Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The White Stripes discography/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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:07, 7 August 2008 [1].

---

The White Stripes discography

This was previously worked on by User:Gary King, I think. I know the amount of discographies must get annoying for reviewers and such, but here's another one. Red157(talk • contribs) 11:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Cannibaloki 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

• Comments Well...
  • Why this included a column for Japan with none charts positions? (Studio albums);
  • Peak chart positions - the countries are out of order;
  • alignment and size of the tables this totally wrong!;
  • Video albums? The normal is Videos;
    • Album details? NO: Video details;
    • Certifications (sales thresholds) twice?
  • You must follow the order of infobox;
  • I would be really happy if you reduce the number of positions to a top ten;

...also a good look at MOS:DISCOG.

Cannibaloki 15:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support you don't need to remove extra chart positions. MOS:DISCOG recomends it nothing else. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Order citations numerically unless there's a helluva good reason not to (e.g. [6][1] should be [1][6])
  • twenty-six->26.
  • "well liked" needs a hyphen.
  • "first truly successful album, receiving near-universal acclaim" - reads a bit peacock. If you're quoting sources then use quotation marks. Otherwise, stick to facts.
  • "Platinum" in the lead, the first time, should link to certifications.
  • "2× Platinum " - two-times Platinum, in the lead.
  • "successful singles" define a "successful single" please.
  • " first and only live DVD," stick with first - otherwise you need to timeframe it (i.e. as of July 2008).
  • " Both album's" - no need for apostrophe.
  • "US: Gold[5]" why all the spaces?
  • Release dates don't need to be wikilinked.
  • Why repeat label links when you don't repeat format links?
  • ref [22] should be replaced with something that doesn't point to a search engine.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • All done, except the point about the spaces in the certifications (If it's really a problem, I'll overhaul the entire table... will need to have help though) and ref [22]. Unlike the US one, links literally can't be found direct to each artist on the Canadian certification site and that reference has been used in articles for both the Foo Fighters and Nine Inch Nails without major fault. Red157(talk • contribs) 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Having said that stuff about the Canadian certifications, I've now found direct references for all of them. Red157(talk • contribs)

Comments

• All the good ones get taken... :)
• Wikilink to discography please
• Unlink the full dates in the Lede, as you have in the main sections
• [[Studio albums|studio album]]s, not [[Studio albums|studio albums]], and [[Single (music)|single]]s, not [[Single (music)|singles]]
• I'm also unsure about the extra space in "US:     Platinum"
• Don't use IMDB as a reference for Blackpool Lights. It's user-edited, and not considedered reliable

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Bar the thing about the extra spaces in certifications. Though I'll see if I can get someone to fix it. Red157(talk • contribs) 20:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Spacing passes a format-test. The linkpiping being used was bizarre. See WP:PIPE for future reference.Skomorokh 14:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's correct to say [[Studio albums|studio albums]] instead of [[Studio albums|studio album]]s? Red157(talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops... [[studio albums]] redirects to [[studio album]], what I meant was you should do [[studio album]]s, not [[studio albums]], and [[single (music)|single]]s. Sorry about the confusion. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there is no need to pipe when linking a plural phrase to a singular article; you just tack on the "s" outside the bracket. It's fine to use redirects, as they may be made full articles in the future. In summary, don't pipe unless you have to. Skomorokh 16:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments II
  • In the lead you have "one video" - is this a "music video" or a "video album"?
  • Can you explain where ref 15 tells me Blue Orchid made 18th in Norway? Presumably you're expecting me to click on the actual song title at that reference? So, in other words, the reference you've provided isn't a specific reference at all, it's a general reference. You can link to the actual page required using this link so I don't see why you wouldn't. This is a problem wherever ref 15 is used.
  • ""There's No Home for You Here"" row seems incomplete - a cell with a line missing.
  • "White Blood Cells " has UK: Gold (some undefined spacing) while "Under Blackpool Lights " (which is it, music video or video album, by the way? section heading needs fixing...) has "UK: Gold[30]" - one space. needs to be consistent.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

First and third issues addressed. Skomorokh 12:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I do believe the remaining issues have been fixed. All references are correct and the spacing is now consistent. Red157(talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Red, great job. Allow me some moments to recheck. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Overall looks really solid. A few suggestions:

• MVDBase is not considered a reliable source.
• The band's allmusic page would be helpful as a general reference.
• I know this has been brought up already (and subsequently refuted by another user), but the charts should ideally be brought down to the top 10. There are many reasons why this suggested at , the main main reasons being to focus on the important information, and to avoid a indiscriminate stat-dump just dump on the user. That, and to make the list accessible to those with lower-resolution monitors. Thats a recommendation, its not jet a rule and remember if you have anything against it take it up at the MOS:DISCOG talk page, you can't oppose cause of that. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Dude, take it easy. A) I didn't oppose based on that, B) I didn't demand 10 columns, and C) it has been brought up at MOS:DISCOG already, as you're aware. Drewcifer (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• "whilst pushing the band to the forefront of the current alternative rock scene." borders dangerously on POV. How awesome they are has nothing to do with their discography.
• "Having signed to V2 Records, 2003 saw The White Stripes major label debut, entitled Elephant which has since gone Platinum in the United States and two-times Platinum in the United Kingdom." Alot wrong with this sentence, mainly am awkward passive tone and a bit of a run-on. Drewcifer (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Will remove MVDBase as a reference and change the sentence in the last point, but otherwise, I disagree with you. Red157(talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're certainly welcome to disagree, but may I ask why? I obviously have reasons for suggesting the 10 columns thing and the other points, so I'd appreciate a more in-depth rebuttal/argument than "I disagree". Drewcifer (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Go to the MOS:DISCOG talk and say what you have against it, remember its a recommendatiion not a rule. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing statement - there seems to be some outstanding discussions that could have a significant effect on this list. I was not happy with the super quick supports which were clearly given without much consideration to the quality of the list, the comments that followed clearly demonstrated the list was nowhere near FL standard. It's much closer now but I'd prefer to see these style issues discussed at DISCOG since the outcome may effect all future discog FLCs. Don't forget, this isn't a race to succeed, the list is welcome back to FLC anytime but preferably after these issues have been resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Its a recommendation and its many more people on wikipedia that against it, their are many people that don't even know this is being discussed. Thats unfear. :(--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.