Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Theory of a Deadman discography/archive1

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 promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Theory of a Deadman discography[edit]

Theory of a Deadman discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Miss Sarita Talk to me 01:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this discography that I completely revised, expanded, and neatened up. It's an extensive discography, spanning over 15 years of the band's career, and is heavily referenced and organized. I am hoping it meets FL criteria and if not, I am more than willing to put in the time and work in order to meet FL requirements per reviewer suggestions. Not positive if a peer review is required prior to FL nomination. If it is, my apologies; I will delete this nomination and submit it for peer review. Thank you in advance! Miss Sarita Talk to me 01:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the most obvious thing that jumps out at me is.....where are the 14 promotional singles? If they are going to be mentioned in the lead and included in the infobox then they should actually appear in the list somewhere...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching that! I removed the "Promotional singles" section because we were unable to find a reliable ref and apparently, I forgot to remove all other mention of it (I was clearly overexcited about nominating the article). I have edited the lead and the infobox to omit any references to the deleted section. Miss Sarita Talk to me 21:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks very promising. Couple questions/points:
    • "...and twenty-four music videos." Is a lyric video considered independent of traditional videos?
      • I feel like a lyric video should be considered independent of traditional videos, but that is only my opinion. All five lyric videos were released via the band's official YouTube account and three of them ("Lowlife", "Bitch Came Back", and "Hurricane") were supplemental to the official traditional music videos. Please give me your thoughts on this. The count of twenty-four is only of the traditional videos. Should I add the five lyric videos to this count? I don't mind either way. — Miss Sarita 00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not an expert on discographies, but having just quickly scanned the discography article, I offer this suggestion: considering discographies are the "study and cataloging of published sound recordings", perhaps the videos part of the intro sentence should be re-framed in terms of the sound recordings—like "...thirty-five singles of which twenty-four have been made into music videos" (should solve the problem of multiple videos being released for single songs.) maclean (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Provide a summary sentence or two about the non-North America peak chart positions.
      • Done. I've added one sentence to the last paragraph in the lead. Do you think this is enough? — Miss Sarita 00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same with Sales, are you able to say in the intro what their best-selling album has been?
      • It's hard for me to say which is considered the "best-selling" as I was unable to find any sales data for most of the albums. Do you think the "Sales" column in the table should be removed? — Miss Sarita 00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think album sales is just as good a measure of a album as its popularity (e.g. charts) or reception (e.g. awards/ratings) but sales data is only available via Nielsen SoundScan which isn't publicly available so its reporting is sporadic. Certification (i.e. units shipped) should be a good proxy though. So...meh...I don't mind if it is included or removed but if it is going to be included it should be also matched with a summary establishing its relevance in the intro. maclean (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. I removed the "Sales" column. I think that certifications and chart rankings together can delineate what would be considered their best-selling/most popular album. I'm obsessed with consistency anyway, so two albums having sales numbers while the other four don't drove me a little crazy. — Miss Sarita 11:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure it is wrong, but the terms and wikilinks in "Hallelujah" (Leonard Cohen cover) don't look right. Isn't this a Theory of a Deadman cover of Hallelujah, not a Leonard Cohen cover? maclean (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it's a cover of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah". I agree that it should be changed. How should it be worded/linked? Do we even mention the original music artist or should the wikilink of the song title suffice? I will apply any changes to "Shape of My Heart" and "Cold Water" as well. — Miss Sarita 00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. I removed the prose and links from the cover songs. I don't know what I was originally thinking. — Miss Sarita 11:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maclean25: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. I have only made one change to the page, but just wanted to receive feedback from you regarding my responses (seen above). Please let me know. Thank you! — Miss Sarita 00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maclean25: Hopefully I have addressed all of your concerns. Please let me know if you feel further changes need to be made. Thank you for your feedback! — Miss Sarita 11:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I think the cover songs should include a qualifier, something like "(cover version)" beside it, maybe linked to Cover version...or even "(cover)". Where do I find the reference for those non-album singles? maclean (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maclean25: Honestly, I looked at a couple of Featured List discographies that had cover songs listed (Christina Aguilera for the song "Lady Marmalade" and Thirty Seconds to Mars for "Stay") and they were both simply linked to the original song with no additional qualifiers. I have done the same with the TOAD discography, but I am more than happy to add something else in if you feel the need to do so. Let me know and thank you for your time on this. — Miss Sarita 18:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yah...there probably should be a qualifiers here, either in the form of a "(cover)" or an {{:|efn}} note or something. From your examples above, the "Lady Marmalade" cover is notable enough to be a significant part of that Lady Marmalade article and the Thirty Seconds to Mars cover was added well after that article became a FL. Both those examples include citations to references, they appeared on a chart, and are notable enough to have referenced additions to those original songs' articles. These listed TOAD covers are not. And I'd prefer to deal with this article instead of debating the merits of other articles. maclean (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
maclean: My apologies. I was not trying to debate anything as I'm always open-minded to FL reviewer recommendations (and honestly, I was quite indifferent to the end result of this suggestion). I was just trying to bring up a couple examples, but your explanation definitely makes sense and I thank you for the lesson. I have added notes to each cover song. Thanks! — Miss Sarita 16:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In my opinion, this meets the FL criteria. maclean (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your support, maclean. Your review was very much appreciated! Nice working with you. — Miss Sarita 18:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • 26 videos for distinct tracks, or a total of 29 videos, I'm not clear on 24.
