Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Carpenters discography/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted 06:07, 7 February 2008.

[edit] The Carpenters discography

I have been editing this list since yesterday, and I'm edited it so much to make it resemble a featured list. I will add more citations, and, hopefully, it will become featured! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Fair-use images in a discography is a major no-no. Also there's alot of unsourced stuff (chart positions, sales, etc). Drewcifer (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Update on my Strong Oppose: As detailed below, I still have strong reservations with the list. Namely, some of my suggestions have been taken into account, but only in part of the list: so now the list isn't consistent with itself. Unfortuantely, I have been unable as of late to help Cuyler to the extent I did earlier, and it appears he is also unable to work on the article for the near future. Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed all of the fair-use images. If I added more citations, would you change your stance? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 04:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking much better! Now that that's taken care of, here's my more nitpicky suggestions:

• My main suggestion is to take a look at some other FL discographies, to see how tables are formatted, chart positions cited, etc. Nine Inch Nails discography is good, but there's plenty of other good ones too.
• As far as format/style goes, I think the tables in general could be squished a little better, so that they take alot less space vertically. What I mean is that, if you go by other FL discogs table formats, you could probably make each release take up maybe 3 lines, rather than 6. If you want me to be more specific let me know.

I tried to do this. What do you think now? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 17:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't see a difference at all. At the risk of sounding like I'm piling it on, here's a few tips to get you started: remove the width properties form the charts columns. Provide a reference for each chart column, in the same cell as the country abbreviation so that it covers the whole column. You can do the same with the reference for the certifications, instead of having the same citation in each row. Rearrage the general info to the following columns: Year (which just says 1988, or whatever it happens to be), Titl(which include the title, full release date, label, and formats), chart positions, certifications. Remove the "Carpenter's # album" as it's pretty obvious what the 1st, 2nd, 3rd is etc. Doing that should help alot. It's not required that you do things exactly like that, but that's just my suggestions to make things work a little better. Again, take a look at Nine Inch Nails discography as a good example. Drewcifer (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me? This is in fact the first list I've created. :( — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Take a look at my sandbox. That's how I would suggest doing it. Not necessarily the only way to skin a cat, but it's how I like to format them, and takes care of some existing issues with the list. Do you think it's better? Drewcifer (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, definitely! Do you change your opinion on strongly opposing it now? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 18:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've still got a ways to go, I think. That one section is looking good, but I was thinking the whole article should be formatted like that, obviously taking into account the different sections and what they would require. Would you like me to do that too, or do you think you can handle it? Either way let me know how I can help. Drewcifer (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could do it (I have finals coming up). 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately I myself am busy pretty much all day for the foreseeable future. If it really seems undoable at the moment, you can always renominate the article at another time. Drewcifer (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But I don't want to nominate it another time. You surely must feel better about it now. It looks much better than before. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 18:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the change to "and videography" was really neccessary. I mean, I know those video things are videos technically, but really all they are just recorded concerts, right? I'd say it still fits within the scope of a discography. That, and most other discogs with video/DVD stuff have tended to stick with just "discography."

Alright, umm... How can I move it back? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Same way you moved it in the first place, I think. Drewcifer (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 17:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Double platinum doesn't necessarily denote 2 million units sold, so you would need a source for the sales as well. Are these RIAA certifications? Please specify that.

Y Done. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Having the pound sign in front of the chart numbers is a little redundant.

Y Done. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why does Ticket to Ride have 2 UK chart dates? Might want to make a note of that. And it's also not necessary to specify what year the album charted in the US.

Y Ticket to Ride was a weird one, because it didn't immediately chart. It wasn't until they became more popular that people started buying their records, so it only sold two to six years after its primary release. I'll take care of that. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• You don't need to have the dash in the certifications column. Just leave them blank.

Y Oh, okay then. Finished. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• The track listings in the video section should go: leave that info to the main articles.

Y Done. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Avoid the external link in the text of the Video intro. Drewcifer (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Got rid of it. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments about the lead section - The lead (introductory) section needs work. Here are a few quick comments about some of the issues I see:

• If I didn't already know who the Carpenters were, the lead sentence would not help me much: "The discography of the American group Carpenters..." Can you insert an adjective between "American" and "group"? (And is "group" the right noun for a duo?) I'd be inclined to call them something like "pop vocal duo".

Technically, they're not a duo. The popular members of Carpenters were Richard and Karen, but they weren't the only people in the band, so it would be unfair to say that they are only a duo. There were many other musicians as well. I understand the confusion, though, as many people only think that Karen is Carpenters. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 04:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Later, the lead section says "This list also includes the Carpenters' videography as well." Notwithstanding the redundancy of "also" and "as well," I wonder if the article should be retitled "The Carpenters discography and videography". (How is this handled in other Wikipedia discographies?)

Alright. I guess I'll move it. Sorry about that; I can be redundant at times. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 04:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• The next sentence after that says "Their monstruous musical career spawned Carpenters hit album after album." Should "monstruous" be re-spelled "monstrous", or is some other word intended? If "monstrous" was intended, does this mean that the Carpenters were monsters? (My point is that an encyclopedia article needs to follow higher standards of word usage than a fan site would... I also object to the verb "spawned" and informal language "album after album.")

Y Fixed "monstruous". Sorry about that. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what? I removed the two sentences. They weren't needed. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the intro section includes a statement about "their posthumous two-disc compilation," which implies that both members of the group had died. Isn't Richard still alive? --Orlady (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Richard is alive. I knew I shouldn't have described it like that. Let me take care of it. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, the new wording "Karen's first posthumous two-disc compilation" suggests that this was a solo album by Karen... --Orlady (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, hard to word, isn't it? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Pretty well written, I'd say that it is a FA. Editorofthewiki (talk) 21:00, 2 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.