Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Snow Patrol discography/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 17:31, 29 October 2009 [1].

Snow Patrol discography

edit
Nominator(s): Suede67 (talk), User:RichV (talk)
Toolbox

This FLC is a joint nomination between me, User:Suede67 and User:RichV. Collectively, we have worked on the list, and feel its the best that's possible. We believe it meets all the criteria. Thank you. Suede67 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Diaa
Comments
  1. According to Wikipedia:YOUTUBE#Restrictions_on_linking you can't link to material that infringes copyright. So usersubmited youtube videos of their music videos should all be removed. Also of any other video hosting website of course.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done
  2. Give the General reference you used for the list. For example how did u know that "Starfighter Pilot" was released on 13 June, 1997? Do this like on Santigold_discography#References.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done
  3. Wikilink Snow Patrol in the lead and don't have it bolded if it's wikilinked. You don't need to wikilink Discography.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done RichV 22:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Disambiguate Cassette.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done
  5. It says in the lead two extended plays while they are six.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done RichV 22:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No need for one table saying "Chasing Cars" certification. You could just have one column in Singles for this certification like on David_Bowie_discography#Singles. Was that single distributed alone on a venyl disc or what exactly?
    I put it separately because the band has had just one certification till now, adding just that one in a table of 25 singles would not look right, empty colums, just one filled, so I thought to list it separately. If there are more certified singles in the future, i'd integrate them in, but just 1, it'd look odd. I hope you won't mind if I let it be. Suede67 (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ok.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. What's non singles? Isn't this just another song in the "Eyes Open" album?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, its a song of the album Eyes Open but it wasnt released as a single, it charted on its own, maybe because of airplay? Its the same thing as listed here as "non-charted songs". Do you want me to change the title, or let it be, now that its clear? Suede67 (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't be clear to other readers. The song is listed under Singles, but isn't a single. Change it to "Other charted songs" or something.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, done
  8. Merge Page 2 and 1 in general references. No need to split them a user can click next page.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, i added a note to the ref to direct readers to see the 2nd page as well
  9. DJ Mix Compilations should be under Compilation albums in the infobox or maybe included int the Compilations. I posted on Template talk:Infobox artist discography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies regarding this issue.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added those 2 pages to my watch. But in the meantime, do you want me to increase the count (in the infobox) to 3? the dj mixes are already included in the main compilations section as a subsection.
    Then you would have to remove DJ Music Compilations from the infobox. I guess you can keep it it's not that big of a deal.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Section "Other appearances" has notes which don't have references. Please reference those.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I thought the wiki articles for those songs would do the job, but anyway. But on of the songs "Signal Fire" has been a single, which is listed before in the singles table. Should this need a ref also? Suede67 (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments:

  1. Wikilink studio albums, compliations, extended plays and live dvd the first time they're mentioned in the lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done
  2. EP should be written out in the lead--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done
  3. "and now based in Northern Ireland and Scotland", not needed and troubles the sentences flow.
    Done
  4. Don't bold anything in the lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done
  5. Please try to focus the lead more about their discography. More about the awards they received for the various songs and albums, their success and so on.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done

I'll need to read through the prose to spot grammatical or spelling errors. It seems though that the list is well written and feature quality. I'll be away for a week and hope till then more reviewers would review the article.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Suede67 (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "the band were signed to Fiction/Interscope in 2003" "was" and what's Fiction/Interscope ? Is this and or or? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They're the names of the record labels the band is signed to. Fiction is for the UK and Interscope for the US. Thats how the official website lists, so I decded to go with that. link Should I still change it? If yes, to what?
  2. Actually the lead needs a lot of fixes. The listing of Awards is bad and the history in Paragraph one is too long. Try to focus it more on the release of each album...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to. I think I've fixed the awards problem as well, but not sure. If its still not satisfactory, please tell exactly what you expect on the "awards is bad" bit. They were added only because of your request in an earlier comment.
Thank you for your support! Suede67 (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—remove the mention of awards from the lead. They aren't mentioned anywhere else in the article. They are unnecessary for the lead of a discography anyway, as a discography deals more with quantitative information like chart positions and sales figures. indopug (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but Diaa abdelmoneim asked to do this. Comment above. But do you think the current mention of sales/sertifications in the lead is good enough? Suede67 (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do. Especially since none they don't seem to have won any major awards like Grammys or BRITs. Further:
  • Why are the EPs sorted in two columns?
There are 7 EPs, I thought one column would leave too much whitespace on the right, it feels odd to me.
  • Instead creating a whole extra table for "You Could Be Happy", how about including it with the other singles, and then adding a hatnote "not released as a single"?
I'm not too sure, because it wasnt a single. Do you have any other way? How about if i remove the countries from the table in which it didnt chart?
  • Same for the promotional single, and the one with the certifications ... That info can be conveyed with hatnotes well enough.::(In the case of the certification, you can even create an extra column in the original table)
Diaa abdelmoneim also suggested this above. He agreed to keep it the way it is, as it'd look odd to list one certification in a table of 25 odd singles. I changed it a bit, is it good now?
Yes, I too havent. Two of the band members are DJs, and they've compiled mix albums. Meaning chosen songs by artists they like. See DJ mix. The 'compiled by' column lists which member compiled the album.

