Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Maroon 5 discography/archive1
Maroon 5 discography edit
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 17 days, 3 support, 1 oppose. Lack of consensus and active discussion. Fail. Scorpion0422 02:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My first, FLC! :) After taking time to research and to expand the list, I believe it does meet the Featured List criteria. I think I have covered all the recorded songs by the band, but correct me if I'm wrong. I think the only thing the list needs is a copyedit of the prose from another person (User:LaraLove says she wanted to help out with it, but has not done it yet, so hopefully somebody else can take the initiative). Of course, I welcome some constructive criticism. Thanks. RaNdOm26 13:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just did the copy-edit. Lara❤Love 15:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I'm impressed. I like the colour scheme you've chosen for the tables, and how that is consistent throughout the article. Good work :) ~ Sebi [talk] 02:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What's the purpose of using the "FBFBEF" color throughout the article? --Crzycheetah 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I would've like to see more than one colour used, but nonetheless, great work Random! — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Working from DM's suggestion and per Crzycheetah's concern, I added an infobox and color categorized the different tables within that. Lara❤Love 06:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'll just say it here that I'm against the idea of having different colours in each of the tables. There is now too much colour. The colours used in the heading bars are too strong. I noticed some colours have been randomly chosen out of nowhere... why the hell is the miscellaneous section pink? RaNdOm26 06:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have removed the distracting colours. RaNdOm26 07:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LaraLove, even with your edits you didn't address my concern. I just don't understand what "FBFBEF" color supposed to mean. Every other cell is colored with "FBFBEF". Why? --Crzycheetah 07:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I added the colour, so.... I chose it because I felt it suited with the brown background in the headings. What have you got against it, cheetah? RaNdOm26 07:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I need an explanation. Here at Wikipedia, we color cells in lists, then explain what that color represents. I don't see any explanation about "FBFBEF" color here.--Crzycheetah 07:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I doesn't represent anything. It seems obvious that it's just alternating colors between rows. If it represented something, there'd be a key. Also, my edits removed the use of that color, so they did address the concern. :) Lara❤Love 07:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The alternating coloring was taken from our larger lists of episodes. This discography, however, is clearly not long enough to warrant alternating colors.
- I need an explanation. Here at Wikipedia, we color cells in lists, then explain what that color represents. I don't see any explanation about "FBFBEF" color here.--Crzycheetah 07:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I added the colour, so.... I chose it because I felt it suited with the brown background in the headings. What have you got against it, cheetah? RaNdOm26 07:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LaraLove, even with your edits you didn't address my concern. I just don't understand what "FBFBEF" color supposed to mean. Every other cell is colored with "FBFBEF". Why? --Crzycheetah 07:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have removed the distracting colours. RaNdOm26 07:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'll just say it here that I'm against the idea of having different colours in each of the tables. There is now too much colour. The colours used in the heading bars are too strong. I noticed some colours have been randomly chosen out of nowhere... why the hell is the miscellaneous section pink? RaNdOm26 06:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...By changing to another unknown color. Anyway, in tables with two rows, it is highly questionable whether there are alternating colors. Alternating colors is unncesary and not useful, at all.--Crzycheetah 07:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but saying that the colours are unnecessary and not useful is not completely true. They are there to aid in the presentation of the list. In my opinion, using the colours alternating in the list will present better; having no colour at all is very plain. That's all I say. RaNdOm26 08:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They would be necessary and useful if this list had a table with 20+ rows, not just two. In this case, it is very confusing to see two albums in one category colored differently. An immediate question comes to mind, "what is the difference between those two albums?". But, the point is that there are no differences between those albums whle this list implies that there is at least one difference.--Crzycheetah 08:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'll address your suggestion. I have removed those colours. Have a look now, does it seem less confusing now? I added them in because it was in line with the alternating colours in the rest of the tables. I think it looks sort of unbalanced. How about you, does it look better though? RaNdOm26 17:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have default colors for tables. Using different colors is usually done either to mark a visual break of some sort where useful (e.g. in lists of episodes), or to add visual marking for some other information (e.g. in the lists of awards or in the drafts). Otherwise new colors just distract because you expect to be given extra information to justify that color, and there are none. Circeus 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They would be necessary and useful if this list had a table with 20+ rows, not just two. In this case, it is very confusing to see two albums in one category colored differently. An immediate question comes to mind, "what is the difference between those two albums?". But, the point is that there are no differences between those albums whle this list implies that there is at least one difference.--Crzycheetah 08:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but saying that the colours are unnecessary and not useful is not completely true. They are there to aid in the presentation of the list. In my opinion, using the colours alternating in the list will present better; having no colour at all is very plain. That's all I say. RaNdOm26 08:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose
- Year links are pointless, as are duplicate links in later sections to singles and albums.
- I am not a fan at all of the table colors. They are pretty, but they don't do anything, and I don't see why our default style can't work here. (I wouldn't oppose over them only, but since I am for otehr reasons, I might as well point it out.)
- I really don't like the way the infobox-style summary (which in itself is not too bad an idea) act as a "foster table of content". We already have a TOC, having another, "hidden" one is pointless to me.
- I can't figure the meaning of the parenthesised numbers in "singles".
- Circeus 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses to the above oppose:
- I have taken out the duplicate links and years.
- I am not going to change the colours until I am aware of this so-called "default style", which I have not seen stated anywhere. There is no guideline of how the discography should look.
- It is not a table of contents, this is to indicate the number of records released by the band for each type. This is not identical to the other table of contents, some have different headings.
- It shows the number of weeks the song has charted at number 1. Since I don't think this will be most useful to the table, I will take them out. RaNdOm26 05:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "this so-called default style" Well... Depends if you think this:
| foo | bar |
|---|---|
| x | y |
| foo | bar |
|---|---|
| x | y |
are different, I guess. Circeus 01:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is not a table of contents, this is to indicate the number of records released by the band for each type. This is not identical to the other table of contents, some have different headings." Let's not get technical. It purports to do the same jobs (links to the sections showing that data), so it is a table of contents just as much as {{TOCUSStates}} is a table of content. Circeus 01:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not changing it because there is no such default style for discographies. You may call it default style because the previous discographies looked the same but there isn't a written out guideline to say what the layout should be. There is also no statement from WP:WIAFL that says the list must conform to the layout in other similar lists, so it isn't right to oppose an FL based on the different layout of the list.
- No it is not because If you check it, "B-sides" and "Miscellaneous" is not in the infobox which is a heading in the table of contents. Neither should be there cannot be there because neither are a type of official release. Unlike what you stated, its purpose is not the same as a TOC, it is a summary of the official releases put at the top of the article, like what infoboxes should do. RaNdOm26 10:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]