Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin/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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [1].

---

List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin

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

• Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin/archive1

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've put a lot of work into this list, bringing it to where it is now, and believe it meets the criteria for it to become featured. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk)

*"approximately 107 songs" - seems an oddly precise figure to be linked to the word "approximately" "Beginning in late 1968 under the name "The Yardbirds"" - I would be tempted to change this to something like "Beginning in late 1968 as an incarnation of the band The Yardbirds" "Plant would receive writing credits in later editions of the album" => "Plant would receive writing credits on later editions of the album" "selling over one million copies and helped cement the group's popularity" => "selling over one million copies and helping to cement the group's popularity" "released a year later in October 1970," => sentence currently ends with a comma "some of the band's most well-known songs" => "some of the band's best-known songs" "continued the band's array of critical and commercial success" => "continued the band's run of critical and commercial success" "The first wave of albums, Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin II, and Led Zeppelin III, were released on 2 June 2014" => "The first wave of albums, Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin II, and Led Zeppelin III, was released on 2 June 2014" (the subject of the sentence is "wave", which is singular). The same applies to subsequent sentences. In the key, "box set" does not need a capital B "Name of song, Writer(s), Original release, and year of release." - no need for capital on writer or original, and should not have a full stop at the end as it is not a complete sentence. "Ian Stewart (center) of The Rolling Stones" (in photo caption) - UK subject so UK spelling should be used as per WP:TIES More to come when I have some more time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks very much for your help I've fixed everything you commented on. However, in terms of the Yardbirds sentence, every source I find say the group was not an "incarnation" of the Yardbirds; after the Yardbirds disbanded, Jimmy Page wanted to create another group – what would eventually become Led Zeppelin. However, he kept their name as "The Yardbirds" and "The New Yardbirds" to gain footing in the industry as the Yardbirds were well-known at that time. Before they released their first album, they changed their name officially. So going back to your comment, I think it should be kept the way it is, "under the name "The Yardbirds"" just because that how I find it described in sources. But other than that, I've fixed everything. Feel free to comment on anything else. Thanks very much. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC) You still need to fix the spelling of "centre" in the Ian Stewart photo caption -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Done. Must have missed it by accident. Thanks very much. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC) I have to say I don't like the wording of the notes relating to the bonus tracks on the re-issued albums. The "and so...." bit doesn't really read right. I would change each note to read simply "Bonus track on re-issue of [x]". And change the "Here is the track listing......" link to a proper reference -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC) A few more issues with the refs...... What makes albumlinernotes.com a reliable source? Refs 35-37 don't list a publisher/work Ref 38 - Rolling Stone is not wikilinked whereas other works are Ref 39 - Rhino is not wikilinked. Also, show the name as Rhino Entertainment (as per the title of our article) as just putting Rhino is a bit unclear Ref 40 - what makes turnmeondeadman.com a reliable source? The fact that it's published via WordPress doesn't look too promising..... Ref 43 - Pitchfork not wikilinked Ref 47 - Rolling Stone not wikilinked again Discogs and AllMusic are also not wikilinked in various places It's very close to being there, just needs a few tweaks.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Done. I used album liner notes when first making references for the page. At the time I didn't know the site was unreliable. I replaced all of them with refs from Discogs and AllMusic. I also removed the turnmeondeadman ref and got 2 reliable book sources. Finally, I put wikilinks into the references you mentioned. Thanks very much for your help. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Comments - sorry, I have some further comments on the latest version..... "In late 1968, they began to record their first album[3] and signed with Atlantic Records that afforded them considerable artistic freedom.[4] After changing their name officially to "Led Zeppelin",[5][6] their first album" - I don't think any of the text I have put in italics is needed. If the bit about changing their name is deemed important (I don't think it is personally) then you need to add back in what they changed it from or it doesn't make sense "The next two albums [...] was released on 27 October 2014" - were, not was Same with the equivalent sentence about the final three re-issues Original Release column heading should not have a capital R Nearly there :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC) Done. I left in the sentence you mentioned above but just removed the part about them changing their name. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - don't think I can see any outstanding issues.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