    This was addressed in the comments by maclean above, but I agree that there is still a lot of ambiguity. How do you think I should word it so that it seems a little less clumsy. Should I notate that there are 24 traditional music videos and five lyric videos, separating the two? Should I omit the lyric videos entirely from the discography? Please give me your thoughts on this one. — Miss Sarita 19:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even know what a "lyric video" is. It would be much simpler to say they made 29 videos, because that's what they made. That they may have made different versions of videos for the same song, matters not. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your advice. I have changed it to 29 music videos both in the lead and the infobox. Also, for your reading pleasure, a short WP paragraph on lyric videos. Some of them are actually quite artistic. :-) — Miss Sarita 19:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in Delta, British Columbia by" comma before "by".
    Done. — Miss Sarita 19:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They went through ..." maybe "They have been through"...?
    Changed to "They had been through..." Would this be the correct grammar? — Miss Sarita 19:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "band recorded their first extended play (EP)" no need to repeat extended play here, you already abbreviated it in the first para.
    Duh to me! Fixed. — Miss Sarita 19:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the ref for the 2003 "Point to Prove" video? If there isn't one, how do we even know it exists?
    The video is on YouTube but has only been uploaded a couple times by fans (in very low quality, I might add). It seems that the music video was popular in Canada but is difficult to find online. Should I remove this item from the table? — Miss Sarita 19:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you can prove the existence of the video using reliable sources, that's sufficient, you don't necessarily have to link to the video itself. But if you can't source the director etc, then it should be removed or noted that it exists but can't be sourced (probably on the talk page) to see if someone else can help. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I did it! I think... I found an archived copy of Billboard in which the video is listed in the section, "Video Monitor" (Billboard's tracking system for most played music videos on various television stations). Will this suffice? — Miss Sarita 06:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Miss Sarita it looks good. I've just arrived in Florida after a nine-hour flight and have just settled into my hotel. I'll take a one more look at it (and the sources, of course) and hopefully we're good to go! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope your trip to Florida is for a nice, relaxing vacation! Please, take your time. Just want to make sure that I didn't need more time to tackle more reviewers. :-) — Miss Sarita 00:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers, like Bangor Daily News should be in italics in the refs, check all the others.
    Done. — Miss Sarita 06:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SOCAN, and other such publishers should not be in italics, check all the others.
    Done. — Miss Sarita 06:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few ref titles have spaced hyphens which violates MOS:DASH which mandates the en-dash for such circumstances.
