Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Godflesh/archive1

< 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 by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of songs recorded by Godflesh

edit

List of songs recorded by Godflesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): CelestialWeevil (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the information at hand is comprehensive, cited, and relayed in an easy to understand manner. I want to make Godflesh a good topic, but I don't have a great deal of experience with lists. This page, List of songs recorded by Godflesh, and, if it passes, Godflesh discography, will help make that topic come to life. Thanks in advance, everyone. CelestialWeevil (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • All images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons.
  • Godflesh have recorded at least three songs with unknown titles that have never (and likely will never) be released. – I'd remove this.
  • Godflesh released the influential albums, Streetcleaner (1989) and Pure (1992) – remove "influential" per WP:PUFFERY and remove the comma.
  • and were then courted by a major label in Columbia Records – "major label" is WP:PUFFERY.
  • Reference 19 is a duplicate of reference 6 (this link).
  • The following chart lists all of the band's recorded songs that saw release. is unnecessary and should be removed.
  • Remixes should sort below the original versions, not above them.
  • This song is a rerecording of "Wound" from Tiny Tears. – I'd say "the unreleased EP Tiny Tears".
  • I don't like "Demos, live songs and other remixes" being collapsed by default – I almost missed it entirely!
  • The footnote for "Demos, live songs and other remixes" should be converted to regular prose below that heading.
  • the distinction between a Broadrick remix and a Godflesh remix is often unclear since there is little effective difference. The ones listed below are explicitly labeled with the Godflesh title or are inextricably tied to Godflesh. – what does "inextricably tied" mean in this context?
  • I think "Demos, live songs and other remixes" should be three tables rather than one.

TompaDompa (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Thank you, I'll fix these shortly when I get home. I have a few question: when I divide "Demos, live songs and other remixes" into three tables, would you recommend that those be collapsed or expanded? On Streetcleaner and Pure being refereed to as influential, is it still puffery if I cite them as such? I have several more references I could add supporting that. On remixes sorting below original songs, should I have them aligned like that by default and allow alphabetical sorting to rearrange them, or should I force them to be alphabetically lower even though they mostly appear alphabetically higher? Thanks again CelestialWeevil (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tables should be expanded.
  • I'd say it's still puffery.
  • Arrange the remixes below the original songs they are remixes of by default and add a sort key that fixes the sorting. The only reason they get sorted before the corresponding original songs is that the songs are enclosed in quotation marks and quotation marks are sorted after spaces.
TompaDompa (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your suggestions have now been implemented. These changes bring up some more questions that I hope you don't mind answering. The remixes with blatantly different titles than their host songs, (i.e. "Domain" as a remix of "Angel Domain"), should I still put them directly under their host song, or should I leave them alphabetically apart? And as for the newly separated lists at the bottom, I did a rowspan style for "Demos". Should I apply this to the others, or should I remove it from the one? Thanks again. CelestialWeevil (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave them apart. For the ones that aren't titled "[Original title] ([new version])", there should be footnotes that clarify what the original was called.
  • For "Demos" and "Live songs" I'd remove the "Writer(s)" column altogether. For "Remixes for other artists", I'd replace the "Writer(s)" column with an "Original artist(s)" column, as that seems much more relevant to me.
TompaDompa (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added alt text, removed unnecessary columns, and noted all isolated remixes. I think I'll add rowspans to the live and other remixes sections. CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support TompaDompa (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)
  • Comments
    • Footnotes/refs are usually placed after a comma or a period. Place footnote [a] after "168 songs,"
    • Place the ref for Streetcleaner (1989) after this comma "(1992),"
    • Same thing with the ref for "reformed Godflesh in 2010"
    • Remove "(s)" from the "Writer" column, add it to the "Ref" column. There are no songs with multiple writers, but there are with multiple refs.

--Cheetah (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thank you, CelestialWeevil (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
* For footnote (a): does the 168 figure include these three? My understanding is 'no' but make the connection clearer: I would rephrase the footnote to "Additionally, Goldfish have recorded at least three songs..." Also, we have a WP:CRYSTAL concern with "(and likely never will)" – remove it – and there's a grammatical mistake with "that have never [...] be released".
  • In the second sentence, list all the members of the band when it was formed. Any lineup changes currently not mentioned in the lead (if there are any) should probably also be noted at relevant points.
  • "lead single's" is an Easter egg link: mention "Crush My Soul" explicitly in prose.
  • The sentence "Following the disappointing sales ... in 1999" is too long and should be split into two sentences.
  • The first paragraph is quite long: I recommend splitting into two paragraphs.
  • "all of which were done primarily by Broadrick" – This reads weirdly because of "all of [...] primarily". I think "all of" can be dropped.
  • "Aside from cover songs done in the studio" – "Aside from studio cover songs" sounds better to me.
  • Footnote (e): would it be better to say "This song was originally record in the early- to mid-eighties when the band went by the name Fall of Because"?
  • Why is footnote (m) used in the prose part of "Remixes for other artists"?
  • Which songs had music videos? Can this be either a list of its own, or a code in the key?

