Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Bloc Party discography/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎ | Bloc Party 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 not promoted 15:50, 14 April 2008.

Bloc Party discography edit

Self-nomination. This is a list of all releases by British rock group Bloc Party. The list meets all of the criteria, is well sourced and has a comprehensive lead section, it is accurate and detailed without going overboard with useless trivia. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
  • The Albums and Eps tables are a unnecessarily colorized, and strangely formatted all around. Generally speaking charts are better represented through a number of columns, not in a big list with a million citations everywhere.
  • These two tables are inconsistent also with the following tables. Again, the tables are colorized unneccessarily.
  • Song samples are generally not allowed in discographies since they are fair-use. Furthermore, there is no fair-use rationale for either.
  • I'm also not sure what the point is of having the Singles and Compilations albums sortable. I'd recommend making them unsortable, then merging similar cells.
  • Also blank cells for releases that didn't chart shouldn't use 9999 in the same font color, but should have a — instead, along with a legend below the table.
Overall its a good start, but it still needs alot of work. I'd recommend taking a look at other FL discographies for some ideas. Drewcifer (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tables with dashes need a legend. Something like "—" denotes releases that did not chart.
  • The dash isn't neccesary in the certifications cell of silent alarm remixed. Just leave that one blank.
  • The singles charts need sources.
  • The "reissue" dates for the two albums are unnecessary.
  • The B-sides section is unneccessary. If you really want to put b-side info in there, why not add another column to the singles table instead of a whole new section?
  • The Label/Producer column in compilations is overwikilinked. Only wikilink the first instance of it.
  • Also related to the sources, publisher values should use the site's/publisher's proper name whenever possible (Billboard as opposed www.billboard.com for instance).
  • Some of the sources are also problematic. A blog, for instance, is not a reliable source.
  • The EPs table isn't consistent with the others. Instead of a comments column, just add the bullet points to the Album details column.

Good work so far! Here's a few more (much minor) suggestions/concerns I have:

  • "Chart positions" and "Peak positions" isn't specific enough, it should be changed to "Peak chart positions" or "Chart peak positions", to be more clear. And, obviously, the same thing for both the albums and singles tables
  • The width of similar rows in similar columns should be kept consistent wherever possible.
  • An External links section would be nice as well. Drewcifer (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Please don't edit other people's comments, including putting them into hide boxes, it's rude. Also, I didn't consider all of the concerns you moved into the hide box to be fully addressed. Also, I agree with most of indopug's comments, so you can consider those more reasons for my Oppose vote (except for the B-sides thing. As mathew put it, it's a discography, not a songography). Drewcifer (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Where are the chart positions for EPs?
    • None charted. I will add a note at the bottom of the table.  Done
  • Avoid linking in bold lead, per WP:LEAD#Bold title. The above two articles were wrong, and have been fixed. Also, WP:OSE is no excuse for wrongness.  Done
  • Union is a disambig page. Either link to the correct article, or none at all  Done
  • "B-Sides" is an unpopulated section, and should be removed.  Done
  • Don't populate the "B-Sides" section, as this is a discography, not a songography  Done
  • Don't make text too small for poor-sighted people to read.  Done, bigger (90% compared to 75%)

Otherwise it's okay. I was actually going to work on this about a month ago and nom it myself, but I got sidetracked! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done most of those things now, if you'd like to check. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • I disagree with the above reviewer; link Bloc Party in the bolded lead, it is the first mention. See ALL other discographies and you'll see the same being done. WP:OSE is certainly valid here.
  • THe lead is WAY too long. Absolutely no need to mention AMG ratings or charting positions of singles (unless very important in their career). For a band that has existed for three years, I'd say two medium-sized--if not one big--paragraphs is enough.
  • Better. There's still some stuff that can go and the lead could use a copy-edit. Eg: Mercury prize-nominated is not worthy of mention and the first sentence is a bit too long (shift the founding members to the next sentence). The Irish and Aussie chartings for "The Prayer" can go.
  • "It was in essence their breakthrough album" - awful POV and unencyclopedic tone too. That sentence also never seems to end, going on and on and on...
  • Their first single, She's Hearing Voices - MoS?
  • Numbers below 10 should be named (seven, not 7). I think listing eighteen would be better than 18 too.
  • 38? --> thirty-eight; you've worded the others.
  • For the record label no need of Recordings, Wichita/V2 will do.
  • Where are the refs for chart positions for each country in the studio albums table? Make it like, say, The Prodigy discography.
  • Where are the B-sides? If you think it was better with the B-sides, you don't need to remove it. I prefer them there, especially if they are decent/important songs. Plenty of other discogs have a b-sides table; not including them is the stylistic choice of the above reviweer which you don't need to follow.
  • If you are removing the B-sides then why have such a detailed Compilation appearances; it might be enough to just list stuff not found on Studio albums/otherwise unreleased stuff. Place refs next to individual songs, not in a separate column.
  • Look at The Libertines discography for what I think is a neater way to have the Compilation appearances section. The current name implies that no original music is recorded for these albums at all (being their appearances on compilations), while actually quite a few soundtracks have original music. Change "O.S.T" to "soundtrack" (small case). Also, the Label column is kinda unnecessary and the Type column is kinda obvious (Just click on the album). A Comments column tells where else the song is found, i.e, which Bloc Party album or if it were an original recording. Thoughts?
  • Not really related but that band template right at the bottom should be updated to the way it is for other bands.
  • That ref with album details is odd. Remove it, as that info is kinda self-referential to the albums themselves.
  • Silent Alarm Remixed should be somehwere else, or at least mention that it is a remix album. It was rather puzzling to see that the 2nd album performed so poorly compared to the others.
  • Might be better to include it in another table called Compilations. A ref saying that its a remix album isn't the way; below Label, have a sentence that says that it is a remix. The single charting can be included that way too, *[[UK Albums Chart]] peak: 54<ref>
  • In the albums column make Certifications --> UK certifications, linked to British Phonographic Industry.
  • UK, IRE, AUS... Reduce size, again see Prodigy discog.
  • For the Singles table? Keep the refs consistently below the Chart name there.
  • Check if the refs are formatted properly.
  • USA -->US. Change throughout.
  • overlinking: after the albums section no need to link the albums/record labels once again.
  • Studio albums/EPs still linked in the Singles table.
indopug (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you've essentially said the exact opposite to what Matthew did. Does it matter if I follow one person's over the other? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. There may be many more people who disagree with me. The way I see it though is as I said above. A discog lists releases. B sides appear on releases that are already mentioned. But if you're going to be super-consise and add B-sides, then why not the tracks that appear on all the albums? If someone wants to see the single's B-sides, they click on the single's release. If they want to see an album's tracks, they cick on the album. As for compilations, that for me is different as not each compilation has an article, so for thoroughness, the tracks should be mentioned. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't believe this hasn't been brought up yet; haven't the band made any Music videos!? (check mvdbase.com) What about video albums/DVDs? Check for it. indopug (talk) 06:18, 5 April 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/Bloc_Party_discography/archive1&oldid=1171454117"