    Done. Caught three instances. If you saw more, please let me know and I'll comb through the article again.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate the feedback and suggestions and am hoping I can address all of your concerns. The simple fixes have been completed, but I had a couple questions regarding the count of music videos in the lead and the "Point to Prove" music video. I will work on the other issues later on tonight. Again, thank you and look forward to hearing your advice. — Miss Sarita 19:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I hope I have taken care of these issues. Please let me know if there is anything else that should be done. Thank you for taking the time to look this over. — Miss Sarita 06:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a heads up: A major edit was made to the "Singles" section by another editor which added some new information, rearranged the "Singles" table, and changed some wording. I only made a few tweaks and added some refs, but wanted to notate it here just in case it affects FL reviews already made by certain editors. — Miss Sarita 04:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Sarita this nomination has somewhat stalled, would you consider trying to find other reviewers, either by pinging relevant wikiprojects or by reviewing other FLCs on a quid pro quo basis? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I noticed the review has come to a standstill. :-( I will work on contacting appropriate Wikiprojects and other users today, but while we're both here, is it uncouth for me to ask where you stand on your review? I apologize in advance if it is inappropriate to ask; please reprimand me if it is. — Miss Sarita 14:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a FLC delegate, I tend to leave my options open so that I can close reviews without any conflict of interest. In principle I think it's of good quality. But we need a couple of other reviewers to chip in. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes complete sense. Thanks for educating me. I will get going on trying to get the ball rolling on this review. Thank you for the suggestions. — Miss Sarita 14:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I have three supports here. Should I hunt for more, or should this suffice? — Miss Sarita 17:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ojorojo

  • I seem to remember that the use of "sophomore" (as in "sophomore album") is discouraged because it is not well understood outside of the US (and Canada?).
    • Done. Replaced with "next album". — Miss Sarita 02:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, all numbers are written out, except the last "No. 1". Better to be consistent (even though the ref uses it).
    • Done. I will keep this in mind for future articles. — Miss Sarita 02:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The same applies to No. → number; alternatively, maybe use quote marks: "SOCAN No. 1 Song Award" if that is the official title. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Ooohhh, I get it now. I opted to write it as "No. 1 Song Award" since that seems to be the official title of the award. — Miss Sarita 20:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tables may not meet WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes (see MOS:DTT).
  • The "Album details" entries use AllMusic as references. Generally, only AM reviews as considered RS; I've seen problems with its sidebar info. Have you confirmed the info with other sources (press notices, official band or record label websites, etc.)?
    • Question: So, I have looked aimlessly for a replacement for the AM refs regarding basic album details. I have looked at about two dozen FL discography articles for inspiration, but have found that most of them either referenced Amazon or iTunes (which I know is also discouraged), AllMusic, or didn't list a reference at all. I have heard of AllMusic not being a reliable source, but I was under the impression that the unreliability only concerned genre listings...? Would it be acceptable to cite the CD liner notes of all the albums? Your guidance on this would be greatly appreciated. — Miss Sarita 07:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then perhaps also include Template:Discogs master, such as "Gasoline at Discogs (list of releases)". The actual album images show year, labels, and formats (but the Discogs album page info is user generated and not RS). BTW, Island Def Jam, Atlantic, and Warner appear to be distributors with 604 and Roadrunner as the labels. The TOAD website shows the release date for Wake Up Call (AM not needed).[2] —Ojorojo (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question: I would like to ask if this point can be accepted by leaving it the way it is or accepted if I remove the refs entirely...? I will remove the mention of the distribution companies (Island, Def Jam, etc.), of course, but my opinion regarding the Discogs master template is that it would seem awkward to have an external link as a ref...? Or am I completely misunderstanding what you're suggesting? — Miss Sarita 16:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was suggesting using Temp:Discogs master as an inline citation in addition to the existing citations to AM reviews. Alternatively, adding TEMPLATE:Cite AV media for one of the releases (preferably the first), would show at least one label, format, and year. For example: "Gasoline (Album notes). Theory of a Deadman. 604 Records. 2005. CD back cover. OCLC 60751946. 2539600062 – via Discogs. {{cite AV media notes}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (link)" It is a long way from ideal, but I couldn't find much else (this Billboard article notes[3] the label and release date for Gasoline). If you don't think it works, then the AM reviews are sufficient. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done: I'm so sorry for my brain-deadness lately. I totally see what you're saying now. I have gone ahead and added the Discogs template as an in-line ref to each album, in addition to the AllMusic references. I also removed any mention of Island Def Jam, Warner, and Atlantic Records. — Miss Sarita 19:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Done: I have added Template:cite AV media references as supplemental references to the AllMusic citations. Per the advice of another experienced user in the Wikipedia music world, it has also been recommended to leave the distribution labels in place. I verified that they are all listed on the back album covers. — Miss Sarita 16:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different organizations have different threshholds for "Platinum", "Gold", etc. Maybe link Music Canada#Certification awards, etc., for the first instance (both albums & singles).
    • Done. Replaced links for MC and RIAA in "Studio albums" and "Singles" sections. — Miss Sarita 02:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Singles" table is quite wide. How does it appear on portable devices? Maybe remove column(s).
