Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Deftones discography

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 09:45, 11 February 2008.

Deftones discography

edit

I'm nominating this because I don't see how it could be further improved upon. This is my first shot at any kind of featured content, so I'm open to any flak; it's all constructive criticism to me. Seegoon (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comment Looks really good! I'm glad to see someone finally looked at other FL discogs before nominating. I do have a few minor comments/suggestions though:

  • I never thought I'd say this, but I think the lead is too long. The main problem being that I think it goes into too much detail about each release.
    • I've cut out a huge chunk on the band's formation (ashmedly, it was lifted straight from the Deftones article itself) and removed some cruft.
  • There is a bit of over-linking. For instance, Maverick Records is linked every time it's mentioned: you should only link it the first time it's mentioned.
    • I've taken out some extraneous wikilinks. I think it's a dangerous proposition to go delinking too much in a discography, as it intended to be a repository of information, as opposed to a stream of prose read consecutively. A reader might wish to dip in halfway through the article, and find the entry not linked.
  • The U.S Sales column is a little problematic. Mainly since RIAA certifications doesn't not necessarily equate to sales. The RIAA numbers are based on how many units get shipped, not sold. So using that as a reference for the column doesn't really work.
    • I actually did this a while ago, but Phorque reassured me it was OK. For now, anything unknown is just blank.
  • The certification column is also a little wierd. Since they're all US certifications, it might be better to rename and relink the name of the column to RIAA certifications, and then take out the redundant (US) after each certification.
    • Very true, done and dusted.
  • It might be helpful to put a pound sign in with the catalog number, since otherwise it's just an indiscriminate set of numbers.
    • Done.
  • Since none of their EPs charted, were certified, or have sales data, there's no reason to have those columns.
    • Done.
  • Also, the note about the success of Back to School's single is good, but you may want to put it before the table rather than after. Same thing with the notes in the Live versions table and the Music videos table.
    • Yup yup.
  • All the tables after the singles section are a little weird: why is the legend contained in the box? Also, why is the font small?
    • I was just trying to keep things small, tidy and sexy. But seeing as it looks odd, I've changed it.
  • The Music video table is great (I never thought to put the edit length in there), but the column order is a little weird. Logically, I would recommend putting the album column last (or maybe before the notes section), since it is a table about the video for the song specifically, and the album it came from is kind of the least important part of the table, having the least to do with the music video itself.
    • I've done this too. It was an idea I was toying with a while back, but couldn't decide on.
  • A few external links would be great. Maybe to discogs or to the band's official website.
    • This is straight up something I'd forgotten to do. I've done it in other discographies I've worked on, so it was silly not to. Done.

I know that's alot of suggestions, but everything seems fairly minor, I hope. Drewcifer (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thankyou very much for your input; it was all valid, constructive and pertinent. Seegoon (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking very good. There's just two more minor things I notice:

  • What I meant by "External links" is that you should add an external links section, but not as general references, as they are now. Mainly because discogs and music brainz are not considered reliable sources. So putting them in an "External link" section gives the reader an opportunity to learn more, but doesn't propose that the information in the article is from those (unreliable) sources.
    • I've done this; I see your point.
  • Also, the small font in the notes section still kind of bothers me. Drewcifer (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue here is that if you make the notes full size, then they end up dominating the table, making entries that might only be two lines three, and so forth. It just looks a tad cumbersome. If it prevents you from supporting, however, I'll change it without any real qualms.
      • This is a pretty minor complaint. I'll let you be the judge on this one. Drewcifer (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and mvdbase isn't considered a reliable source. That column doesn't really need citation anyways. Drewcifer (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I've removed it for now, but do you think it would be worth keeping as an external link?
Again, thankyou for all your input. Seegoon (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An excellent list! All of my suggestions have been taken into account, and this easily meets the criteria. Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I too would like to see the notes at full size, but the more important concern for me is that I didn't understand what citations #14 and #15 meant. Could you elaborate?--Crzycheetah 00:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing as consensus wins, I've changed the notes to full size. It doesn't look so bad, I guess... As for #14 and #15, they are referring to the insert/booklet that comes with the album. What would be a clearer description? Seegoon (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now, I understand and I think I made it clearer. I support.--Crzycheetah 05:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some recent additions were made to article, all for the better. I do have one suggestion concerning the new table columns: add a <br /> between the country abbreviation and the accompanying citation. That way, the table will be a little less wide, since as it is it's a little unwieldy, especially on smaller monitors such as mine. See Nine Inch Nails discography for an example of what I'm suggesting. Drewcifer (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I did this a while back, but reverted it because I was unsure. I agree with you though, and have done this. Thanks! Seegoon (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I like these new additions, but I'm not sure of the abbreviations. Are you sure that the abbr. for Ireland and Austria are "EIRE" and "ÖST", respectively? I was expecting to see IRL and AUT.--Crzycheetah 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I was winging it here to be honest. I've changed them to be more English-language-centric, according to your suggestions. Cheers. Seegoon (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I didn't even pay attention to the abbreviations, which leads me to another comment/complaint: the abbeviations used aren't the ones typically used in discogs. Again, I would recommend looking at the NIN discog for some established abbreviations. There's a bunch of reasons certain abbreviations have become FL discography convention, and I could go into the reasons if you really want, but suffice to say consistency with every other FL discog would be nice. Also, I'm not sure sure about linking to "Music of ____". Like other discogs, if the chart itself doesn't have an article (ie. Billboard 200), just link to the country. Drewcifer (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure point. I was basing them mainly on what you see when you watch the Olympics or whatever; as for the "Music of..." links, I thought it might abstractedly lead you to some mention of a chart, but that's not a claim that I looked through each one. Anything else? Seegoon (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Still looks great. Drewcifer (talk) 22:29, 7 February 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/Deftones_discography&oldid=1143873591"