Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Libertines discography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 promoted 17:40, 21 May 2008.
[edit] The Libertines discography
Discography of a short-lived, but glorious, indie rock band. Finally got down to writing the lead after months of procrastination. Anyway its complete, fully referenced, and concerns should be addressed quickly. Thanks, indopug (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Noble Story
Comments
- Instead of saying "Label" and so on, maybe you could change to Record Company? Label doesn't seem very clear. Also, what do the numbers after the company mean?
-
- This is pretty much standard for discography articles. Those in brackets are catalogue numbers.
- Gold and Platinum. What do they mean? A key, maybe?
-
- Click on UK certifications (the column header), there is a key in that article.
- Your little note at the bottom of the table "—" indicates albums that did not chart." "Chart" is definitely not a verb. Change it.
-
- Chart definitely can be used as a verb. For eg: X was Y's highest-charting single. or The navigator charted a course for the north.
- Maybe you could wikilink "Maxi CD"?
- Support Looks good enough to me now. Noble Story (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Looks very nice! One last minor suggestion: similar columns should be kept a consistent width among similar tables. For instance the Details columns of Albums, EPs, and maybe Videos should be the same width. Drewcifer (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's odd, they are already of the same size. Thanks for the support! indopug (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
Comments Looks pretty good. I only have a few comments:
- Re-release dates aren't necessary here: we're only concerned with the initial release, not any number of reprits or re-releases.
- "Format" should be "Formats" where there's more then one.
- "Peak positions" should be "Peak chart positions".
- Do Boys in the Band and The Libertines really have the same catalog number?
-
- Yeah, BITB was part of The Libs reissue.
- The US Heat column in the Albums table is uncited.
-
- Its the same as for US. If i duplicate the refs, the row becomes unnecessarily bigger (vertically) because US Heat already takes another line.
- The chart columns should be in the following order: country of origin (UK), then alphabetical by English-language country name.
Just a little comment:
- The album titles should not be in bold. It goes against MOS:BOLD (see discussion WT:MUSTARD#Album bolding).
-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Support - Added another chart ;) Also reorganized US. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've moved US back to the second position because it is a very important territory for English language bands, and most people only want to check US and UK chart positions anyway. indopug (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP:CHARTS says home country first, then all other alphabetically. It's not for us to judge which markets are more important, and could be seen as POV. I strongly suggest changing it. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, WP:Chart seems to talk specifically about the way to format tables in song/album articles (notice the style of table)so it doesn't apply to discographies at all, IMO. Also, asserting that for an English language band, the most important territories are the US and UK, in terms of sales, marketing, promotion, popularity and touring is not POV. An important indicator of an album/single's success, esp. for a British band, is success in the US. Brit bands that were mega-selling (Oasis, U2, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones), have all necessarily been quite big in the US too. In other words, success in the US is almost a definitive indicator of how "big" and popular the band is, making its charts a much more important statistic than, say, Finland. indopug (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I definitely understand your points, I guess I just don't agree with them. That said, I do agree with you in that WP:CHART (at least as it's currently formatted) might not apply to discogs. So, for the sake of this and other current FLCs, I'll let the complaint go, and see what I can accomplish at WP:CHART as far as making it compliant and/or applicable to discogs. Drewcifer (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, WP:Chart seems to talk specifically about the way to format tables in song/album articles (notice the style of table)so it doesn't apply to discographies at all, IMO. Also, asserting that for an English language band, the most important territories are the US and UK, in terms of sales, marketing, promotion, popularity and touring is not POV. An important indicator of an album/single's success, esp. for a British band, is success in the US. Brit bands that were mega-selling (Oasis, U2, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones), have all necessarily been quite big in the US too. In other words, success in the US is almost a definitive indicator of how "big" and popular the band is, making its charts a much more important statistic than, say, Finland. indopug (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP:CHARTS says home country first, then all other alphabetically. It's not for us to judge which markets are more important, and could be seen as POV. I strongly suggest changing it. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
