Talk:Powderfinger discography/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Double Allergic.jpg

Image:Double Allergic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Giggy _U^CP 23:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Automatic peer review suggestions

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• The script has spotted the following contractions: Don't, Don't, Don't, Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Alternate Spebi 06:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Another auto-review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.^[?]

  This is because the singles released from an album in the Album section are linked, and they are linked again under the Singles section. They seem like relevant links to me... other comments? ~ Sebi _[talk] 22:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)

  Nope, there isn't an applicable infobox.  Not done. ~ Sebi _[talk] 22:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   Done. I just kind of made one using the appropriate album infobox colours. --linca^linca 03:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  And it looks really good! Thanks, Linca :) ~ Sebi _[talk] 03:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks mate. I might even make that (and the awards one) into standard templates, since I've started to implement them in a few places (well, the awards one, but I'm sure to do the same soon with this one also). --linca^linca 04:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• The script has spotted the following contractions: Don't, Don't, Don't, Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

  They are all apart of song titles, so  Not done. ~ Sebi _[talk] 22:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Alternate Spebi 22:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

History vs Lead

Hey guys, I'm kind of against the merge we've just done with the history and the lead sections. Even if the lead ends up quite short, I'd rather separate the lead from a descriptive prose-type history of the group's releases (since this will be encouraged when we go to WP:FLC). --linca^linca 07:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we do cut up the lead and create a History section, what will go in the lead that won't already be covered in the History section? I think that was a concern at List of Powderfinger awards' FLC that the History section is a duplicate of what's contained in the lead. The purpose of the lead is to summarise the whole article properly. I personally think it's either put all the information in the lead, or... uh, write about the history of the band up until 2000 in the lead, and continue it in the History section, which we can't do because it's contradictory to WP:LEAD. ~ Sebi _[talk] 07:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Temporarily (and you can revert if you wish), I've re-separated it, but have titled the "history" section as the release history. If you don't like it, revert and comment. --linca^linca 08:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks okay. My only problem is that the lead doesn't summarise the whole article, and that might be a concern at a future FLC. Originally when I rewrote the lead I was basing it off Nirvana discography, a recent successful FLC. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the lead summary is OK, personally. I just have an issue with endnote one - for me anyway, clicking it (next to Bless My Soul) isn't doing anything, and I'm not sure why. Anybody want to take a look at that?  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 09:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, anything not articulated in the lead is detailed in the history and the rest of the article. Leads can become too puffy and, according to WP:LEAD, they should not be the only place information is listed. I treat a lead much the same as I used to (since I don't study any more) treat essay introduction: introduce the main elements and indicate what your argument through the essay is going to be. It doesn't need to be exhaustive, but does need to explain what the essay (or, article/list) is going to be going into in greater detail. I'm confident this lead summarises this without going into unnecessary detail. The detail is all now in release history, and I think it works well like that. --linca^linca 11:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Next

I'm really struggling, what do we do next? I have no idea what to do with the Other appearances table, it looks really messy in comparison to the other tables, and the items in the table that I put from the Discogs source were picked at random and aren't of much significance. We have to fix that that up a lot, otherwise it'll drag us down at a future FLC. ~ Sebi _[talk] 22:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. I'm struggling to define notability, to decide what's a noteworthy inclusion for the list. Was waveaid released as a CD or DVD? Because if it's not, this would be simply a live performance, which it would be near impossible to list all of the live performances by the group (very near impossible, that is). Anyway, personally, I am not convinced that the table is entirely required, but as to a contributions table that does look good (as something to perhaps model from) is one I worked on for the John Mayer discography. I did the design of that one about a year ago and it's still being used now, so it's pretty stably accepted, with around 10 or 15 editors regularly using that page. --linca^linca 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Powderfinger performed at WaveAid, and then a DVD was released featuring all the performed tracks of the bands at the concert. ~ Sebi _[talk] 00:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I just looked it up and the DVD didn't include their entire performance (or anybody's, other than The Wrights) so I've removed the songs they performed that didn't make the DVD, in accordance with what I just said. I've also added the DVD listing to the WaveAid page (possibly would do to give it its own page). --linca^linca 01:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Linca re. 100% hits CD, I can confirm that the song appeared on it, but I guess that's not gonna be good enough lol! Just found a link dunno if it will be satisfactory http://www.rockaway.com.au/pages/mod.php?mod=cart&op=details&viewitem=CD50710&rockawaysessionid=ea1657a6e6a Slabba 07:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks reliable enough. And the new table looks way better now, but I don't think we should use rowspan to join the cells that have the same information (if that makes sense). ~ Sebi _[talk] 07:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying you think we should merge/span cells, or not? Because I read that as though we shouldn't span any, and I haven't spanned any. You actually shouldn't use spanning when you have the sortable tables (as this one is) because it royally fudges it up. --linca^linca 07:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I removed the sortable function because none of the other tables have it, and it doesn't the best. Plus, as you said, we can use the span in sortable tables, and just about the rest of tables have cells spanning, and the result of removing the span would not be a very good result, IMO. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dihydrogen Monoxide's review :)