    • Question: I checked on both a tablet (on the mobile version of the website via Google Chrome) and my Samsung Galaxy s7 edge smartphone (on the Wikipedia app) and both looked okay, but I do agree that it is pretty wide and am definitely not opposed to removing columns. Which ones do you suggest taking out? I'm thinking the UK and BEL columns... Please advise. — Miss Sarita 02:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • One or two entries don't really need a separate column (use efn). Agree with removing BEL, UK, and probably the album column. Also, it's better to be consistent – if GER and UK are removed from the album table, the two tables would cover the same territories. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. I have removed the UK and GER columns from the "Studio albums" table and took out the UK and BEL columns from the "Singles" section. I would prefer to keep the "Albums" column simply because there are a lot of singles that cover six different albums (along with some non-album singles) and not all of them have their own article. But, of course, if you still believe it should be removed, I will do so. — Miss Sarita 20:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is absolutely nothing wrong with having those columns, even with one entry. This is merely a recommendation. There are plenty of featured lists on Wikipedia with a column with one entry. I have honestly never seen a user recommend columns be removed because there's only one entry in them. Ss112 23:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:Featured list criteria 5(a) includes "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour". Since there is little accompanying text, is important that a featured list have a balanced, well-structured appearance. Removing the least used columns is the easiest way to reduce overly wide tables to appear more consistent with the narrow ones (I considered recommending that those be widened). Lists that require the reader to jump back and forth have an amateurish, non-encyclopedic look. Discographies by definition are not a collection of sales statistics; no data is lost by including some entries as footnotes instead of in the tables (that's why footnotes are used). "Other stuff exists" is not a valid reason to override what works for an individual article (see Jimi Hendrix discography, a FL). It is highly unusual that a FL/GA nominator's edits are being essentially reverted without a prior discussion. I see that MS may be relatively late to the game, but has made substantial improvements to the list. Is this some kind of ownership issue? —Ojorojo (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Are you seriously asking if I'm claiming ownership of this page by reverting a recommendation you made? I have no vested interest in this page, I just disagree with your assessment. Ojorojo, I see you've also worked on Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography extensively, which is not yet a featured list, and even Hendrix's primary discography—if that's your definition of what discographies are supposed to look like, that all other columns besides the UK and US get relegated to a footnote (despite Hendrix's extensive charting history in other countries), I vehemently disagree because I have not seen any other list of quality use this method. This is not an "other stuff exists" argument at the expense of this article—I'm noting that plenty of featured discographies use columns that have one entry in them all the time, and that this is not a barrier to being featured. I don't see how the current method doesn't already "work" for this individual article, and I have already told Miss Sarita the singles column is in no way that wide (it's actually quite narrow compared to some that use the full width of the page). Ojorojo, I'd think you're coming at this article with an approach to turn it into another Jimi Hendrix discography with all other chart positions besides two countries' listed in one. That's really not standard for discographies or where discographies are headed. That is in no way the best arrangement of information, and certainly not "visually appealing". This is not a case of one user makes comments are at a featured list candidacy and they're implemented without question. There are other viewpoints at stake here, and just because other users including myself are not commenting here extensively does not mean that those are disregarded or that the page has to be the way you recommend based on your non-standard preference for organising information. Miss Sarita, if I were you I'd ask for other opinions because I don't think you want a featured discography to look like Jimi Hendrix discography when very few others do (personally, I have always disliked the look of that page). Ss112 02:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • Oy vey... First of all, in Ojorojo's defense, it was originally my idea to remove the columns in question. Here is my opinion: If any of the band's albums or singles had charted in the top 10 (heck, even the top 25) in any European country, I don't think there would be an argument regarding their inclusion. While I am leaning more towards the removal of these particular columns, I don't feel as if my words bear much weight in comparison to two very experienced editors who happen to be at opposite sides of this debate. However, I do believe that "consensus" is in order here...? I don't know what the process is when this happens, so I will leave this section alone for now and will let you two handle it however you agree to see fit. — Miss Sarita 02:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't see that consensus can be reached here, because clearly Ojorojo is going to stand behind the way their featured list looks. That's their prerogative, but I don't think this approach should be utilised anywhere (else). I haven't reverted anything else besides this, and I only did on this matter because I disagree. Unfortunately for smartphones, the columns will exceed the width of the screen. That happens even when we have 10 columns full of chart entries and it's unavoidable. In no other discussion of this matter has a user suggested cutting out columns because of it, and I don't think it's necessary because there's always going to be a device that doesn't render the best version of the article. Yes, discographies are not supposed to be solely for chart columns, but I don't and am not going to agree with tiny footnotes one needs to hover over replacing columns so we can have Jimi Hendrix discography 2.0. Ss112 07:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll say this: the nations used should be consistent within tables. On another note, using x's within the charts looks rather awkward; just go with the blank line used for entries that did not enter certain charts. There's also too many component charts present. I can understand including one for a country in addition to its main chart, but two for Canada and four for the US is overkill. For the primary chart listings, they're fine to include even with just one entry, so I concur with Ss112. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, okay, so I have a proposal. A user recently changed the "Singles" table after the FLC process had started (the order of columns were rearranged and some charts added that I didn't find necessary but I left it figuring someone would edit it should it be a problem...nobody did). This is what the "Singles" table looked like beforehand.

