Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/AC/DC discography/archive1
- 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 23:18, 14 May 2008.
AC/DC discography edit
Self nomination another discography FLC. Comments are appreciated. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 19:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would it be possible to make the columns sortable? -- Scorpion0422 19:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't make sortable columns because none of the other featured discographies have them =) No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 19:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking good! Drewcifer (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
- Oppose for now. Good start, but alot of finer details still need to be ironed out. A few examples:
- A few of the sections are bullet-point lists, where tables are generally preferred. But, I would argue that the Remasters section is most appropriate as it is now.
- OK, I'll make a table for the videography later. I think the Box Sets section will be more difficult to read in a table. What do you think?
- Done.
- I could go either way. Whatever you think is best.
- OK, it's fixed now.
- I could go either way. Whatever you think is best.
- Done.
- The references need to be cleaned up a bit. Take a look at nearly any FL discog to see how to format the actual references section, with general and specific references being seperate. Also, the genreal references need to provide full attribution, just like the specific ones.
- Done.
- Still kind of messy, namely the two general references.
- Fixed, using the cite web template.
- Still kind of messy, namely the two general references.
- Done.
- The year column is bigger than it needs to be. In general, I recommend not using width percentages, because you can't guarantee how it's going to look on various monitors. I'd definitely recommend set pixel widths (33px usually does the trick for the year column).
- Done.
- The reason I suggested 33px is because that's all a 4 digit number needs. More then that, and there's a bunch of space off to one side. This is partly due to the in-line citation in the last upcoming studio album, which should be in the album details column, not the year. I stil recommend 33px, as well as putting
- Done.
Resolved comments from Matthew
Comments
- The sections could do with being rearranged to something like:
- 1 Albums
- 1.1 Remasters
- 1.2 Boxsets
- 2 Singles
- 3 Videography
- 4 Soundtrack contributions
- 5 References
- 6 Further Reading
- 7 EL
- Done.
- Do not wikilink the bold title in the lead, per Bold title
- Fixed.
- "Their last album to date, Stiff Upper Lip was released in 2000, and a new album was announced in 2005[3] and confirmed in 2008.[4]" Reads better when a full stop is used instead of a comma-and-an-and after "2000". Also, all references should follow punctuation, and reference 3 doesn't
- Fixed.
- Why is the Australian chart position the last one, when it's an Australian band?
- Fixed.
- Per WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations and MOS:ABBR, "U.S." shouldn't be used with "UK". It should be "US" and "UK"
- Fixed.
- Alphabetise the other countries' chart postitions columns
- Fixed.
- Other FL discogs include music videos in/as the videography, and list commercially available videos and DVDs under a VHS and DVD section
- No chart positions for New Zealand, Canada, Japan, or any other country?
- So?
- So is that right? Seems odd for a big group like ACDC, especially in NZ, their neighbouring country. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 01:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I added charts for Austria, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks better. Can charts for these territories be found for the singles, too? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One other thing, is that the infobox header seems to be formatted wrong with AC/DC wikilinked. It's all squashed together. In an edit preview without the link, it looks fine. Not sure what the problem is though, sorry. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I added charts for Austria, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So is that right? Seems odd for a big group like ACDC, especially in NZ, their neighbouring country. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 01:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So?
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Numbers below ten should be written in text.
- Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs). WP:DATE#Numbers
- "the band have released 16 studio albums, plus 4 albums issued in Australia" - yuck - the "plus" is confusing, and also, the infobox says 17 studio albums...
- The band have released 16 studio albums. There's one studio album confirmed to be released later this year. Fixed the "plus" thing.
- You should link AC/DC in the lead (obviously not in the bold lead in but as soon as possible afterwards).
- Fixed.
- "released over the years" - too familiar for me - write encyclopaedically.
- Fixed.
- "are about as close as" ditto. Plus this is a little WP:OR for my taste.
- That statement is referenced.
- "internatioal" typo.
- Fixed.
- Image caption is a fragment and thus doesn't require a full stop.
- Fixed.
- Shouldn't the album titles in the table be bold as well as italic?
- Fixed.
- " weren't re-released " - were not. Avoid contractions.
- Fixed.
- Be consistent with WP:DATE linking.
- Fixed.
- What does (Aus.) mean?
- Comment Finally, a discography FLC for a band I actually like. Since AC/DC is an Australian band, would you be able to include the album certifications in Australia? -- Scorpion0422 22:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't really find sources for that, the ARIA website only lists gold and platinum certifications from 1997 onwards, here. The Australian FL discographies (Tenacious D discography, Powderfinger discography and Silverchair discography) are all charted because they're modern bands. Stiff Upper Lip was certified platinum in 2001, though. Should I add it to the table? No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 03:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - not nearly ready yet.
- Expand the lead. Given the history of the band, the lead should be around two big paragraphs. (one for the Scott era, the other for Johnson) Pay importance to their landmark albums (HTH, BIB)
- I think the studio albums can be split to (International) Studio albums and Aussie-only studio albums. The Aus. in the brackets don't make it clear that they were only released in Australia. But a discussion before you change it would be better.
- US and UK should be as close to the beginning as possible because they are the most important territories for any band, in terms of tours, popularity, promotion, marketing sales etc... Johnson was English, wasn't he?
- Rockdetector is not a reliable site. What are you using it for? Where is the Aussie chart info on the site anyway?
- Atlantic Records --> only Atlantic (same for all labels).
- Don't link anything more than once n the discography section, i.e, after the lead. So don't link a record label in every section.
- Why are boxsets not in a table? Just as you don't list the individual songs within a album, I don't think you should list what's inside the boxset (the various albums).
- Renames videography to videos; where is the detailed release dates, record labels, format of releae etc?
- Where are the indivdual music videos?
- Even for the singles, move the UK and US charts next to the Aussie one.
- You have to cite individual certifications (on the BPI website) while referencing the British certifications; see Nirvana discography or The Prodigy discography. indopug (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]