Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/The Prodigy discography/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Dabomb87 05:46, 6 March 2010 [1].
The Prodigy discography edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's content is outdated. As allready mentioned on the talk page several months ago, the list wasn't proper updated since the release of the new albums&singles. For example: The number of EP is quite unsure, the infobox mentions 2, this article 3 and the template 5. I mentioned this on the talk page of the original promoting user, without any response. I don't know if this is the right place to discuss this issue, but i believe that an article which content is outdated, and without any efforts seeming to start to get this fixed, should be removed as FL. Narayan (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've realigned the lead with the infobox in terms of numbers of albums, singles, EPs etc. I've checked per MOS, added alt text, anything more specific? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry guys, I've been a little busy in the real world lately. I did my best to fix the EP thing, but the problem is there's alot of different opinions on the EP thing. So, I decided to go with whatever the official website said, with a few caveats. The website seems aimed at a British audience, and so it focuses mainly on UK releases. There's a been a few US-only releases, so I've added those wherever appropriate. As far as the template at the bottom of the page goes, I honestly think that's a whole nother can of worms, and so if it is incorrect that's something to bring up with the template itself, not this page. Drewcifer (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think, looking at our article on the "odd" EP (Hotride), there are precisely zero refs, so as Drewcifer was suggesting, the template's issue is probably nothing to do with this page nor this FLRC. I'll happily remove it from the template, if this becomes a major issue, otherwise, what else seems to be a problem with this list please? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like it's ok now. Hotride may indeed be hard to check, but what about "lost beats"? However, there's also no mayor source that confirms that as an EP, so maybe keep it like this. The official website as a general source is ok to me, so i have no more issues with this list.--Narayan (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work by everyone. There are several dead links that need to be fixed, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs fixed, still some table format issues... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work by everyone. There are several dead links that need to be fixed, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like it's ok now. Hotride may indeed be hard to check, but what about "lost beats"? However, there's also no mayor source that confirms that as an EP, so maybe keep it like this. The official website as a general source is ok to me, so i have no more issues with this list.--Narayan (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think, looking at our article on the "odd" EP (Hotride), there are precisely zero refs, so as Drewcifer was suggesting, the template's issue is probably nothing to do with this page nor this FLRC. I'll happily remove it from the template, if this becomes a major issue, otherwise, what else seems to be a problem with this list please? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry guys, I've been a little busy in the real world lately. I did my best to fix the EP thing, but the problem is there's alot of different opinions on the EP thing. So, I decided to go with whatever the official website said, with a few caveats. The website seems aimed at a British audience, and so it focuses mainly on UK releases. There's a been a few US-only releases, so I've added those wherever appropriate. As far as the template at the bottom of the page goes, I honestly think that's a whole nother can of worms, and so if it is incorrect that's something to bring up with the template itself, not this page. Drewcifer (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't do a full review, just passed by to check for objectionable sources. Found this one. By the way, the references could use some cleaning-up. Goodraise 18:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.