• Release history section needs major copyediting - especially the third paragraph.

  Which parts of the third paragraph? I rewrote that whole section a few days ago, I don't think that it needs anything at all. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Done, but I'll leave that to you to decide if it deserves being struck off. --linca^linca 12:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  Strike, it's fine. ~ Sebi _[talk] 02:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I can only see one video release - Take Me In - so where did the 3 come from?

  The Sunsets DVD, and These Days Live in Concert which were half live album half DVD. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• The link to "video releases" in the infobox doesn't work.

  I'll look into it, as with the 3 items below this message. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• • The EPs link works, but goes to the wrong place (for me).
  • The compilation link goes to the wrong place.
  • Live albums link doesn't work.

• •  Done. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can we get any sources for tracklistings other than Discogs?

  We do have some. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  Therefore...  Done. --linca^linca 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Need sources for Big 2, 100% Hits Best of '98, Two Hands soundtrack, Mission: Impossible II soundtrack, and ARIA Awards 20th Anniversary.

   Done --linca^linca 11:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• What's the deal with refs 23 and 24? Same year, so it should be the same release, and therefore the same URL, shouldn't it?

  Because of adding more refs in, I'm not sure which ones you're now referring to. I've been doing a lot of reference updating today. --linca^linca 11:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  I just figured out what you mean.  Not done. They're different releases: one was Autumn and one was Summer, so they're different references. --linca^linca 12:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest we use {{reflist|2}}

  If it gets any longer, we'll do that. It seemed like the perfect choice on all the other Powderfinger articles, but for this one it doesn't seem like such a good idea, IMO. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  Someone already updated that earlier today.  Done --linca^linca 11:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Polydor exists, so it should be wikilinked at least once.

  When I rewrote that section, I tried not to go into much detail at all because I originally intended for that part to appear in the lead. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Done --linca^linca 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Studio albums - Links for The Metre and Waiting For the Sun should be updated (merged page), and there should be a note implying that they were the same single release...or whatever happened there.

  I'll look into it. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Done --linca^linca 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• On that note, check all the single released in the studio albums section are in order.

  Yeah, they are (I just checked, though I could be wrong). --linca^linca 11:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  Ok, I just re-checked, and there was one mistake (going by the sequence from hindleysite and our own listing on the singles templates on the album articles). For now, I'm saying it's  Done --linca^linca 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Is there a ref or source for Take Me In's release as a video single? Same for all the EPs etc....I dunno, I suppose the article will cover it, but make sure all their articles have refs confirming existence :)

  Yeah, I have a copy. ;) But that said, I have the online reference to hindleysite. I'll update that when appropriate, but I'm pretty sure the link's already going there from the article page itself. --linca^linca 11:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Done --linca^linca 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Metre and Waiting for the Sun did have videos - The Metre’s is Powderfinger playing in an elevator while a man tumbles down the stairs around them, WftS’ is them playing on a stage with a massive image of a sun on a huge screen in the background.