      Here's my idea: I remove the GER column from the "Studio albums" chart and the BEL column from the "Singles" chart. This leaves the UK as the only European country represented in both tables. I'll push the UK column to the end and remove some columns from the "Singles" chart. I suggest definitely keeping the following: CAN and CAN Rock (the band's country of origin), the US column (where they have been popular), and US Rock, US Main., and US Alt. (these reflect the most charted songs and are more in-line with the band's genre foundation). This will remove CAN HAC and US Adult. Per SNUGGUMS' wisdom, I will also replace the x's with mdashes.

      This should satisfy everyone's desires: It shortens the overall width of the "Singles" table, still includes a European country's chart, keeps the country representation consistent, and removes extraneous information. How does this sound to everyone? (P.S. Someone ran into a pole about an hour ago and took out our power, so I apologize for any delayed responses.) — Miss Sarita 04:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • If any US components, I'd just keep US main as they seem to have had more success there than US Rock or US Alt (and certainly US Adult). Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duly noted. I'll wait for responses from both Ojorojo and Ss112 before making any further edits. — Miss Sarita 05:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with the removal of any columns or information, as I believe it's fine as is—forgive me, I'm an inclusionist in this matter. I really don't think this is any kind of barrier to making this a featured list. I will say though that I agree with SNUGGUMS' suggestion to replace the "x"s with dashes. Ss112 07:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oy indeed! Ss112 is mischaracterizing my statements and intentions here. Rather than participate in an ongoing FLC discussion which resulted in the change, he reverted MS with an edit summary that included "you don't have to agree with what reviewers of the list state. Some users have strange recommendations or non-standard views on what should be done." My recommendation was regarding the width of the tables, suggesting "Maybe remove column(s)" and "Agree with removing BEL, UK, and probably the album column." Improving visual appeal consistent with FL criteria 5a is hardly "strange". He further repeatedly asserts that I'm trying to rid the discography of all but two chart position columns. Nothing in my suggestions state or imply this. I included the link to another FL to show that there are other viable options to modifying table size (with the goal to make them more consistent). MS and Snuggums are attempting to find a compromise, but Ss112 is only interested in pursuing his agenda of only using dedicated columns to present chart info, regardless of how it impacts the overall appearance.
Discography layouts are not set in stone. When there are well-articulated reasons for taking a particular approach, they should not be ignored. Ss112's statement "I don't see that consensus can be reached here, because clearly Ojorojo is going to stand behind the way their featured list looks" is completely baseless. His statements, however, that don't show any willingness to compromise. At this point, I'll leave it to others to decide what to do.
