Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Supergrass discography/archive2

Add links
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 not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 21:11, 15 June 2008 [1].

Supergrass discography[edit]

previous FLC (04:49, 30 May 2008)

I am resubmitting this discography because I believe it is now up to FL criteria. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks pretty good. I only have a few concerns/suggestions
Oppose, for now. Due to the below issues remaining unresolved. Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the sales figures don't appear to be cited.
  • Why do some of the releases have catalog numbers but some don't?
  • Most of the releases now have catalogue numbers. Only the live album, EPs, Soundtrack appearances and the 2 early singles from Supergrass haven't got catalogue numbers. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that because they don't actually have them, or because you couldn't find them? Drewcifer (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
  • There shouldn't be a space between something and its citation (BPI certifications column)  Done --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Album column in the singles table can merge similar cells. Though I would leave the first two as separate cells.  Done --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like what you did for the years in the singles column. Where similar cells in a row are combined using rowspan="x". I'm saying you should do the same for the albums of the singles. Drewcifer (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What cat numbers there are aren't consistent: same say "PCS #1234" some just say "#1234". I'd go with the PCS.
  • There's no need for the sub-header in the Compilation albums table.
  • Do all the EP's titles really say "- EP"?
  • iTunes append "- EP" to the title of any release with fewer than a certain amount of tracks. Even some singles, usually the ones with more than one or two tracks them, have "- EP" after them even though they probably shouldn't. — Balthazar (T|C) 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still alot of American-style dates.
Looking better, but the commas shouldn't be there. Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does one entry all of a sudden have an EAN number? Why is that even needed?
  • It's supposed to be some sort of reference because I couldn't find one for that soundtrack. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it makes the others inconsistent. So I'd say remove it. Howabout this as a reference? Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stuff like release dates and labels aren't necessary for singles.
  • I'm still not sure about that but if it will make this discography a featured list then I shall remove this info. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Information taken from iTunes Store UK ." in the EPs table is not the proper way to cite something. Try and do it via an in-line citation or a general reference.
  • Similar columns between tables should be a kept a consistent width whenever possible. Drewcifer (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made them consistent width earlier but someone changed it back. So I'm not sure what's right... --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at indopug's diff, and he was right in making the edits: alot of the added code was redundant. Rowspan=1 and align=left, for instance is unnecessary. So, I'd recommend adding the width="xx" again to the column headers (and only the column headers), and possibly align="center" to each of the year cells. Drewcifer (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
align="center" to each of the year cells is redundant too, since the width of "Year" and "2000" is the same. So the year column is always a tight fit. If you see year columns too wide its because there is an erroneous width somewhere stretching the table; since the other column widths are defined, the Year column is stretched. indopug (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, 2000 is probably the wides possible date. But what about 1991? Are the ones actually thinner? (I actually don't know). If they are, then numbers such as 1991 wouldn't be in the center. Albeit by a minor amount, but still. Drewcifer (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "500,000 + (UK)" – What's the + for? "More than 500,000?" Just put 500,000 since that would be the maximum that has been verified; this goes for all of them.
  • Remove extra spaces before references in "Dead Man On Campus OST [22]" and "Chicago Cab OST [23]"

Gary King (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose My reasons below:

  • Remove sales figures, these are uncited.
  • Singles table does not need all the details, just the name
  • Soundtrack appearances are not necessary unless the song did not feature on a Supergrass album/single/release etc.
  • Music videos need cites
  • EANs are not suitable. Find a catalog number.
  • Your assertion that each Supergrass EPs all have the "- EP" suffix is not supported by Allmusic
  • What does "Supergrass presents Diamond Hoo Ha Men" mean?

That's all. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:09, 6 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Supergrass_discography/archive2&oldid=1138489049"