Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Linkin Park discography/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎ | Linkin Park 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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:40, 3 February 2011 [1].

Linkin Park discography edit

Linkin Park discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Neo139 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I don't know what else I can do with it xD I think I meets criteria to be featured. --Neo139 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Neutral Support - I don't find this list to reach FL criteria. Additionally, you are repeating similar things that were mentioned in the previous FLs. This list still needs a lot of work. I suggest you retract the nomination. CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from >--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
**Firstly, the lead is littered with song titles. Instead, you should list some of the more popular ones and list their accomplishments.
Done I changed completely the lead. Deleted the list of song titles. Check it.--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead is not very-well written and is missing sources.
Done. Added sources to the lead--Neo139 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You violate MoS issues quite frequently.
Where?--Neo139 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC) If it was the albums linked on the single tables, I just unlinked them.2--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To reduce bulk, we do not include certifications that are not in the table, like most of the ones you entered. This has been told to you in the previous FLs
Done--Neo139 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list of countries in the table should be consistent throughout the article, not changing after every table.
Done--Neo139 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The EPs are unsourced. How are we to know they exist if they never charted anywhere?
Done--Neo139 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are the other songs from different albums "as a featured artist"?
I don't understand what you mean--Neo139 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Videos that have not charted anywhere need to be referenced. How do we know they exist?
Done--Neo139 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have fixed up some stuff, I still have some concerns. The lead is unimpressive. This needs fixing. YOu have it littered with song titles. Make it read from one sentence to another, like a history book. Look at other fellow FLs to see. Also, you should put a * before every countries certification. Work on this and I will take a look at the references.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed lead. Check it^^--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see you have fixed up some things, and it is looking better. The lead is still a big issue. Aside from the aforementioned problems with it, you have quite a few grammar issues. To sample, you refer to the band as "it" this is weird, they should be referred to by name or they, it is an album, song or object. Next, these are the sourcing issues. They are quite frankly missing a lot. Almost every ref has issues, here are a few samples.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)ç[reply]
Changed Its-->Their --Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 1 - Askmen.com is not a reliable source.
Done Replaced--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 2 - is missing a work and/or publisher - Now that I look its unreliable, popstarplus.com
Done Replaced--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Added Prometheus Global Media as publisher in all the billboard sources--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 4 - allmusic is the work, All Media Guide (its owner) is the publisher. allmusic.com does not work here. There are many more, as I said, lots to do.
Done Fixed all allmusic sources.--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have added publisher and work to all the refs I could found that information.3--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting there. Still to do. The lead is looking much better. You should include info on their US sales and certifications, as well as some of their higher European or Asian certs. Also, it would be beneficial if you included another column for sales in the US (soundScan sales which can be found anywhere). Next, you should align the tables to be the same length. Ref problems still present. To reference the Grammy awards, use this the Grammy official website (rockonthenet isn't reliable). Now for refs.
Done I added a bit about US certifications and Europe cert in the lead. I added a column to albums for Sales in the US. Now the tables have the same width (1000). Deleted rockonthenet source and added grammy website. --Neo139 (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Neo139 (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 8 - Missing date - People is the work and Time Warner is the publisher. There still so many refs with issues. Take the tips I gave you and apply them everywhere.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Added Time Warner as publisher. Sometimes I'm not sure who is the work and who the publisher :\ --Neo139 (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it to neutral for now, as you have definitely improved it a lot. There are still issues, which you will have to fix to earn my complete support.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • have been certified as Platinum -> they have been certified at least platinum
Done. --Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their hit single "In the End" -> This is not neutral
Done. Deleted the word hit --Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The Times was work, and News Corp the publisher. The problem was The times had semicolons --Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Some as above. Also, changed author= for first= and last= --Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • REF 6 - Billboard doesn't come up as italicized. When you put the work=, you don't have to place italics on each side of the work, it does it automatically. Placing them has the opposite effect.
Done Fixed all billboard refs--Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • REF 8 - not properly formatted.