—Ojorojo (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ss112, out of the four editors in this conversation, three are agreeing in the removal of at least one or two columns, including the user who you personally asked to jump in on this. I'm not trying to attack you, but I must admit that I'm quite irritated at the claims being aimed towards an editor who donated their time to review this discography and I'm aggravated by your blatant unwillingness to compromise. I'm a firm believer in working together when a disagreement arises. I'm not a fan of the whole "it's my way or the highway" mentality and this is not the first discussion we've had where I've seen this type of behavior from you. However, I don't want to make it seem like your opinion in this is insignificant, but coming to a compromise is a matter of "give and take". So, please tell me what it is that you want (besides keeping the table the way it is) so that I can continue working on other areas of the article. — Miss Sarita 02:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In no way am I taking the stance that it's "my way or the highway". I offered my opinion because this is the place to make comments about the page becoming a featured list, and I offered my thoughts as to why Ojorojo said what they said. I didn't set out to "aim claims" at Ojorojo as if I have some grudge against them (I've never spoken to them to my knowledge, I just discovered upon visiting this page that it was them who worked on the Hendrix pages I have always disliked the look of), nor suggest that removing the columns was originally their idea. I will say, however, that claims I have an "agenda" rather than just noting how the majority of discographies on Wikipedia, including many better featured lists than Hendrix's discography, look, are ridiculous—I suppose that's Ojorojo's retort after my suggestion they want to make this Hendrix discography 2.0. Sure, if that's what you want to believe. Anyway, if consensus determines that columns should be removed, then obviously other users (myself included) must abide by that. You know, there are users who do not change their opinions in discussions, and I'm not obliged to for general consensus to be reached, especially if the only compromise here is "how many and which columns will be removed". To restate, I don't currently see the need to remove anything because neither the albums nor the singles table are particularly wide or exceeding 10 columns, in which case(s) I might agree with removing some columns. I don't really remember what our other conversation was about and I don't think it's relevant. Nobody is saying you can't work on other areas of the article in the meantime, so please don't make out like I'm preventing you from doing that or that my opinion is such an insurmountable obstacle for all involved. I've stated my case; the discussion can move on without me. I don't wish to be involved in this any further. Ss112 07:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's move on. I'd support any reasonable solution to the width/visual problem. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ss112: Fair enough. If you disagree, you disagree. I simply wanted to give you a chance to amend my proposal or to tell us what you needed as I don't like to feel as if I'm "overriding" anyone's opinion or feelings on the matter.
@Ojorojo: I apologize for the delay in progress on this and very much appreciate your patience. I will be continuing on with your part of the review throughout the day (hopefully have it finished by this evening.
Here's what I am going to do: I'm going to slightly amend my proposal from above. Since Ss112 has disagreed with the removal of any columns, I will only remove the BEL and GER columns, and the CAN HAC and US Adult charts. This cuts out only three charts from the "Singles" table and one from the "Studio albums" table. If no one disapproves, I would like to move on with this idea. Thank you for everyone's input. — Miss Sarita 16:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly reasonable. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • efn uses capital letters. Lower case is more common.
    • Done. That's what I thought. Thanks for clarifying. — Miss Sarita 02:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the "Traditional video" links indicate [OFFICIAL VIDEO], but under "License" they only show "Standard YouTube License" (the same designation also used by those uploaded by anyone). Are these in fact licensed by the record company (like Vevo)?
    • Question: How would I go about fixing this? I'm almost thinking abut removing the "Link" column altogether and relying on the refs in the "Director" column. What do you suggest? — Miss Sarita 02:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with removing the links (more appropriate for the song articles). But some of the sources for the directors appear to be user generated and have a lot of advertising. Several videos on Vevo show the director and copyright year (usually same as the release) (click on "Show More" for the individual videos).[4] —Ojorojo (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question: So, I have been working on this (offline) and there are four music videos in which I couldn't locate a reliable reference for the director ("Make Up Your Mind" and "Since You've Been Gone", I was unable to find a replacement ref for unreliable sources, and "Point to Prove" and "Hallelujah", I was never able to find a reliable ref). Should these be removed from the table? — Miss Sarita 16:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some "Lyric videos" don't indicate "Official" or "authorized". Lyrics normally include a copyright statement. As an example, one Vevo lyric video includes "Lyric video by Jimi Hendrix performing 'Hear My Train A Comin'. (C) 2012 Experience Hendrix L.L.C., under exclusive license to Sony Music Entertainment".[5]
    • Question: I'm wondering if this section should be removed entirely. I'm not even sure it should be in the article since I was unable to find any with the copyright information and I don't really think its inclusion will make or break the article. Thoughts? — Miss Sarita 02:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree – unnecessary and possible copyvios. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Removed table, removed "Traditional videos" subsection heading (no longer necessary), and edited lead and infobox to reflect change in number of music videos. — Miss Sarita 20:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the AllMusic and Discogs discography links, MusicBrainz probably isn't needed (user edited?).