  Really? I couldn't find info on them anywhere. I'll remove that...  Done --linca^linca 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• These Days and My Kind of Scene shouldn't be wikilinked in the Other appearances section, should they? Correction - These Days isn't mentioned elsewhere. I forgot it wasn't a single...but My Kinda was :)

  Will fix. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I wikilinked it ("My Kinda Scene") as it's got a different title for that release. We can remove the wikilink, but I think it'd be better with the link to explain (as it's explained on the page itself). --linca^linca 08:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• The endnote on Bless My Soul (in the Other albums section) doesn't work for me (although the link to get there, from the endnotes section, does work). I checked the page's HTML source (View -> Page Source) and don't know why it isn't working...

  Probably more to do with the outdated {{ref}} and {{note}} system... ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  I just tested in all my browsers (ie5,6,7, ff1,1.5,2, saf1,2,3, opera) and they seemed to work for me. What version of what browser are you using? --linca^linca 11:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  I just substituted it by customising a reference box instead and it works here on oh-dodgy my dodgy work computer (since we're on linux citrix platforms here).  Done and moved to completed items. --linca^linca 01:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have all the singles in my posession (since I don't own any of the older albums, only Fingerprints, Vulture Street, and Dream Days), but I can get audio samples for some of the tracks that don't have one. I currently don't have access too Tail, Grave Concern, Save Your Skin, and Take Me In (was this a video single AND a regular single?). I can get a sample for Sink Low (off Fingerprints) though, for its article if not for this list.

  The samples we have are fine. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  If you want, H2O/gig, I can e-mail you snippets of all of the songs in question (precut) and you could convert them into OGG? I don't have a decent ogg converter (mine sucks, tbh), if you want me to do that? Or I could send them thru msn, next time we're both on at the same time. I have all the albums and a small handful of the singles (more of the odyssey era than anything). --linca^linca 11:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  Linca, an email would be wonderful. I've emailed you to remind you ;-) Uploading the rest now. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  Uploads  Done - Go nuts Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

All suggestions from Dihydrogen Monoxide have been completed, or in other words,  Done. ~ Sebi _[talk] 04:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC) }}

Colours for differentiation

Hey guys (Spebi in particular) the colours I've used are actually the colours from WP:ALBUMS, so they're the same as the colours in the infoboxes, so it'd be silly to try and use a different colour here, when it's widely accepted as a different colour for the other two. See the Infobox Album and Infobox Music DVD for the colours as included. Previously I used colour transclusions to copy across to the templates, but it's easier just to do it this way and include the name as is used there. --lincalinca 08:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I realised that you based the colours upon those standards, but just making the colour dark enough to avoid confusion with other things in the article doesn't seem like such a big deal, considering that I was planning to change "Studio albums" to a dark red ;) ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

While were on that topic, do we really need to have grey cells in the singles table for a song with "No" video clip? I reckon it makes it stand out too much. Slabba 09:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at some point, I intend to make a proper list of the music videos for the songs/singles. The reason I have listed these is because the bulk of the discographies that are favoured have lists of the music videos shot for the songs and singles. For now, this at least sets the withs and withouts apart from one another (though the colour used is probably unnecessary, if you think so). --lincalinca 10:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys all rock!

FL! Hugs all round :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty impressive, seeing as the article was only created on June 2, 2007! Well done to all! Slabba 09:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with it. It was passed without the final touches, but it's not an objectible ommission. Still need to work it, though. Well done to all! --lincalinca 09:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

B-sides

Hmm...do we really need a section on this? It's a large table, it's unsourced, it seems incomplete, and I really don't think it's necessary. Anyone opposed to removing it? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be sourced because they're all confirmed on the specific articles, but I suppose we could reference them if need be. It's not incomplete. It's literally all of the group's b-sides from their singles. As to its appropriateness, from a scan through lots of discographies, most of the more "complete" ones, over half of them have lists of b-sides, rarities and such. --lincalinca 08:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)