty minor complaint. I'll let you be the judge on this one. Drewcifer (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, and mvdbase isn't considered a reliable source. That column doesn't really need citation anyways. Drewcifer (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I've removed it for now, but do you think it would be worth keeping as an external link?

Again, thankyou for all your input. Seegoon (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)