I'll try to look at more of the refs later. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo: You're awesome! Thank you for such a thorough review. I have addressed the concerns that were easier to fix and will be working on the more time-consuming ones throughout the evening. I do have three questions, as notated above (under the remarks for the singles chart, traditional videos, and lyric videos). Just wanted to make sure I got those questions to you so that you had time to look it over. I will also wait patiently for your review of the refs as well. Thank you, again! — Miss Sarita 02:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojorojo: I believe I have addressed as many of your concerns as I could for now. I look forward to hearing your advice on the four questions I have above. Thank you! — Miss Sarita 07:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing – Looks good, but a couple appear to be WP:UGC websites: canadianbands.com ("Created and maintained by Dan Brisebois"); Cryptic Rock (on unreliable sources list); and mvdbase.com, Video Static, etc. should be replaceable with Vevo. A minor point: Template:cite web recommends using |website= or |work= for websites (AllMusic, Vevo, etc.), instead of |publisher=. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ojorojo: A couple of questions above (regarding references for the music videos and the AllMusic references). Also, I wanted to point out that for the "cite web" template, |website= and |work= both italicize the name of the website being used, and according to The Rambling Man's portion of this review, certain websites are not supposed to be italicized. Therefore, I use the |publisher= parameter for this situation. Wiki formatting is also discouraged in these fields as it could "corrupt the metadata". Is there a workaround to this? — Miss Sarita 16:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Go with what TRM suggests. Since |website= always produces italics and |publisher= is not supposed to be used, this probably should be taken up on the appropriate talk page. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ojorojo: I agree that a workaround should be located for this parameter; I'll put that task on my "to do" list. Aaaaaand, I believe your part of the review is complete, yes? — Miss Sarita 19:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • It seems that Ss112 is determined to derail this FLC. Again, he has reverted an edit without participating in the discussion that led up to it. If he had, he would have seen that Discogs is only being used as an image source for the album covers and not for its UGC text. At this point, the discography may not meet the stability requirement and further review is moot. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see that now. *shakes tiny angry fists* I will go to his talk page and try to discuss this with him and will let you know. What happens if he and I can't come to an agreement? Is this FLC canned? — Miss Sarita 16:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Ojorojo: Can you quit it with the ridiculous accusations? I don't care whether the page is promoted to a featured list or not. Also, "unstable" because of two reverts maybe in the space of a week? That's a mighty overexaggeration. It doesn't matter what we're using Discogs for; how do we know some particularly skilled user(s) didn't fabricate said album covers? We don't. I've seen convincing bootleg scans uploaded onto Discogs before. Best to avoid it altogether per WP:ALBUMAVOID, which does not note any exceptions it can be used for. I'd appreciate if you'd drop the baseless claims I have some grudge against this FLC, Miss Sarita or yourself. I don't believe it's required that every change to a page up for FLC needs to go through its reviewer or the user nominating it (it might be best but it's not a requirement); that would kind of seem like you feel everything needs to meet your approval. WP:OWN? That's what you accused me of before. I wanted to avoid commenting here again, but you're determined to have me a part of it and I noted in my edit summary I didn't want to be. Avoid mentioning me altogether and move on with this. Miss Sarita has evidently found other sources, so you can now stop claiming I have a chip on my shoulder over this, so there's no reason to continue the mentions anyway. I'd appreciate not being pinged either (I only pinged to make it clear who I'm speaking to). Bye. Ss112 00:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't we all just get along! Ojorojo, I'm going to use Template:cite AV media to reference the album covers in the "Studio albums" section. It seems to be the most diplomatic route. Please let me know if you disagree. — Miss Sarita 01:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, now I think everything is complete. There are still some music videos in which a reliable reference could not be found for the directors. Should these be removed from the table (perhaps with a table caption saying something like, "Selected music videos"? Otherwise, I hope everything is satisfactory and that I can get a "Support" from you. Please let me know if anything else needs to be done. I really appreciate your patience, courteousness, and time you have donated to helping promote this article. Thank you so much! — Miss Sarita 16:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Three videos entries are conspicuous by their lack of a ref. TRM thought a RS was needed for another one, so they probably need the same. I'm not sure if keeping Canadianbands.com is an oversight or it actually is a RS. Since there's been a lot of contention here, I'd like to see another support or two before I add mine. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have removed the four music videos in question (that includes the one TRM was asking about). There's a strong possibility that there were no specific directors for most of them (the ones that marked "N/A"), so I'm not quite sure if anything can be done with those. They may never be able to be included in the table. I also removed the Canadianbands.com ref (I'm not even sure what I was using that one for). Thank you for your time. I'm going to hunt for more reviewers. — Miss Sarita 19:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support That works for me. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you, Ojorojo. I appreciate your work on this, even though it got questionable there for a second. Your patience on this is also commendable. Please let me know if you need anything commented on in the future. I would be happy to help in whatever way I can. — Miss Sarita 17:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ritchie333[edit]

Resolved comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, I heard the rallying cry for reviewers, so here I am - I think all of the major issues have been sorted out above

  • "Their next album, Gasoline, was released in 2005." - shouldn't this need a source?
