Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Fall Out Boy discography

Fall Out Boy discography

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 3 support, 3 oppose. There is no consensus to promote. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Powderfinger discography as an example, I improved the tables in the article. I wrote the lead based on some other FLs I read. I believe it now meets the criteria. Regards, Lara❤Love 07:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not going to be fussing about the colour scheme in this list, but there are other things I will say. Please consider adding a music video section on it's own, including in it the music directors. If its applicable, add a B-sides section, only for any songs that never appear on Fall Out Boy's albums and EPs. Try also to look for any unreleased songs, they can be researched at ASCAP, (though I found zero unreleased songs for Maroon 5). Look here too for any more songs that haven't yet appear in the discography page. Thanks. RaNdOm26 08:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad you're not opposing the colors considering I'm using {{Infobox Discography}} :). I removed the music video section because it looked terrible, most of the fields were blank, they're not discs really, and it isn't a standard for FL as I noted in reading the other listed discographies. I think it looks better integrated into the singles table. I'll look for B-sides and unreleased songs tomorrow. Thanks for mentioning that. Lara❤Love 08:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done I found no unreleased tracks, but I did find a lot of other releases which I've added to that section. Lara❤Love 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also put the music video table back since I took out the singles table. I don't like all the empty fields, but I'm not sure where to look for directors and producers. Lara❤Love 17:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Try looking here (it's not up to date though). RaNdOm26 17:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lara, I told you on MSN what you need to add (content in the other appearances section), just making it official here so I can support afterwards. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll expand the color key to include those used on under "Other appearances" and I'll see if I can find some additional info. Thanks. Lara❤Love 08:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done I expanded the Other appearances sections and extended the key to include those colors. Lara❤Love 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the arrow links in the infobox just link down to "Other appearances". If you want you can use span IDs and make the links anchor down to a selected album (e.g. <span id="abc" />, and when you visit Fall Out Boy discography#abc, it will direct you down to wherever you placed the span id code). ~ Sebi _[talk] 22:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea how to do that, but I'll try. Lara❤Love 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nicely written article and well sourced for the most part, however, two issues need to be fixed. First, I believe the chart positions the albums had need to be referenced, and second, the singles table for most of 2007 has grids, while the rest of the table does not. I don't mind if the whole thing has grids or not, but I think it should all be alike. Xihix 22:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll get the chart sources. But I don't understand your second issue. The whole table looks the same to me. What is the difference you speak of? Would it be better if I used the same boxes for the singles as I've used for the other sections? Lara❤Love 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Err... They seem to be fixed. My browser was probably messing up, sorry for the confusion... Xihix 00:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've had the same problem, and refreshing my browser a couple of hundred times doesn't seem to do the trick. I'll probably have to purge my cache, no doubt. ~ Sebi _[talk] 00:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I took the table out and used the infobox discography. Too many people wanting to edit these things without discussion, hours of worked reverted for nothing, so I decided to just be consistent throughout the article. Lara❤Love 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It looks nice, but the albums themselves are still lacking references for their chart positions.Xihix 20:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Doh! I'll get it tonight. Lara❤Love 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Okay, I think I got them all now. Lara❤Love 14:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everything looks good enough now for a Support. Xihix 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG oppose, mostly for the same basic reason as for Powderfingers: this is so out of whack with the existing discography FLs we might as well suspend any vote of discogs altogether until WP:ALBUM sets some actual standard to judge. In the meantime, in the meantime, similar data should be presented similarly, and this is unacceptably different from our established format for discographies. Circeus 23:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please specify what part of the criteria it fails to meet? Lara❤Love 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1(f) "well-contructed". I can't consider "well-constructed" a list that trods allover a well-established format to present certain information. That's like me arguing I should be allowed to present dates in hexadecimal because the document is in hexadecimal anyway. Circeus 04:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hate having to drag other articles into this, but to counter this arguement, consider these already featured lists:
    - All four are currently featured timelines, all four adhear to all parts of the criteria, and all four have WILDLY different formats. All you are saying is "this can't be good enough because its not how we have always done it." That doesn't sound like an actionable objection to me. Well constructed does not say that it is identically constructed to other articles, merely that it is easy to follow and logical. This list seems to fit that quite well. It seems rather petty to hang a strong objection on such a small point, especially since it isn't even spelled out by any policy, guideline, wikiproject, that a certain format should be used. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you want to compare Timeline of chemistry, compare it with lists that present similar data (macintosh, orbital launches and discovery of satellites are lists ordered by dates, sequences of events related to a topic). You want to compare chemistry with Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori, Timeline of tuberous sclerosis, Narnian timeline or Timeline of Australian television, who are actually geared toward showing sequences of events. As for Wollstonecraft, I've been wanting to adjust it into the other timeline format for a while. I just haven't gotten around to it. Circeus 06:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no official timeline format. The tuberous sclerosis, peptic ulcer, and Narnia timelines all had wildly different formats when they got featured and the latter two were changed recently by Circeus. I can't imagine how Wollstonecraft's timeline could be adapted to conform to the others and see no reason why it should. Circeus likes conformity and this is at odds with most of WP culture, which respects diversity. Every list should be judged on its own merits. WP:ALBUM is neither official guideline nor policy and can therefore be completely disregarded if required. Colin°^Talk 21:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That they had "wildly different formats when they got featured" does not make my subsequent changes (which have stood wholly unopposed,might I point out) irrelevant. Just because you "can't imagine how Wollstonecraft's timeline could be adapted" doesn't mean other can't (especially seeing I specifically mentioned I had a few ideas for that). And your point would be more efficient if you didn't confuse conformity, which we indeed do not consider too highly, and consistency (and in this case not exactly a whole lot of it either!), which is always a good idea to pay a minimum of attention to, lest your information becomes diluted by the difficulty in interpretating wildly different presentations of it. Circeus 01:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your changes aren't "irrelevant" per se, but the are wrt FLC. That is why I pointed out that the timelines were different at FLC. The fact that the changes were done by you, and it is you who are making an example of them, is also relevant. I am well aware of the difference between consistency and conformity. You comment on the lack of consistency and advocate suspension of such FL promotions until a standard (conformity) can be achieved. But what if no standard is achieved or desirable? What is there are as many great discography formats as there are bands? A "strong oppose" is quite inappropriate at this stage and would be considered hard-line even if WP:ALBUM was part of the MOS. Colin°^Talk 08:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's not hard to interpret the information they way I have presented it. Not everything has to be wikitabled to be understandable. Lara❤Love 04:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well, the criteria doesn't say anything about it needing to follow the MOS and the format of similar lists. This seems more like a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. The discography template doesn't differ much from the wikitables as far as the content included within, it's just presented better, in my opinion. It's a new way of presenting the information and I don't think it should be rejected from featured status simply because it's a new format. Lara❤Love 05:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Agree. Colin°^Talk 21:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't see anywhere this violates ANY part of the criteria. Yes, it is formatted differently than some of the other articles, but honestly I prefer this format. Still, there is no requirements that any particular list be formated like any other particular list. This meets ALL of the following criteria:
- Per 1 (a) 3: It is a complete, finite list
- Per 1 (b): it is comprehensive
- Per 1 (c): it is well referenced and appears factually accurate
- Per 1 (d) and (e): It is non-controversial and stable
- Per 1 (e): It is easy to navigate and well constructed (indeed, it is better constructed than existing FLCs)
- Per 2: It fully complies with the MOS.
- Per 3: It uses appropriate images.
Also, it should be noted that "doesn't look like another list" isn't really an actionable objection. No where in the criteria is there a specific format outlined, and no where in the MOS or any relevent project is a format specified. We can't object to something that isn't violating a non-existant guideline. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, each article is to be judged of its own merits as compared to relevent guidelines and criteria, NOT by comparison to any other specific article, regardless of that article's status. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SUPPORT. All real issues addressed. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until... the sources are improved, which I think should be straightforward in most cases. The entry on Discogs.com can't be used as a source since this is a user-generated website (like Wikipedia, IMDB, NNDB, etc) and so can't be considered a reliable source. Fortunately, I think the Official Website's Discography could be used instead. The GigWise.com link doesn't seem to lead to anywhere useful. Perhaps you need to look at Archive.org to get hold of an older version of the website? The existence of and release dates for the Albums, EPs, Singles and Music Videos can hopefully come from the official site. I'm a bit concerned about the Other appearances section, which appears unsourced. Are you relying on the CD liner notes for this, or have you collated this from fan websites that may be less than reliable? If primary sources (CDs) explicitly credit Fall Out Boy for the tracks, and you've read them, then that is fine. If the information is heresay or comes from an unreliable secondary source, then I'm not so sure. Colin°^Talk 11:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I got the other appearances from the Discogs website because that's what the first !voter in this said I needed to do in order to gain his support. So everything in that section was pulled from that site. I'll see what I can do to find them somewhere else. I removed Discogs from the refs and replaced the dead one. Lara❤Love 04:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This FLC should be put on hold pending the outcome of Powderfinger discography's FLC Grim 20:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Compare this list to the criteria, not another list. Lara❤Love 03:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I can copy and paste my strong opposition criticism of the Powderfinger discography here verbatim. Shall I do that? Grim 03:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - By all means, that would be preferred. Can't fix things that fail to meet the criteria if you don't tell me. And I shouldn't have to go look at another FLC to see what criteria I've missed. However, if it's a personal preference that isn't required by the criteria, as has been a reason for opposition above, I don't see the point in commenting at all. So either way. Lara❤Love 04:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, you don't have to. I looked at your opposition to the Powderfinger discography and did some tests. I used the Colorblind Colorlab site to test the colors used and found that all of them are considered "safe" by this site. There is sufficient contrast to distinguish each of the colors from the rest regardless of type of colorblindness. If you've found an exception, please point it out. Lara❤Love 04:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just start fresh:
Strong oppose