Done author-> first= and last= changed --Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • REF 9 - ifpi.org doesn't belong here. Just IFPI like you have
Done--Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • REF 11 - not reliable to source this
Done. TIAYN fixed it =P --Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • REF 15 - Missing date, author and link MTV and the publisher is MTV Networks. Same with REF 18
Done Added date, link and author. Also removed the link to the next MTV ref to avoid WP:OVERLINK, added publisher to both ref 15 and 18. Also, I not sure if I have to add the MTV Networks publisher to all the MTV references or just the one that are MTV News. (Most MTV Ref are links to videos)--Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many more issues continue.


  • Oppose per Nathan.
  • Support – All issues were fixed. The table is okay now. Novice7 | Talk 04:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Novice7
Comments
    • Use of "#" is discouraged.
Done--Neo139 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are the certifications put in <small> format?
Done--Neo139 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the first paragraph is filled with singles and not albums.
Done Added content about first album and most notable album in the first paragraph--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the music videos is unsourced too.
Done--Neo139 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, "—" denotes releases that did not chart. → What if it was not released in that territory?
Done. I will fix the remain issues tomorrow. Its almost 5am here xD--Neo139 (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In featured artist table, I'm Serious appearance is unsourced.
Done--Neo139 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much reliable is Lprevolution.org?
Not sure. I added three more refs I found just in case.--Neo139 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some references are missing a Language parameter. These are not much of issues.
Done1--Neo139 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The singles still fill up the first paragraph. You might want to arrange them chronologically.
Done I removed most singles on the first paragraph, instead, I add more information about charting/sales records.--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to ask for a copy-edit on the lead. Maybe I'll support then.
I just asked for a copy-edit. I hope he will help me soon. --Neo139 (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead copy-edited4--Neo139 (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now the tables look too wide and out of screen. "The album was (number) best selling album of (year)" – its repetitive. Include that only for important albums. It's good other than this.
Changed tables width to 890px. Its currently the minimum number without getting the each Certification in two lines, in studio albums table, with Firefox and font size 16. Also I removed that the first album was the best selling album of 2001, since I already said it was one of the best selling albums of the decade.--Neo139 (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the tables are still out of screen and too wide.
mmmm, What resolution, browser and font size are you using?Neo139 (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it works in HD resolution. But, for lower resolutions, it does not. Try it yourself. I use Firefox and 16 size font. HD, FF, and 16 size is good, but lower resolutions have the problem.
Changed it to 820 width. Try it now. Horizontal should bar should disappear. --Neo139 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Neutral - Comments i had have been addressed, i unfortunately don't have the time to read check for any new errors so i cannot support it, but i no longer oppose this article being promoted. Nice work. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Neo139 (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
Comments

*Oppose - - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -

  • Im not happy with the lead, its choppy, i dont feel that it accurately represents the body of the article.
With choppy are you referring to the length or the content of the lead? or something else?--Neo139 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is something wrong with the "As lead artist" section which i cant quite put my finger on, one issue is the length of the song field, please see Kesha discography for how it should be formatted.
Done: copy/pasted the table class of Kesha discography.--Neo139 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • References still need work, italics where there should not be italics all over the place.
Done: Fixed all the things that should not be in italics (linkinpark.com, australian-charts.com, austriancharts.at, ultraop.be, musicline.de, italiancharts.com, irish-charts.com charts.org.nz chartstats.com , hitparade.ch, mikeshinoda.com). Now only some refs are in italics (allmusic, people, billboard) --Neo139 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questionable references used throughout. Eg: cyclefly.com and linkinparkru.com and linkin-park.it and mikeshinoda.com. They are blogs and fansites. Not allowed.
Done. Content from cyclefly.com, linkinparkru.com and linkin-park.it has been removed. mikeshinoda.com is the official website from Mike Shinoda, guitarist from Linkin Park so its useful as a source for releases.--Neo139 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references are not formatted correctly and are extremely inconsistent. EG: mtv.com. and MTV. Choose one or the other, further, 99% of the references are in italics this is a MOS violation, remove the italics only Magazines and online newspapers should be in italics.
