Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Strokes 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 User:Scorpion0422 23:03, 3 June 2008 [1].

The Strokes discography edit

This is my second FLC nomination. The other one, The Libertines discography, is below without no opposes. Anyway, this is discography is comprehensive, adheres to existing discography standards and meets all criteria. Concerns will be swiftly addressed. Thanks, indopug (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there a better way to title the "Videos" and "Music videos" section or is this the standard? In addition, those two sections should have citations, as it isn't clear (to me at least) where that's coming from. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty much self-referential. As for the titles, yeah its standard. (See: MOS:DISCOG or any discography FL). indopug (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Tenacious D Fan (talk · contribs)

{{{2}}}

Support Excellent work. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice! Drewcifer (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks really good. I only have a few minor suggestions:

Usually we're only concerned with the original release, not re-releases or different releases in different territories. However, I see a good reason to break that rule for the release dates/label of Is this It. However, I don't see any reason to break it with Modern Age. And I'm not sure what why there multiple labels for everything as well.
I think some general references would help (ie the AMG page, their homepage's discog, etc).
A few more external links might be good (ie Discogs).
The second paragraph of the lead is a little long, consider splitting it up. Drewcifer (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Instead of general references, I included an ext. link to AMG's Strokes discog, since there already is a link to AMG bio in the refs. There are two record labels because Strokes records are simultaneously released in the US with RCA and in the UK with Rough Trade. They are not labels for reprint versions. indopug (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not enough in-line citations for 2 of the sections. GreenJoe 23:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are self-referential, and don't need citing. indopug (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Indopug; all assertions are cited, and anything is expanded upon in the table data. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Read Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
Just a suggestion, but how about removing the bolded lead, and moving it to the bit about the releases, making it go something like, "The discography of The Strokes consists of three studio albums...."

That discussion makes a lot of sense, and I agree the current lead sentence standard for discographies is rather dull. The best I could come up with was "The Strokes are an American alternative rock band. The band's discography consists of ____." The advantages of this are that the band's name is linked on first occurrence (as opposed to second occurrence per the current way) and the word "discography" can be linked (important, since it is not a common term). Of course, the downer is thatI can't figure out anything to be bolded.

WP:LS says that if nothing lends itself to being bolded, then don't force it. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the US Pop 100 chart from the singles table. As a general rule, component charts shouldn't be used if unnecessary, and in this case it is because it made the Hot 100.

The article you've pointed out doesn't say that the Pop 100 is a component chart of the Hot 100. In fact, Billboard invented the Pop 100 a few years ago because of the perceived unfairness of Hot 100 having mainly Hip-Hop artists at the top.

You're actually right. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove the Miscellaneous section. Those songs weren't recorded for those albums, they were simply liscensed for inclusion and I'll bet there are plenty more compilation albums that could be included if you looked hard enough. As a rule of thumb, only include original songs that have not previously appeared on any of the artists official releases.

Done. indopug (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great band though! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nothing else to comment on. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support

" The band eventually signed to RC"—signed up with? "Eventually" is one of those vague words deprecated by MOS. You're the expert: tell us when.
"number thirty-three"—think I'd rather figures.
I'd prefer en rather than em dashes for blank squares. I think MOSDASH recommends this. Try it and I think you'll find it doesn't clutter the real info. TONY (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done; although I don't have an opinion on the emdash matter, standards prescribed by MOS:DISCOG (and all other featured discographies) require emdashes. I'll bring it up there though. indopug (talk) 19:33, 1 June 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.