Nice work overall on an interesting topic. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thank you! These are great changes. CelestialWeevil (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy response! Just two more small notes:
  • I think "Crush My Soul's" should be "Crush My Soul"'s, though perhaps it's better rephrased to avoid this entirely (e.g. "the ban of the music video for "Crush My Soul"").
  • "released their final album before dissolution, Hymns, in 2001. In 2002, the group broke up." — This seems a bit repetitive/tautological with "before dissolution" and "broke up". Maybe merge the two sentences e.g. "released Hymns in 2001 before breaking up in 2002."
— Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, and done. CelestialWeevil (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ~SML • TP 16:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Looks like a good list, these are my comments.
  • It seems odd to me to repeat "of which" three time in the opening sentence. I'd suggest rewriting it as "... of which 119 are original, 44 are remixes done by the band and 5 are covers." or similar.
  • "Courted by" is an WP:IDIOM and should probably be rewritten. In its current writing, it sounds like Columbia were toying with the idea of signing the band, but never did.
  • What did Broadrick and Green do when they "reunited in 2009"? Did they release new music as a duo, or did were they just together publicly? Had they not seen each other for seven years?
  • I suggest wikilinking "ambient".
  • "None of their songs have". I believe that "None of their songs has" is correct.
    I'm not the nominator, but according to the Oxford Dictionary of English "none" can take either a singular or plural verb. TompaDompa (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignore me then. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alt text for some of the images is too similar to their captions (e.g. "Justin Broadrick performing with Godflesh in 1992" [caption] and "Justin Broadrick performing with Godflesh at a small venue in 1992" [alt text]). The alt text needs to be either rewritten entirely or simply replaced with, say, "Refer to caption".
  • Titles beginning with A (e.g. A World Lit Only by Fire and "A Shadow on the Wound") need to sort under their second word.
  • We tend not to have rowspans in sortable tables (as in the ones in the "Demos, live songs and remixes for other artists" section) as they break up unappealingly whenever the table is sorted, and then can only be remerged by refreshing the page.
  • Per MOS:QWQ, "Listen to Godflesh "Be God"" -> "Listen to Godflesh 'Be God'" and "Godflesh – "Imperator"" -> "Godflesh – 'Imperator'". Similarly for "New Dark Ages" and "Ringer" elsewhere in the references.
  • It's nice to see some discussion of the songs themselves in this article – many lists of this type don't include that.

Incidentally, my current open FLC is YouTube Awards. If you've got the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've fixed all of this now. Thanks a lot! CelestialWeevil (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@A Thousand Doors: CelestialWeevil didn't ping you, so wanted to make sure you saw this. --PresN 21:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final couple of comments from me:

  • Per MOS:NUMRANGE, "0 – 9" -> "0–9"
  • Similarly, "1980-1989" -> "1980–1989"
  • Six images of Justin Broadrick seems a little excessive to me, especially when a couple of them don't do a great job of identifying him – this one only really identifies his chin, and this one only identifies the top of his head. Could they maybe be swapped out for some equally relavant images, e.g. of AC/DC or Black Sabbath?
  • Not a FL criterion, but it might be worth considering adding archive-urls to any weblinks to prevent WP:LINKROT. You can do that automatically here.

Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors: I fixed all of these, but I only replaced one image. I agree that some variety is needed, but it's pretty tough to get pictures of Godflesh, and I want to limit it to images directly tied to the band. Even though it's two members, people only seem to take pictures of one. Anyway, thanks for all your help, and thanks for telling me about the link rot fixer. CelestialWeevil (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I want to limit it to images directly tied to the band". Okay. But why, though? All other featured lists of this type have just one photo of the subject in the lead, then all other images are of other relevant people. Having multiple images of the same subject in one article can risk it violating WP:NOTGALLERY. I'm just proposing throwing in one photo each of AC/DC and Black Sabbath, along with some accompanying captions explaining that they wrote "For Those About to Rock" and "Zero to Hero". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@A Thousand Doors: Alright, I did it. Thanks. CelestialWeevil (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No other comments from me. I do think you should reconsider that photograph of the top of Justin Broadrick's head – it doesn't really identify him or anything, and it just doesn't seem all that encyclopaedic to me. It kind of reminds me of when, for four months, the lead image in our article for Charlie Brooker was a photograph of the back of his head. Anyway, this isn't a massive issue, nor is it something that I would oppose over. Good work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The list title is "songs recorded by" and the lead opens with "have released 168 songs", so which is it, released or recorded?
This is addressed in the first note, the 'a' note, that comes directly after the statement. Since there's no way to know how many songs Godflesh recorded, and since using 'recorded' in the title is standard for these types of articles, I clarified it that way. This was done at the request of someone on this page. CelestialWeevil (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm confused, because that note mentions three "unknown" recordings which aren't included in the list, unless I missed them? It looks like this needs a wider discussion as this is most definitely not a list of "recorded" songs, but "released" songs. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The three songs are in the list, just not in the list; they're mentioned on the article, but they're not included in the count or the main table. I did this to be accurate, comprehensive, and to maintain Wikipedia article naming conventions. CelestialWeevil (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which were done primarily" done? ugh, perhaps "made"?
Changed it CelestialWeevil (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link band members time for each image caption.
Done CelestialWeevil (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table caption "writers" should be "writer(s)" as there's at least one solo writer in there.
What do you mean? By the way, I had it like that, but I changed it at the request of someone on this page. CelestialWeevil (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by your response. Your first part says "what do you mean" and the second part says "I had it like that" so I think your first part has already been answered? It needs to be writer(s) because the caption is describing each singular entry. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had it like that because the list I was basing mine off of had it like that. Then, someone here mentioned that each entry only had one writer, so the (s) was unnecessary. Every song is credited to a band as the sole writer or an individual. CelestialWeevil (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized something. Since this is an article about a British band, collectives are considered plural. So, even though there are only bands and individual writers, the bands would be considered writers with an 's'. So you're right, I'll make it 'Writer(s)'. Good thinking! CelestialWeevil (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the "with a music video" references?
There are only a handful, like "Christbait Rising". Since there are so few, it's not worth having its own color, and in most cases it would conflict with another. This was done at the request of someone on this page. CelestialWeevil (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, where are the reliable sources that verify that videos exist for these entries? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add them, thanks. I put in citations to their music video compilation. CelestialWeevil (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the distinction between a Broadrick remix and a Godflesh remix is often unclear since there is little effective difference. " this sounds like OR.
'the difference between this and that' sounds more right to me than 'the difference between this or that'. CelestialWeevil (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it sounds like original research, I'm not querying your language, but how you verify this claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is explained in the 'm' note. I originally had a citation for 'm' there, but because it was mostly directed at two specific songs, someone here asked me to remove it. But you're right, so I restructured it and added another reference showing Broadrick's creative role in the process. Thanks! CelestialWeevil (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to ping you, @The Rambling Man:. Thanks for your suggestions, CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Responded above. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: responded CelestialWeevil (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from RoseCherry64 (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The writer(s) section lists both bands and songwriters (currently, only Bruce Gilbert). Per liner notes, and external sources such as ASCAP, one could find the actual writers of the songs. I'm also not sure if including a picture of Black Sabbath (wrong lineup for the song they covered) or Pantera is justified. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, RoseCherry64. All of the songs under the writer(s) section were credited to the full band, except in the case of Gilbert's. There are several featured lists that have band names under such sections (like List of songs recorded by Rise Against, List of songs recorded by Beastie Boys, List of songs recorded by Daft Punk, and List of songs recorded by Oh Land). As for the Black Sabbath and Pantera pictures, I would happily remove them. But, in some of the comments above this section, the 'resolved comments from A Thousand Doors', that user was pretty insistent on them being there. I'll take them down regardless if you still think it's a good idea after perusing the comments. CelestialWeevil (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CelestialWeevil: I did remove them myself, with this comment "Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE — having images of bands very vaguely related to the subject in a list where their presence is minimal is clutter."
For bands which have had numerous members over the years, I think it might be better to list the relevant members. Especially for bands like Black Sabbath. I'm not certain if there's a guideline for this, however. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RoseCherry64: Good point. I wrote out the Black Sabbath members. Thanks for your help, CelestialWeevil (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CelestialWeevil: Some more issues:
* The Earache Peel Sessions was released after Grind Madness at the BBC — original release and date should be updated.
* Live songs should have the recording date in the list — the Peel Sessions are from 1989 but are listed as 2001 and 2014 currently. This makes it very hard to find relevant information about the recording — one would have to check the album page for the actual date they were recorded.
* I would list information not part of the track titles like "Christbait Rising" (Rehearsal April 1989) and not "Christbait Rising (Rehearsal April 1989)".
* Standardize the Peel sessions in the extra information (wikilink the first instance of Peel session?). Right now, "Like Rats" and "Wound (Not Wound)" doesn't have them.
After these are resolved, I think the list is good to go. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RoseCherry64: Alright, I think I fixed all of this. To explain why half the Peel Session tracks have different info, only two were released on Godflesh's 2001 compilation. So, the other two first saw release, as you pointed out, in the Grind Madness comp. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CelestialWeevil: I think it's still relevant to point out that they're Peel sessions, even though it's not written like that on the release tracklisting. It feel inconsistent to have half of the tracks from the session not have "(Peel Session)" next to them. Good work otherwise! RoseCherry64 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RoseCherry64: Good point, I'll add that. Thanks again. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — No more issues from me. I'll note that one would have to scroll through 11 pics before the songs section on mobile. However, other featured lists also have heavy use of images, so I'm not raising an issue about this. RoseCherry64 (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

  • All of the references are well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no problems.
  • Spot-checks of refs 10 and 18 also show no issues.
  • I'm a little concerned about the reliability of BrooklynVegan (ref 8). Our article on the subject implies that this is just a blog with no real editorial oversight. Fortunately, it looks like the bit of information this sources could probably be found in something more reliable, and I suggest doing so. Other than that, the sources look all right, although my knowledge of metal websites is admittedly lacking. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: I replaced the BrooklynVegan reference. Thanks for the review! CelestialWeevil (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The new source looks good. With that done, I consider this source review a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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/List_of_songs_recorded_by_Godflesh/archive1&oldid=1138487430"