Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Foo Fighters discography/archive2
- 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 by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [1].
Foo Fighters discography[edit]
previous FLC (16:14, 8 May 2008)
Self-nom. Left it a bit late to fix some errors in intro, but I believe all issues have been addressed. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice list! Great work. Drewcifer (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I supported last time, and I'd be happy to again, but there's a few things I noticed this time around. First, some of the chart columns have multiple citations in the header, so they're really big. I presume that's because no single source mentions the various. For the US Net and CAN column, this link should work for everything. As for the UWC column, it might be better to put the citations in the individual cells rather than the column header. Same thing goes for UWC column in the Singles table. I would also say that in the certifications columns, use abbreviations rather then spell out country names like Australia and Ireland. The Other appearances table is also a little problematic. Per MOS:DISCOG (which, granted is still a proposal at this time, so it's not set in stone by any means), a table like this should only include previousaly unreleased material, and should exclude inclusions in compilations and soundtracks and stuff that previously appear on other official releases. Version of pre-existing material (like the live versions in the table) are cool, but "My Hero" (for instance) was original released on the The Colour and the Shape, not the Varsity Blues soundtrack. That make sense? Also, Allmusic should be wikilinked in citation #3. In the lead, UK and US should be spelled out the first time mentioned. Hope this helped. Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking good so far. In the certifications column, if you're going to define each certificatio by certifying body (as opposed to country), wikilink the acronyms the first time they are used.
- All done. I've done it by country name. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing I noticed: the UWC columns are uncited. Drewcifer (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are so many charts needed? They really make the screen look clustered, and many charts aren't that important nor has the band charted much on them. I'd say get rid of a few. Albums: Mexico, Italy, Portugal. Singles: US adult, US dig, Can dig, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Austria. For music directors, combine adjacent entries with same director using rowspan. Make Singles, Music videos, Other apps column width the same. Roswell isn't linked in the tables. indopug (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't this meant to be a comprehensive discography? Surely its a bit NPOV to remove certain charts? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Think of it this way, if you had easy online access to each and every country this band charted, you would then have about one hundred to include into this article. Would you then still consider not including some of the countries where the band did not chart significantly POV? By "comprehensive" we mean that each and every release is included, not necessarily each and every chart. indopug (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I take your point. My last comment was a bit naive. Which charts should I remove? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already listed them above. Also, I think UK should be next to US because for English rock bands, US and UK are the two most important territories in terms of sales, marketing, promotion etc. Lastly, in the certifications change RIAA to US and so on (but link it to RIAA) because many people wont know the different certifiers (I myself have no clue what IRMA is). indopug (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay will do. I'm not sure about shifting the countries around. Again, I actually agree, it would be knuckleheaded of me to say that US/UK aren't the most important. But then surely all the charts should be listed in this kind of order, and not only English ones. This is something that needs to be discussed more centrally. If a precedent is reached through consensus and reasoned debate, I will implement the edits, but right now it has not been. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if Top internet albums can go too, I haven't seen it used in any other discography. And your method of citing the BPI certifications is wrong; click on the links I provided for each BPI certification reference at The Libertines discography. Like this, so the reader doesn't have to search. indopug (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find re: the BPI stuff. I'll get that done. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorted BPI stuff. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if Top internet albums can go too, I haven't seen it used in any other discography. And your method of citing the BPI certifications is wrong; click on the links I provided for each BPI certification reference at The Libertines discography. Like this, so the reader doesn't have to search. indopug (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay will do. I'm not sure about shifting the countries around. Again, I actually agree, it would be knuckleheaded of me to say that US/UK aren't the most important. But then surely all the charts should be listed in this kind of order, and not only English ones. This is something that needs to be discussed more centrally. If a precedent is reached through consensus and reasoned debate, I will implement the edits, but right now it has not been. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already listed them above. Also, I think UK should be next to US because for English rock bands, US and UK are the two most important territories in terms of sales, marketing, promotion etc. Lastly, in the certifications change RIAA to US and so on (but link it to RIAA) because many people wont know the different certifiers (I myself have no clue what IRMA is). indopug (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I take your point. My last comment was a bit naive. Which charts should I remove? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Think of it this way, if you had easy online access to each and every country this band charted, you would then have about one hundred to include into this article. Would you then still consider not including some of the countries where the band did not chart significantly POV? By "comprehensive" we mean that each and every release is included, not necessarily each and every chart. indopug (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "As of 2008, the band consists of Grohl on (vocals and guitar), Taylor Hawkins (drums), Nate Mendel (bass) and Chris Shiflett (guitar)." Either remove the "on", or remove the parentheses.
- The large number of charts has pushed the albums and singles table off the edge of my screen (and it's no itty-bitty one either). As with indopug, I'd remove those with less than three charted releases.
- Is there any chart info for the EPs? If they didn't chart, say so otherwise it looks like missing information
- Most other singles on FL discogs give the album from which it is taken from. I think this should do the same
- Where has the information about music video directors come from?
That's all I got -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestions. Now I have some consensus on the singles charts, I'll start to remove the more redundant ones. Albums are shown in the singles table! Music videos are a self-referential thing, this was discussed - and I think a consensus reached - in the last FL nom. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, that's because the table went off the right side of my screen and I didn't bother to scroll! I'd still like to see them referenced.
- MTV in the US credits directors, but MTV UK doesn't. It's not like WP:PLOT, which allows plots to be self-referencable. The credits are put there by the network, not the producers/band, and if you're not watching that network, the info is not given. I'm sure at least some can be referenced from the internet. Do any of the directors have their own websites? -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done everything apart from music video directors. Will do. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cited, Everything done. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There are an obscene number of US charts in the Singles section. I think component charts like the US Airplay cannot be included along with the Hot 100 anyway, and I think the Adult and Digital charts can go too. For one, I haven't seen them anywhere else. The Pop 100 doesn't have any really notable hits either so I wouldn't cringe to see it go either. It looks silly having seven charts just dedicated to the US. The Hot 100, Main and Mod Rock charts are what are used to mainly to track rock bands anyway. Reducing the number of American charts would leave about 12-13 charts, giving a more pleasant appearance to the whole table and also reduces the overwhelming feel it has. indopug (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm I feel this is a bit of a contradiction to what you said at the Supergrass FLC. Perhaps this needs discussing more at Wikipedia talk:CHART and MOS:DISCOG's talk pages. I'd definitely insist on the removal of US Airplay, Pop, Adult and Digital. Modern Rock and Mainstream could also go for me. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed charts, kept two per Indopug and RHCP and Nirvana discog Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great. Wonderful work. indopug (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.