Use of "ADVANCED TABLE SYNTAX" is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" and such complex syntax gravely inhibits that.

That's just one of many things so I'll stop there. Powderfinger discography should be transformed to an acceptable state shortly, and when that happens, you can use it as a guide. You may also feel free to use any of the other featured lists as a guide as well. Please feel free to copy any their formats verbatim.

My main objection is that the list as a whole (save for the lead section) is in a state of disrepair. Conform to the above mentioned point and I'll likely recant my opposition. Grim 04:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd prefer you list the rest of your reasons for objecting along with the policy that states we can't use advanced table syntax. Also, as has been stated above, the criteria doesn't require that a list match similar lists. It must only meet the criteria. Lara❤Love 04:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good help me—between this and the Powderfinger discography FLC, I'm getting jaded...It's a confusing mess to have a discography be a bulleted list rather than neat and tidy template boxes. There's a reason every featured discography on Wikipedia uses almost the same exact format for conveying discographical information. This discography is in horrible shape and I'm not going to comment again until there's some remote semblance to a existing featured discography. Please see where I'm coming from. Implementing this change will only improve the article immeasurably. Contact my talk page when this is done. Best of luck. Grim 14:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've yet to name a policy or a criteria where it fails to meet. If you have issues understanding a bullet list, I'm thinking you're in a minority. I'm not changing it to conform to what's been done consistently in the past because it's some reader's preference to see tables. If I liked wikitables, I would have done that to begin with. But I think this format looks better, and is equally successful at presenting the information in an understandable way. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to change the list. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS backs my position. Lara❤Love 15:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced table syntax is now a tidy little template Lara❤Love 12:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]