Done. All the italics from websites that are not magazines or online newspapers have been removed. I deleted mtv.com and just left MTV in publisher. --Neo139 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CHARTSCHART acharts is extremely frowned upon for a GA let alone and FL. "Good and Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives as convenience links, and should use official sites and licensed archives"
Done. No more acharts charts.--Neo139 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some references contain accessdates, some don't. All must.
Done: four refs without accessdate have been fixed. --Neo139 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent work and publisher fields in the references.
Done. per above--Neo139 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox field is poor. "Remix/Collaboration albums" doesnt link anywhere in the article.
Done. Fixed--Neo139 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red link of "AUT" is incorrect, there should be no red link as there is an actual page.
Done. Fixed--Neo139 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but this article needs much much work. I havnt even gone through in detail, this is what ive noticed in a 5 minute glance. Sorry but this needs a peer review not an FL nomination. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just copyedited the lead; seeing that grammer is not my strong suit, I'd recommend that someone else takes a look at it. --TIAYN (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It looks better ^^--Neo139 (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments - Don't use the small tags for the headers Peak chart header. Use either JPN or JAP don't use both. Since its an extended discography I would suggest adding style="text-align:center" to the start of the coding for the tables, to remove the excessive use of align="center". Error in Ref 40. Ref 56 and 63 needs a format parameter. Afro (Talk) 21:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Small tags removed. JAP-->JPN. Added style="text-align:center" in albums/eps/singles table and removed the excessive use of align="center". Fixed Ref 40. And Ref 56 and 63, I don't know what you mean. If you can explain it I will appreciate it.^^ --Neo139 (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That means that you need to add format= to the refs. ref 56.2 and 63.2 are both pdf, so you should write format=PDF.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done thanks--Neo139 (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and was certified Diamond in United States[8][5]" "...number one on the US Billboard 200 and sold over 240,000 in its first week.[22][16]" Refs should be in numerical order. Can better sources not be found for the Soundtracks? example for Dracula 2000 couldn't Play.com or Amazon not be used? Afro (Talk) 18:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ref in numerical order. More sources added to soundtracks.--Neo139 (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was making was that IMDB is generally not deemed reliable due to most of the content being user submitted. Afro (Talk) 03:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok. I didn't knew imdb content was user submitted. Anyway, all the soundtracks songs were previously released under albums or singles. Do I deleted the soundtrack section.--Neo139 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lead needs to be rewritten, there's a lot of choppy prose ("The band is noted for its blend of rap rock and alternative metal" has nothing to do with sentences before and after it). For some reason, Hybrid Theory is discussed twice: I suggest dealing with the band's releases in a strictly chronological order to eliminate such redundancies. Remove information that is not vital to the LP discography; for example, the band-name change and mentions of RHCP and Green Day. Further, I think their LP Underground series of EPs and deserves a mention in the lead. In the compilation appearances (below), only list those songs which have not appeared in another album before. Finally, per WP:LEAD, information that is sourced in the body of the article needn't be cited with references in the lead (chart positions, certifications etc), so I suggest removing the cites to improve readability. Use one of the existing FLs at WP:DISCOG as a template for the lead.—indopug (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Deleted "The band is noted for its blend of rap rock and alternative metal. Merged Hybrid Theory info. Added some info about LPU EPs. Now only listing songs which have not appeared in other album before in compilation. Deleted ref in the lead that were already sourced in the body. --Neo139 (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll revisit in a couple of days (you can ping me if I don't). Meanwhile, per WP:DISCOGSTYLE, the soundtracks and compilations sub-sections should only mention songs that the band hadn't already released before, so entries like "One Step Closer" and "Points of Authority" shouldn't be there.—indopug (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done: deleted soundtracks that the band already released. Thanks
  • Comment Have all reviewers been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Should I poke them in their talk? --Neo139 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done 1, 2, 3, 4 :P --Neo139 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • Is "full-length" really needed in front of "studio albums"?