;Comment from Jimknut References: Numbers 1, 50, 54, 58, 60, and 62 are not references at all, but footnotes displaying extra information. These need to be moved into a "Notes" section and have their own references. Jimknut (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback. I'll get that done as soon as possible. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Fixed most of them. I made all of them into notes and not references but am still searching for references for a couple of them. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Done. All notes now have references. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ojorojo (talk)

*Discogs is used for refs for many songs. Where is the information being taken from? The user-generated text on the linked page or the actual image of the album? The two aren't always the same and sometimes show discrepancies from release to release. Also, AllMusic is considered a RS for its reviews, but other info (e.g., genres, songwriters) is not necessarily accurate. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Sometimes I found that AllMusic doesn't have the correct writers on original release as well as writers at all which is why I used Discogs. Should I redo all of them to AllMusic instead? Also AllMusic doesn't have pages for the deluxe editions. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Depends on where you're getting the Discogs info from. The user submitted text is not consistently accurate and not considered a RS (see WP:UGC). Images of the actual release are much better (looking at photos of the album sleeve in "More Images"), but, since credits change over time, it's important to use only an image of the latest authorized release. You've noted the problems with AllMusic (it's difficult to know which edition they're using), so that's out. Performance rights organisation are sources, but where there are differences with the latest release image, both should be noted. Bios and sheet music vary in quality and usually don't reflect the latest updates. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC) I'm checking out the Presence Discogs reference I used and it does have images of the the album that has the actual liner notes themselves. Should I use these images for references instead of just the page itself? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC) The Discogs link to the original LP has images that show the credits, however, the one to the expanded reissue doesn't. Perhaps it would be simpler to use a Discogs link that shows both (e.g., R1-547434). This is a problem with using Discogs – many releases must be sifted through to find the right one. Also, since the actual liner notes are being used, it seems that the better citation format would be Template:Cite AV media notes with a link to the right Discogs release in the |URL= (if this is linked, the album title cannot be Wiki-linked though). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) So is something like this () what you mean? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Yes! Template:Cite AV media notes#Parameters states: "The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website)". "Apple Records" is one of the template examples, so "Swan Song Records", may be better than "Discogs".() —Ojorojo (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Awesome. I’ll get to work on fixing these refs as soon as possible. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Done. All Discogs references should be linked to images. If there are more I'm missing let me know. Thanks very much. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Looks good. A couple of comments: "Bathroom Sound" – the List has Page, while the link shows "Page - Plant - Bonham". "Boogie with Stu" – the List includes Mrs. Valens, while the link doesn't (she is on the orig. album). "The Girl I Love ..." – the List includes Dixon & Johnson, while the link doesn't. "I Can't Quit You Baby" (live) – LZ released many live versions of their songs, but the List only includes ICQYB. If a live recording has the same name, it probably shouldn't be here (adding all the "Communication Breakdown"s, etc., would bloat the List). "Key to the Highway/Trouble in Mind" – the link doesn't show Richard M. Jones (he wrote TIM). Is he listed on another release? "Living Loving Maid" – the link shows "Livin' Lovin' Wreck" (must be very 1st pressing). Oddities probably should be left to the song articles. "Sunshine Woman" – The Complete BBC Sessions should sort on "C". I'll add a couple more later. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Done. I added the "I Can't Quit You Baby" live version because it was officially released on Coda. I'll remove it. Also, after looking at many pictures of the deluxe edition, I found the vinyl itself only credits Broonzy and Segar while the gatefold sleeve credits includes Jones as a writer. I don't know why this is the case but I fixed the reference. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC) OK, the referencing has been addressed. "Indicates cover version" – "cover version" means different things to different people. For "I Can't Quit You Baby", "We're Gonna Groove", etc., it's clear. But "Gallows Pole", "Travelling Riverside Blues", etc., are more properly adaptations/arrangements and "Nobody's Fault but Mine" "In My Time of Dying" is credited solely to LZ. "Covers" aren't specifically mentioned in the refs. Since each song entry includes the writer(s), the reader can see which are credited to others besides LZ. If the highlighting really is that important, perhaps change the key to something similar to "Indicates songs with writers other than LZ members". "Indicates Deluxe Edition track only/box set track only" – the song titles also have footnotes, which say about the same thing (not sure that both are needed). Are you trying to point out that they are the only LZ songs that are exclusive to specific releases? (BTW, BritEng prefers "boxed sets") Choice of colors – I find the colors jarring and, together with the images, makes the page look busy (and somewhat distracting at first). Are others available or may just symbols be used? —Ojorojo (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC) When I was first creating the page I saw that other featured lists used color coding to help out with specific things so I thought I'd do the same for this one. I used color coding for covers because Zeppelin has recorded covers and have been somewhat notorious for that & for the box sets I used colors to distinguish which tracks were exclusive to those only. Should I change specific ones? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Similar colors are used in other FLs for different types of singles, etc. (I'm not sure how the color scheme was arrived at – one person's garish is another's ...). LZ is an album-oriented group, but as you explain it, certain releases are worth highlighting. However, because of past problems on LZ WP articles, it's better to take a cautious approach to "covers". Except for songs solely credited to others, citations should be added for other songs identified as covers. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Yeah I agree. I didn't put in colors for single because Zeppelin hated singles. I can put colors on the writer column and put "songs co-written or written by others". BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Adding on, how should I handle "Gallows Pole", as the song is traditional and has been recorded by many artists but is only credited as "Trad. arr by Page & Plant. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC) That would work and tie in with the images of the other writers. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Maybe add another color for "Indicates traditional songs arranged by Page and/or Plant" or add this to "Indicates songs written or co-written by others and traditional songs". "Hats Off ..." is also identified as "Traditional" (borrows from "Shake 'Em On Down"). The first appearance of arr. should use arr. & same with a.k.a.. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC) That takes care of the table. I'll look through the lead later. Rather than trying to list, I can make the changes there and you may revert/change as you see fit. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Alright no problem. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC) The lead doesn't contain POV, OR, etc., and is well-referenced to RS. Since ChrisTheDude has already made a number of specific suggestions, I didn't change anything. Some more general comments: Uses of {{Cite web}} should be more consistent throughout (|title=, |last=, |first=, etc.). Also, "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website)" (Template:Cite web). "The" in band names is not capitalized mid-sentence (MOS:THEMUSIC). A consistent ref format throughout the article is preferred (use sfn for Lewis 1994, Cite AV media notes for Super Deluxe Edition Box, don't add sfn for Erlewine bio[25]). The page number dash for "Courtright 2009, p.288–" isn't needed. Gigwise.com notes "poll conducted by radio station Absolute Classic Rock". Is this noteworthy? The HOH ref doesn't specifically say no cover versions. The "Fool in the Rain" chart ref seems limited to 1–10 (Shadwick 2005, p. 287 has the info). Maybe review some of the wording: "over their twelve-year career. During their career as a band ..." "In the decades following their dissolution..." After their breakup? "Beginning in late 1968 ...they began" "Plant would receive ..." Plant received? "Going against the band's ..." Against the band's? "The single was, however, a commercial success, selling over one million copies ..." However, the single sold over one million copies? "The album would prove to be their last ..." The album was their last? "In the years since their dissolution ..." Start new paragraph? "Wave" seems over used. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Done. When I was researching about the band I found out that Page and Bonham were planning to make another hard-hitting album (LZ4 style) after they toured In Through the Out Door but they weren't able to make it as Bonham died in 1980, which is why I kept it as "The album would prove to be their last". I changed the HotH sentence to more about songs rather than covers. Other than that I changed refs, removed and added a couple more. Does everything look better? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Yes and I like the addition of the styles (although check sp "ballad"). The AM bio uses "title=Allmusic > Led Zeppelin > Biography", while subsequent reviews use "title=Led Zeppelin (II//III/etc) - Led Zeppelin". Maybe "title=Led Zeppelin – Biography" (note: endash rather than hyphen). The first occurrence of Erlewine should use "authorlink=". Also, I guess I wasn't very clear on avoiding duplication of words/phrases. How about: "English rock band Led Zeppelin recorded 108 songs during their career. Between 1969 and 1980, they released ... After their breakup, a final studio album ..." "In late 1968, while still known as "the Yardbirds",[3] they began to ..." "Since 1980, the surviving members have sporadically collaborated ..." —Ojorojo (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Done. After looking into it they were known as "the New Yardbirds" during their first tour and then changed their name to "Led Zeppelin" so I changed that. Thanks very much. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC) In When Giants Walked the Earth, Wall uses "New Yardbirds" (which is used for the refs in the LZ article). However, Dave Lewis, in Led Zeppelin: The Concert File, discusses each early gig and provides copies of posters, handbills, print ads, etc. He comments, "Still billed as the Yardbirds, the group that would become Led Zeppelin made their stage debut on September 7, in Denmark. It's worth noting that there is little evidence of the group being dubbed New Yardbirds – this may have been a myth due to press coverage of the time." (p. 20) Four posters and ads for Sept. 7 through Oct. 19 show the group was billed as the Yardbirds. (pp. 21–25) A poster for Oct. 25 includes "New Yardbirds", although other reports, including Wall (p. 74), claim this was the first time they used Led Zeppelin. Lewis notes "this is the only record of the group being billed New Yardbirds" and suggests it may have been designed before the change to LZ. (p. 25). Wall does not provide copies of posters or mention the source for the New Yardbirds. Shadwick notes in an Oct. interview for Melody Maker, Page comments "the formation of 'a New Yardbirds'" (p. 33), which Lewis says the journal identified as Led Zeppelin in the Oct. 26 issue. (p. 24) Page's comment may be the source of the confusion – "a New Yardbirds" became "the New Yardbirds". —Ojorojo (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC) So should I change it back to just "the Yardbirds" or leave it as "the New Yardbirds"? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Since this is a list of songs, many bio (and discographical) details are unneeded. Perhaps leave it out: "In late 1968, the group began to record their first album ..." —Ojorojo (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC) In the "External links" section: the BMI link doesn't work and Now & Zen appears to be user generated (and not currently maintained). Maybe add discography.led zeppelin.com[2] (from their official website). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC) The images and captions are relevant. Except as noted below, they have PD or ShareAlike tags: Stewart caption – "the Rolling Stones" Memphis Minnie – FUR indicates that the image is copyrighted and therefore may only be justified for use in her bio article (may want to get a 2nd opinion on this). Also, caption might be shorter. Perhaps: "Memphis Minnie received a writing credit for Led Zeppelin's adaptation of her 1929 song "When the Levee Breaks"." Broonzy – Similar FUR concern as for Memphis Minnie. The caption may be misinterpreted as Broonzy also being the writer of "Trouble in Mind". —Ojorojo (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Done. I could've sworn when I was looking up pictures that none of the pictures I chose said Fair use. I'll remove them so it's not copyright infringement. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Looks good. My concerns/comments have all been addressed. I'll wait to see what ChrisTheDude and Jimknut have to say about the changes, before commenting on meeting the overall Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC) Awesome thanks so much for your help. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support It meets the six FL criteria – it is comprehensive with RSs that check out (including the lead), is well organized/formatted, follows MOS, and is stable. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all so much for your help! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments You have two links to their first album in two consecutive sentences. Link Robert Plant. "against the band's wishes." this phrase is repeated verbatim, not great prose. "The band's following ... continued the band's " again, repetitive prose. Link "father" to John Bonham. Key table is not MOS:ACCESS compliant. Main table is sortable so all linkable items should be linked every time. Jake Holmes caption needs a ref for the legal action claim. "Led Zeppelin Discography" D->d. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Done. Everything look good? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support all done for me, this is good to go as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• 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.