Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Blink-182/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 promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:11, 11 October 2008 [1].
After looking around for awards that they have won, it was a bit surprising for me to find out that they hadn't been nominated for as many as I would have thought. Gary King (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hallelujah, I'm having an impact. I prefer not to support articles that haven't been in the wild (and this one is only a day and a half old), so I won't vote. --Golbez (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You break my heart Golbez :( Gary King (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, company policy. --Golbez (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You break my heart Golbez :( Gary King (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created about a day ago? You couldn't have waited?
- Lead
- Blink-182 was an American pop punk trio formed in 1992 at Poway, California. - at? Doesn't make sense since you are talking about a town/city and not a specific place like at a house.
- How come there is no information on how they split up? Since the article states that they were a punk rock band.
- Tables look okay.
--SRX 14:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All done Gary King (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support but something Tony1 said a while ago strikes me here. It's a short list. Gary, you're a go-ahead kind of guy. Fancy knocking this up in a sandbox with the mini-tables merged and an additional column for the award providers? And perhaps footnotes to encapsulate the "X is an award ceremony blah blah blah..."? Just to see how it looks? I know you said to him that until things change you'd rather not rock the boat on these award formats, but hey, let's see what it looks like - it might just work? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Gary King/sandbox: I personally prefer the current layout because it makes it much easier to add new awards for future editors. If I was forced to choose from the sandbox, though, I'd choose "Grouped by award". Gary King (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gary, I appreciate your efforts. I hope others do too and that they consider these alternative layouts. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the "Grouped by Award" version. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gary, I appreciate your efforts. I hope others do too and that they consider these alternative layouts. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. May be short, but it's well-referenced, well-formatted, well-cited to reliable sources, and complete. Good introduction. DurovaCharge! 20:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As Durova said, it's well-referenced, well-formatted, and well-citied. The prose checks out great, and the article appears to be in excellent shape. iMatthew (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone have an opinion on the other two designs Gary knocked up at his sandbox? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:42, 11 October 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.