Done removed full-lenght --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image caption in infobox doesn't need a full stop.
Done removed . --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band has ... and have ..." mix up of singular/plural in one sentence...
Done changed has for have --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linkin Park is overlinked in the lead.
Done removed second linking --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hahn/Farrell and Bennington sentences should be merged to stop it reading so choppy.
Done merged --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three of their studio albums..." you should be clear -> "Three of the band's studio albums..."
Done changed --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link certified appropriately.
Done added link to certified to list of music recording certifications --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Linkin Park rose..." start a new para with this.
Done --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meteora was ..." italics.
Done --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band's fourth studio album, A Thousand Suns, was released on September 8, 2010.[16] A Thousand Suns debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200 and sold over 240,000 in its first week.[11][17]" merge these to avoid repeating "A Thousand Suns" so quickly.
Done merged --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may have been discussed before, but I see no merit at all in including LPU. It's not Linkin Park, it's a fan club.
If it was for me, I would delete the whole EP section xD. The the band consider this type of releases official and sells them at the official website, even if they don't compile the tracks. --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we normally say "Download" (or similar) rather than "DI" (at least, I've never seen DI as an abbreviation of download...)
Done changed DI for Download --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is s15.zetaboards.com a WP:RS?
Done removed that source and content that were sourced from there --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the EPs table, Ref. should be Ref(s). And in other similar tables.
Done changed --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note A is not referenced.
Done Added ref --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • X-Ecutioners -> The X-Ecutioners.
Done --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DJ Q-bert -> DJ Qbert.
Done --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grand Wizard -> Grand Wizzard...
Done --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Patton need three refs for ""P5hng Me A*wy""?
Done Commented last ref --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDB is not normally considered a WP:RS.
Done No more IMDB refs --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some ref titles have spaced hyphens, they should be en-dashes per WP:DASH.
Done Fixed --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments. If you have more, they are welcomed. --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment – Minor point, but a period is needed after the sentence "The band has produced ten number-one singles on the US Alternative Songs chart". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done: thanks --Neo139 (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:*The opening sentence should have all numbers written in words.
Done--Neo139 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening paragraph has songs without quote marks
Done--Neo139 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done rock and Europe unlinked--Neo139 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to find some more US sales figures for albums – Yahoo.com can be good
I searched all over the Internet and I found the sales but they were in forums because last year lots of SoundScan sales got leaked. I couldn't find reliable sources like yahoo music news or billboard about them.--Neo139 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Neo139 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music videos table has a cite error
Done Someone fixed it already--Neo139 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:LinkinParkBerlin2010.jpg Looks suspicious. I don't know much about researching copyvio possibilities, so can someone else take a look? (It may be an honest upload, but it doesn't list camera details, which a user upload generally does.) Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverse image search with TinEye and couldn't find any results. So its possible that the image is from the user who upload it.--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not use separate refs for each song for RIAA and RIANZ certs. RIANZ certs definitely should be, as they are done individually, but lumped into one inline citation
That was the way it was before but I was asked to put refs together (because it looked messy). Now it has less usability but looks better when looking at the refs as a whole. --Neo139 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I don't mind the RIAA certs lumped together, but I still think that RIANZ certs should be in separate citations. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RIANZ certs are now in seperate citations.--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, it makes sense for the ARIA certs to be separated as well. Refs should be formatted so that they can be accessed as quickly and easily as possible.
Done--Neo139 (talk) 03
35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Media Sauce Limited has nothing to do with RIANZ, as far as I know
In the rianz links at the footer appears "Compiled b Media Sauce Limited"--Neo139 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allmusic should not be italicised
Done--Neo139 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Neo139 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not always need to give the website. Sources such as ARIA should have the "aria.com.au" removed. Same with iTunes. iTunes should be formatted, '"blahblah". iTunes Store. Apple Inc. Retrieved blahblah.'
Done--Neo139 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • How reliable is mikeshinoda.com?
