Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tenacious D discography

*Oppose for now. There is alot of stuff that is not needed.

• • No need for the finland chart; nothing charted there.
  • You don't need any of the chart positions or certifications for the EP.
  • SWI, FIN, AUT, SWI, and NOR are all un-needed for the singles.
  • Nither is the US cert part.
  • The countrys should only be wlinked on the studio albums.
  • No need for the bsides section, there is only one and it is already on an album.
  • The music videos chart needs a emake. Look at Slayer discography, Godsmack discography, and Alice in Chains discography for examples.
  • Again, US peak and cert are un-needed for the videos chart.
  • The dates of Internet Archive albums should be wlinked and the downloads should be sourced or removed.
  • Unreleased songs aren't very notable.
  • When it says ""—" denotes releases that did not chart.", can you stlye it along the lines of Depeche Mode discography and Slayer discography?

Once all of that is taken care of I'll support. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with everything. I hope I addressed the music videos, I checked those links. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've got more.
  • The B-sides are really un-needed.
  • In the Internet Archives thing. In stead of [[1999]]-[[01-21]] can you maby format it like this [[1999-01-21]]?
  • The second and third paragraphs of the lead can be merged together.
  • No need for the label column in the music videos. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the B-sides, several FA discogs have this included (Alice in Chains discography, Godsmack discography and Depeche Mode discography. Are you sure this needs removal? Fixed music videos. I accept your point on the formatting of the dates, but this will cause a lot redlinkage. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is one b-side, it doesn't need an entire section. Save it in a section on the talk page in case someone else who reviews this wants it back. The date formating won't red link. Here is an example: 1999-01-21 That is in the format I suggested. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Burningclean. All done. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

*Comments

• • Avoid links in the bold lead, per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  • 2006-2007 should use en-dash to separate.
  • UK or U.K. but be consistent.
  • Be consistent with date linking - you fully link September 25, 2001 but partially link November 22, 2006. Why?
  • Separate download numbers with commas per thousand.
  • Date in the download table doesn't sort correctly - use {{dts2}} for this.
• So oppose at the moment until those are sorted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• All sorted out. Thanks for taking the time. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comments okay, getting there - ref [3] needs to use the Cite web template, not be just a raw URL, and then I think we're there... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose Lots of good stuff here, but overall the list is a bit messy and inconsistent with MOS, established discography style, and even itself. A few examples:

• Some of the headers are centered, some aren't. Most discogs center them all.
• Why are all the table headers colored/formatted/sized differently?
• Some of the in-header references are on seperate lines as the header title, some are on the same line (GER in the first table is on a different line, while the others aren't). Most discographies put the source on a seperate line whenever possible.
• In the first tables Cert. columns, the first three are named by the country, while the fourth is named by the certification association. Most discogs label the column by country, but wikilink to the certifying association wherever possible.
• "—" denotes albums that were released but did not chart, or albums not released in a particular territory. is an unnecessarily long legend. "—" denotes releases that did not chart. Is usually used, since it is broad enough to cover all the bases while being as clear as possible. Also certifications columns are typically left blank for releases that didn't certify.
• It would be good to have some letters before the cat numbers, to make them clearer. I'm not sure what Epic of BMG usually use, but I'd assume it would be something like EP or BMG. But you might want to check on that.
• The music video titles should be in quotations, not italicized.
• It's unneccessary to half two sub-headers for the certifications column of the videos table, since there's only one row.
• The in-line citations need some cleanup. A few don't give proper attribution (such as the IGN) source. The publisher values should be wikilinked if possible (but only the first time it's used) and abbreviations should be avoided unless the source is known chiefly by that aconym. The AMG source is an example of both of these.
• Many of the columns are of varying widths. Similar columns within the same table could be made similar sizes, as well as similar columns between seperate columns. For example it would be nice to see that "Album details" columns in the first two tables similar widths, and all of the chart columns made to conform to each other as well.
• The "Date of Release" column of Films is inconcistent with the other tables.
• Why is 2006 wikilinked in the Films table?
• The tributes table doesn't really have any place in the article, since it's another band doing the tributing.
• The certification column in Videos has a bullet point, whereas the others don't. I would also recommend renaming the title header to something like "ARIA certifications", then just putting platinum in the other box, for the sake of consistency between tables.
• ""—" denotes singles that were released but did not chart." and the same thing in the album table is a little redundant. If it was a single then of course it was released. I'd still recommend ""—" denotes releases that did not chart." Much simpler, less redundant.
• Even though it's currently unreleased, I would recommend putting the D Tour video in the Videos table.

I'll stop there to avoid piling it on. A good list so far, but I think it needs some more work. Drewcifer (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I have tried to remedy as many of the problems you brought up. RE: The cat system. Epic and Sony don't really use the cat system of having <RECORD LABEL ABBREV> <CAT NUMBER>, its more just a number. Have I correctly carried out what you suggested with the video certification? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work so far. I've put the things you've taken care of in the hide box, but a few still remain unresolved. I've also added a few more to the list. Drewcifer (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Had another go at your list. Hope this works. I went back through all the cites and improved on them. Are there any particular ones which are still needing something? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking better and better all the time! I went ahead and cleaned up the citations myself. Let me know if you disagree with any of my edits. The last thing I'd like to see fixed/changed is the Date column of the Internet Archive albums table. I don't really see any point in giving the exact date of release, so I'd recommend turning into a year column, just like every other table. Drewcifer (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You make a valid point RE: the dates. Perhaps I have made it a bit unclear. The dates refer to the actual performance date (date of concert). I have attempted to make this clearer by changing the column header from just "Date" to "Date recorded". Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)