Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Paul Kelly discography

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:14, 20 September 2008 [1].

Paul Kelly discography edit

I believe that this passes the criteria for a featured list and I think that it should be recognised as such. Dan arndt (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Preface: I based my initial work for this discography on the Australian ones that have reached FL status: Powderfinger discography, Silverchair discography and Delta Goodrem discography.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid starting with "This is a list.." as featured articles don't start with "This is an article.." do they? However, see the three FL discographies above.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid bold links in the lead. However, likewise. Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Australian rock / folk music" - spaces before and after the slash? Changed sentence to use a comma instead. Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it may be difficult but "Paul Kelly" appears eight times in the opening para of the lead making it hardly engaging. I wonder if a footnote would be of use here? Footnote used: it lists his Bands by chronology.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "major studio releases" - what's a "major" release? Studio albums that are not EPs?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Reworded sentence. Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " band Uncle Bill and Professor Ratbaggy by Professor Ratbaggy a dub reggae group formed with members of his Paul Kelly Band." - wow, the most confused sentence I think I've ever seen...! Seriously, a little rejig required here to remember who "his" refers to, maybe a comma or two... You got me there - what was I thinking! Sorry about that one: reworded the sentence, hopefully it scans better.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is remix albums in the infobox if there are zero? Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No images? Added the Long Bay Gaol image (same as in main article).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to wikilink dates of release.
I have a problem here. See MOS:DISCOG, which are only guidelines, thus not compulsory, but do expect full dates of releases to be wikilinked.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tony1 has recently delinked some of the overlinkage in this article, in doing so the release dates for albums have been delinked. I have indicated at Tony1's talkpage that the situation here was subject to review and that you had not yet indicated whether these release dates must be delinked. I have requested a reversion on those release dates while you consider your decision on this, but I don't intend engaging in an edit war on this issue. It is somethng that needs to be resolved by WP:MOSNUM and MOS:DISCOG.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tony1 has changed the entry at MOS:DISCOG so that it now aligns with WP:MOSNUM. Hence, the changes made to this article will now stand: the album release dates will not be wikilinked.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates unlinked by User:Tony1.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why the big gaps between the colon and the colour of certification?
Not sure of this, I use Firefox and see no big gap: it could be a wrap problem? I need to look at this on other browsers and see if I see the problem on them.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now using IE, and the gap is definately bigger. I'll try to fix it soon.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reconfigured each cell with an entry in the Certification column, hopefully the gap is no more than a standard space. I'm back on Firefox so I don't actually see any difference. If it's still no good, I'll have to try something else.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked on Firefox, IE and Safari: gap seems OK now.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't overlink AUS and NZ - the table isn't sortable. Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several blank producers. Not good. Either footnote or resolve. Found the others on Australian Rock Database, also verifies the other producers already listed.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roll on Summer EP is bold an unlinked. The EP before and after is bold and linked - probably only need to link one. Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it just me or are footnotes a to h finished with a comma? Should be a full stop, each footnote is independent of the other. You're right they were commas, but I'd prefer full stops there too, so I don't know where I got the commas from.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "-" mean if "—" means a release which didn't chart. It was a typo, I'm assuming it was for "Beautiful Feeling" single? (NOTE: I've separated this comment from the rest of your original sentence.)Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And on that note, can you prove that every single single/album you've used that annotation with has been released and failed to chart in every country?
In a footnote (#l) I've got the McFarlane ref (#1) to indicate that Gossip and associated singles were his first International releases (North America and Europe). allmusic biography (accessible from first ExtLnk) confirms this. Australian Rock Database (ref #4) confirms many of the international releases but concentrates on albums/EPs and is not good for all singles. Other single releases are being tracked for International labels to confirm their release into those markets. For any non-releases, I'll change the "—" to " " with a greyed background to indicate non-release into that market.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fixing up the footnotes problem, I've created a whole Notes section (see below for rationale). By doing so, I've changed the order of some references, hence comments above may relate to old numbering.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice at Pink Floyd discography (also an FLC) they use

"—" denotes releases that did not chart or weren't released in that country. within the last row of relevant tables. Would this be acceptable here if all singles' countries of release can't be proven?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Directors missing. Added a footnote to indicate lack of knowledge of these.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Nevertheless, I am still searching for them anyway.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soundtrack notes - some end with full stops some don't. Should all end in stops now.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12 has a rogue ]. I wrapped a nowiki around the word Import enclosed in square brackets: I hope this resolves the problem.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Summary I believe I've covered all the points indicated above, except[reply]

Three video directors' names are still missing but covered by a note as suggested.
"—" denotes releases that did not chart. - some singles releases may not have entered the US market, I'm still checking for international record companies, if unable to find these in the next 2 days I'll use the following instead:

"—" denotes releases that did not chart or weren't released in that country. I hope that will be acceptable.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finished off on both of these points. Couldn't find the names of those directors and so will leave the note to indicate lack of knowledge. Changed definition of "—" to the latter form which should cover non-releases into US market for the singles table.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from SRX
  • Comments
    • No image? Added the Long Bay Gaol image (same as in main article).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Throughout the prose the band "Paul Kelly band" is referred to as such, why isn't it "the Paul Kelly band?" Must be an aversion to "the", I've put a few in there: hope it helps.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The third paragraph should be cutdown, and can be cutdown. Only the work that has charted on the top 10 or a top 15 should be noted not all of them, as charting on #36 is non-notable. If all of it is necessary to keep, split into two paragraphs. Yes, a very good point. I've cut down some of the content and split it into two paragraphs.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC) If required, further cutbacks can be made. (Now I sound like your local politician!)Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "—" denotes releases that did not chart. - this should be incorporated as a row into the table.
    • The table should be modeled after the table used in Lostprophets discography (not an FL, but the table is used by other FL's)
I'm assuming this is a heads-up for the previous point (btw, thanks: it helps to know what it should looke like) or is there additional work that needs to be done to the tables?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the notes on the live albums need to be sourced. Reference supplied.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has any effort been done to find the directors for the videos in 1993, 1997, or 2001?
I've done a number of searches over the last two weeks, but I have only found inferential possibilities so far. e.g. At Other People's Houses, a fansite, I found the names of videos some with directors & some not, but I've only put in those that are verified by the videography ref given in the article. Still working on this.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a footnote to indicate lack of knowledge of these, initial reviewer (above) indicates this would be acceptable. If not acceptable to you I can delete the video entries from the table until a director's name can be found.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I feel that the notes under each section should go into the footnotes section, as that is what it is for.
The footnotes section was only just added in response to a suggestion from the initial reviewer (above) regarding over usuage of Paul Kelly in the Lead. I will move the rest of the footnotes there soon.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now moved the footnotes down to the Footnote section. May have to add more footnotes.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't happy with the Footnotes section: there was no linking (backwards/forwards) to multiply-used notes. So I've set up a new Notes section and I am learning to separate explanatory notes from the References section already present - I've never tackled this before so bear with me; nesting refs within notes was a revelation. I've got the first four or five footnotes converted and have left the old Footnotes section until I complete the conversion. Because of this process it has changed the order of the old refs. I will be continuing with the conversion - just thought I'd better keep you appraised of the interim nature of the current article.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finished converting the Footnotes to Notes with a separate Notes section placed above References section. Hopefully it now has full linking. I have deleted the previous individual Footnotes and associated Footnotes section that was created earlier today as it did not work too well. I'm sorry for the interruption of your reviewing with this additional editing but I believe it follows on from the previous reviewer's suggestion of adding a footnote for Paul Kelly's various bands and your request for all Footnotes to be placed in their own section (where they should be).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary I believe I've covered all the points indicated above. Unless there's more to follow up with the Lostprophets discography comparison, or you want the video directors named or the relevant entries deleted. Furthermore the "—" denotes releases that did not chart. within certain tables may be replaced by "—" denotes releases that did not chart or weren't released in that country. if acceptable by initial reviewer (decision still pending).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finished off on this review. Used latter definition of "—" without feedback from first reviewer: hopefully it will be acceptable.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--

SRX 23:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - my issues have been resolved to meet the FL Criteria.--SRX 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates—It's not so much that you don't need to autoformat dates, but that such is deprecated at WP:MOSNUM#Date autoformatting. I've updated the discog guidelines, which I note are a proposal only. Tony (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with going along with WP:MOSNUM (and your new edit of MOS:DISCOG) over earlier MOS:DISCOG guidelines, I only thought the latter was an exception to the former and didn't realise it was outdated: thanks for the clarification.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions - Why are the certifications columns so wide, and why are some of the cells in the tables blue while others have em dashes? Jennavecia (Talk) 14:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

certification columns have been re-sized - the blue cells represent those singles that were not released in the US and hence did not chart in the US. Dan arndt (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Some 110 articles cite Australian Rock Database (ARDb), see wikipedia search result. ARDb is a listing of Australian rock artists as edited by Magnus Holmgren, it contains substantial information on their albums (including different types of releases in different markets), band members, record producers/labels and projects for these artists. Some of the 110 articles found above are GA (I helped write three) and I have used ARDb. It is run independently of the artists' control although they are sometimes acknowledged as sources for the information. I believe it is a reliable source. It would be difficult to find another on-line resource for this sort of information about Australian rock bands.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian Government sponsored site Australian rock music lists Australian Rock Database as a resource for information on the Music industry.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only 91 articles use mvdbase.com mostly discography articles. In particular, Powderfinger discography is an FL and was cited above as one of my starting points.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Music Web Site is an internet site which relies on its accuracy for sales and information.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will replace this ref with a better one if necessary.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found the liner notes for the album and they agree with the discogs entry on this particular album, I have left the discogs ref as it is now only a back-up to the liner note ref.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answered below by Dan arndt.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A site sponsored by Brisbane City Council, which is independent and reliable.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pick one, either put the author's last name first or their first name first in the references, but be consistent.

Authors names have been added to those references that have been used. Sanity is a music store. Dan arndt (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I've consistently used, last name, first name for authors in the references but that editors are given as first name last name:. Throughout I use the cite web, cite news or cite book forms as applicable. Could you point out an e.g. where this has been inconsistent? I may have missed one.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Is it possible to seperate the Compilations table into "Live albums" (Live...Live at the Continental) "Compilations" (Songs from the South) and "Live DVD's" (Ways and Means, Live Apples) to provide a bit more detail... I've tried myself but not that up on wikitables and don't want to muck up your great work. DISEman (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that it is possible to separate the Compilations table, but I'm no wiz with wikitables either and it would take awhile. I'll have a try at it on my sandbox later today but can't promise it'll get done today.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some 'FL' discographies such as the Powderfinger discography do not split them into various tables but I do not others do - guess it is simply a question of style and what the user considers looks good. Dan arndt (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at splitting the tables, have a look, see which you prefer.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Paul_Kelly_discography&oldid=1138488465"