Done. — Miss Sarita 20:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both peaked on the Billboard 200 at number eight and charted in European countries" - wouldn't it be worth saying how high they charted (just top 50, 20, 10 or whatever should suffice)
Done: I had to revise the entire sentence since there is only one European country listed in the discography. — Miss Sarita 20:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Excuse my ignorance, but I'm going to assume that this is the barcode of the album cover I'm looking at, correct? — Miss Sarita 04:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think for new-fangled things like CDs, that's right. For old-fangled LPs, the catalogue number was usually printed prominently in a corner of the rear sleeve, and on the spine (for example, if I type "Parlophone PCS" into Google, it auto-completes to "Parlophone PCS 7027" which is the catalogue number for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Added IDs to all Template:cite AV media notes. I learn something new every day! — Miss Sarita 15:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes blastro.com a reliable source?
Done: Blastro is a streaming video service. It's like YouTube except strictly for music videos from both major and independent contracted music labels. But, you're right...it looks a bit sketch, so is an archived version of the video (with director information) from MTV better? I figured the reliability for a music video can't get much better than with MTV. I might just cry if you tell me this is unacceptable (just kidding...maybe). :-) — Miss Sarita 05:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all the issues I can think of - I don't think there's too much there that's going to be taxing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: You are totally awesome! I'm currently at work, but I will get right on these tonight when I'm home! I thank you and appreciate you coming to take a look at this and hopefully give it some much needed "Support"! — Miss Sarita 20:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My youngest son frequently says I am awesome :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reading that totally just made my day... — Miss Sarita 20:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I believe I have finished all of your requests, but of course, please let me know if you have any more suggestions/comments. Thank you soooooo much for your help! I owe you! — Miss Sarita 15:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that all looks good, so it's a support from me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Ritchie333! — Miss Sarita 17:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Miss Sarita I've finally woken up and gotten round to this:

  • The release dates for each album and the EP, which territory do they relate to?
    • They are for North America. Does this need to be mentioned somewhere? — Miss Sarita 20:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is referencing the singles which were released, which have no articles and which did not chart anywhere (e.g. "Point to Prove", "Better Off" etc)?
    • Eek...nothing right now. I had four song articles deleted due to a violation of WP:NMUSIC. I will search for refs, but what happens if I can't find any? And if I do find refs supporting that they were indeed released as singles, should I place the ref after the title of the song? — Miss Sarita 20:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid spaced hyphens in reference titles, e.g. ref 36 "Theory of a Deadman - Awards", per MOS:DASH.

Otherwise it looks fine, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for making a second sweep and bringing up some points. Just had some questions above. (I promise, there will be less questions if I ever nominate another discography!). Also, there were some refs that couldn't be located to cite the directors of certain music videos (even though their existence could be proven). Some folks figured it would be best to remove those particular videos from the table. How do I reflect this new number of music videos in the lead and the infobox? I feel it would be misleading to mention only the number of videos in the table, since more were actually released... Thanks in advance! — Miss Sarita 20:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If items in the discog can't be reliably verified, they can't really stay in the article. As a minimum I'd move them to the talkpage and maybe request at the discog project or music project or similar for help in finding sources. As for your release dates, if "North America" means every territory in the table, no, it's fine as it is, I just needed to check that Canada and the US (for instance) didn't have different release dates. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Okay, here's what I did: I removed three music videos in which there were zero sources regarding directors (I'm not sure there was a specific director involved), but those have been moved to the talk page. I found refs for the "Singles" section but two of them are iffy (I've noted them in the edit summaries). If those are not okay, I will remove them from the table, and then everything should be complete. — Miss Sarita 04:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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/Theory_of_a_Deadman_discography/archive1&oldid=837305672"