Mike Shinoda is the dude of Linkin Park.--Neo139 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good source for certs. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thats true. I removed it.--Neo139 (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I rewrote the lead (mostly rearranging stuff); let me know if I introduced any inaccuracies/deleted any important information.
Thanks ^^--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most tables don't have the ""—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that region thing.
Done--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of those featured-artist singles seem to be credited to individual members of the band, as opposed to the band as a whole. I'm not sure they need to be listed (this is a discog of the band, not its individual members). Further, are all these singles, as opposed to just album tracks?
Done. Removed all except the ones that were from the hole band and not just one or two members.--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering how notable their efforts on the Billboard Alt. songs charts have been, I'm surprised that the chart isn't included in the singles table. Maybe replace the Japan chart (with only two, low-placed entries) with this?
Some months ago US Alt chart was on the article, but was a discussion about this (because of having two US charts). So I got removed, added a new country and talk about Us Alt Chart in the Lead.--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a huge amount of hidden text, which the article size very large, and difficult to work on slower connections. Please remove it.
Done--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the lead, HT was cert, 4x platinum in Europe. Why isn't this in the table, it seems a much bigger deal than the Austrian certs.
I think the same. Some time ago the article had all the certs. That was ok per DISCOG. Then I add a Diamond cert to a FL, and got it reverted. I asked about the revert with no reply. Some weeks later someone changed DISCOGSTLYE (without any discussion) and added that we should only add certs of the countries of the chart table. That was at the same time that I started with this FLC, and users here ask to remove the certs. So I removed. (Didn't had time to discuss in discogstyle talk while running FLC). Now we have less information in favor of looks, but it seems that is what most users want. --Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a number of "Records" and "Recordings" under label; these should be removed.
Done--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a separate column required for references? Couldn't you just stick them next to the album/track/EP name? (although this is just a stylistic issue, so it's up to you)
Most article don't use seperate column for refs, but I think it looks better for tables. Its a new trend =P --Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Video albums: since only two albums were certified, I think you can remove that column, and instead add a note below Format for that album—"US certification: platinum". Make the labels as "Warner Bros., Machine Shop".
Done--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Certifications for Linkin Park albums in Japon", "Peak chart positions for albums of Linkin Park in [the] United Kingdom". In fact, I suggest rewriting these to "Peak chart positions of Linkin Park albums in the <place>".
Done--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soundtracks and Compilations: why does one have a release date, but the other not? I think a "Year" column for both should be sufficient. In fact, why not the two small tables? Mention "soundtrack" against those that are, in the Title column. Eg: Queen of the Damned soundtrack. Again, these aren't singles—maybe this table and the feat. artist songs table should go under an "Other appearances" section?—indopug (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Added year, and now they are under other appearances section--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the comments^^--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with final comments:
  • Not including the US Alt Songs in the charts is RLY dumb. I suggest you restart the discussion about this after this FLC. If the consensus stands to not include these, listing "Runaway" in the table is strange. Instead, remove it and make a note: "Although 'Runaway' was never released as a single, it charted at ## on the US Alt Songs chart."
Done: Added US Alt Chart. Someone and the talk page asked for it, so the result of the future discussion would be to include.--Neo139 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you can merge that featured artist song to the main table, I don't think it is a big deal. But do make another note, clearly stating that LP were only featured artist.
Done--Neo139 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since "New Divide" is in the Singles table, is it necessary to include in the Soundtracks too? Looking at the songs in Other appearances again, I see that most are only by Chester Bennington, not Linkin Park. Remove these?
Done--Neo139 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Italy come before Ireland in all the tables?—indopug (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done lol (alphabet fail xd)--Neo139 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not since his last revisit. Although the lead has changed in content since his comment, the size is more or less the same and if by choppy he meant the size, I don't know what else I could add that is much important to be in the lead. So I'm not sure if ask for a second revisit or not.--Neo139 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, I would ask him one more time. That won't hurt.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done link--Neo139 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2011 (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/Linkin_Park_discography/archive3&oldid=1089080931"