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Suede67 (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • ""—" indicates singles that failed to chart." Prefer "denotes" to keep consistent with other discographies.
Done
  • Can you make the numerican footnotes in the discography clickable by using a system such as {{note label}}?
I tried but cant understand how to use it, can you please do it if you have time?
I have done this. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm dubious about references such as "Confirmed director's name from Jeepster, and later the director himself. (Can reproduce e-mail conversation)", because a) they are very self-referential, b) how are readers going to know who contacted Jeepster, and c) this conversation is not verifiable, one of our core content policies.
I myself emailed both parties. How if I paste the conversation's text itself? Because nowhere on the net is there a source for this. The conversation can be reliable, if you (a neutral party) emails them and asks for verification. But i'm not sure.
I believe you need OTRS permissions for this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can I get it? Whats the procedure? Suede67 (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked someone knowledgeable about this to help out. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Suede67 (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the emails cannot be used to verify the information. Read this comment from an OTRS volunteer (he does give advice on another way to verify that info). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I had asked the director just that, didnt work out. Suede67 (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The website is of the newspaper San Antonio Express News. Heres their about us page. Suede67 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: The citation using the source has now ben removed, so this is now redundant. Suede67 (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kiac (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from Kiac
  • "Guitarist Nathan Connolly joined the band in 2002,[7] the band was signed to Fiction and Interscope record labels in 2003.[8]" - use an "and" instead of the comma?
Done
  • First mention of the UK should be United Kingdom; so it could be: "Boosted in the United Kingdom by the top-five hit "Run",[9] the album sold 1.6 million copies.[10]"
Done
Done
  • Certifications in tables:
    • BPI → [[British Phonographic Industry|UK]]
    • IRMA → [[Irish Recorded Music Association|IRE]]
    • ARIA → [[Australian Recording Industry Association|AUS]]
    • RIAA → [[Recording Industry Association of America|US]]
Done
  • Remove the Worldwide sales figures, they aren't verifiable, just claims. The My San Antonio article states "nearly 5 million worldwide, according to Nielsen SoundScan"; Nielsen SoundScan tracks US sales, nothing else. And Snow Patrol.com as a source is not particularly justified for something as adjustable as album sales. Plus, worldwide figures aren't the standard usually anyway.
I see, done.
  • Top of the EP tables: EP → EP details
Done
  • Throughout article: Digital Download → Digital download or digital download. Same goes for Digipak and Box Set, etc.
Done
  • "Single was certified" → "Chasing Cars" was certified
Done
  • What verifies "Just Say Yes" as an upcoming single?
I thought the article would do. Ref now added.
  • Swiss Charts → Swiss Music Charts
Done
  • Usually we would call the DVD section "Video albums". You wouldn't call the Studio albums section "CDs", would you? Link to DVD in the formats.
Done
Done
  • There is a lot of non-publications in italics in the references, if you have two different mediums to list you would usually do: '|publisher= Australian-charts.com. Hung Median|' instead of using the work tab and making something italicised which perhaps shouldn't be.
Done
Websites (non-magazines, etc) like MTV, Allmusic and VH1 should not be in italics. Have also confirmed with Jeepster → Has been confirmed with Jeepster. Just need to sort out that email reference issue then I will support. 02:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Done, except the email problem.
  • Ref #58? Is this viable, anyone?
Can it do without a ref for the video director? There's no other way really as I see it, and i was lucky to even get a reply from the label (who told me the director's name) in the first place, which I then confirmed by emailing the director himself.
My only problem is that it's not verifiable by anyone other than you, say in 5 years when the article is reviewed, it's going to be scrutinized. I'm not sure if you can somehow publish the email or something, this is an issue above me - someone browsing the review might know?
Well, as I said to Dabomb before, it can be reviewed by someone other than me, a neutral party like yourself can email the label and confirm, I can provide you with my email details etc which will help them in recognising they conversed with me. Something like that. Suede67 (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This TFD seems to be quite clear in saying emails shouldn't be used as sources: [2]. Hmm. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the OTRS will help. Dabomb may have an answer later. Suede67 (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome work, very close :) k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!, especially for making the clickable notes, much appreciated! Suede67 (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied, well done. Support. Kiac (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! Suede67 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  1. According to Allmusic there are two new albums released in the next two months. These are listed here as compilation albums...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know why there are listed under main albums, but they're essentially compilations. LTN is Late Night Tales, where artists create an album with music they like, and add a track of their own, and Up to Now is an album containing tracks spanning the band's career, and there are a few (3) new songs. Theey're definitely compilations.
  1. Another video album "Phenomenon" isn't listed here.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phenomenon isn't an official release from the band. I dont know if its a fake, but it was released by a Koch records, a label the band has absolutely no ties with. Suede67 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) Suede67 (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Nice, generally. Just a few things here and there

  • "Gary Lightbody ," -- space before the comma
Excellent catch! I think it was even missed in the PR.
  • The compilation albums section is usually placed immediately after the studio albums, so that all albums are grouped together.. any particular reason why the layout is different here?
No specific reason, just how it turned out. I have moved it now.
  • Because "Crazy In Love" appears as a B-side on one of their singles, I don't think it's right to include it in the Other appearances section just cause it's included in a compilation album that has nothing to do with the band. Otherwise you could add all their Now! appearances
I see, but now, but now the cover is being included in their own compilation Up to Now. Should I mention this album instead? Or delete the entry?
  • Who is the artist for Comeback Girl? Since it's not linked to an article, I'd say this is pretty important information
Done
  • A few website names appear in italics in the references when they should be normal text

Good otherwise. Answer/fix what I've commented and I'll be happy to support. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiac also mentioned the italics problem, now fixed.
Support Happy with everything that's gone on in this nom, all concerns seem addressed, and I trust that the business with the director will be sorted out one way or the other soon. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Atleast someone's optimistic :) Suede67 (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The lead disagrees with the infobox in terms of the number of singles.
Done
  • Snow Patrol linked twice in two sentences.
Done
  • Abbreviate EP first before using (i.e put (EP) after extended play in the opening sentence).
Done
  • " Boosted in the United Kingdom by the top-five hit "Run",[9] the album sold 1.6 million copies in the UK" United Kingdom (or UK) mentioned twice in one sentence - a bit dull - any chance you could rejig the prose?
Done, is it okay now?
  • Link Meteor Music Award.
Done
  • Is it correct to list Shrug's Yogurt EP under Snow Patrol's discog? If this has already been discussed and resolved, feel free to ignore me...!
Shrug was the first name of the band, which had to be changed because another band had the same name, its not a different band actually. Same for Polarbear (under which they released their second EP).
  • Second note ""Warmer Climate" was released as a promo single..." doesn't link to anything. And I'd prefer not to see "promo", instead "promotional"?
It doesnt link to anything because the song "Warmer Climate" isnt notable enough to warrant an article, however, i added it because seemingly, other discos like the Goldfrapp discography lists the promotionals. I have changed "promo" though.
  • Not clear what "other charted songs" is if it isn't a single?
The section lists the songs (song, in this case) which charted without being released, maybe because of airplay.
  • UK or U.K.? US or U.S.? Be consistent please.
Okay then, changed them to UK and US.
  • What does Ref 56 mean? And how is it reliable?
Ah yes, that's being sorted out, hopefully (by Dabomb87).
  • Date formats in the references should be consistent, i.e. if you have a human-readable date then you should have human-readable accessdate.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Dabomb has fixed this. Thanks!

Support prose – The lead seems fine. The only part I'm not thrilled to see is this: "charting in the top 5 and the album subsequently sold 1.6 million copies there." A comma after "top 5" would be beneficial, although this is a minor point in the end. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little rephrasing. How is it now? Suede67 (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Is this now officially deadlocked? There seems to be only one issue, the director ref. In the past I have seen FLCs go through even without no citations for directors, apparently because the video was the source (if i'm correct). What is the official policy now? Suede67 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you can find a verifiable publication of the video that states the director, I would be satisfied (played on MTV, Fuse or something). In contrast to your comment, I've also been on the sour end of noms missing out for one or two directors missing, so it's not a new thing, there isn't much we can do about it. The thing that has always bothered me is, if there is no reliable sources that verify the existence of the video - why are we even including it? It could then be removed and the list would be featured. I guess comprehensiveness comes into play, but if sources don't exist what do you do? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no verifiable publication online, i've searched thoroughly. I checked Fuse now as well with no success. In fact, there's very little informtion relating to the band itself from the time, as they were quite unknown then. There may be some in print, but I don't know. I dont have access to any old magazines/publications of the time. So even if the video was played on TV, there seems to be no hint of it now. I emailed the director once more, lets see what happens. But you are correct, why not remove it from the list for now, until a source is found? Because if you take aside the fact that the director and record label confirmed the fact by email, the general reader can see no proof of the video's existence apart from a low quality fan uploaded version on youtube. The only information on a reliable source relating to the video itself is this: a hotpress magazine review, but no mention of the director is there. Suede67 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I personally believe the Hot Press reference should suffice, without the director. It is a lengthy commentary on the video itself and proves the notability of the video's inclusion... I find missing a single director as such a minor issue that this verification can replace the void left. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you feel so! Thanks for the support. Suede67 (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to add the Hotpress reference! Kiac (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is my mind? Done now Suede67 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: One reviewer, Indopug has not yet revisited the FLC to see if their issues have been resolved. I and Dabobm87, however, have notified them on their talk page. Suede67 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2009 (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/Snow_Patrol_discography/archive1&oldid=1151000021"