Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Massive Attack discography/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Dabomb87 22:57, 11 August 2009 [1].

Massive Attack discography

edit
Nominator(s): Drewcifer (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

It's been a while since I've submitted a list to FLC, so here's goes nothing! Pretty straight-forward discography for a pretty cool group. Should be up to par with FLC criteria and MOS:DISCOG. Please let me know if you have any concerns or comments. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • Image caption: "Massive Attack in Concert" Why is "Concert" capitalized?
  • No need to link England.
  • You link extended plays, but not albums, singles or compilations.
  • "and was eventually certified Double Platinum" Word doesn't add much here.
  • "UK Single Chart" I do believe it's the UK Singles Chart.
  • "Massive Attack's most recent album, 100th Window was" Comma after "Window".
  • "a compilation release collecting all of the group's singles and music videos." I think "collecting all" can be excised.
  • "in 7 countries total" "7"-->7, and "total" is unnecessary.
  • Why is "Eleven Promos" bolded? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image needs alternative text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. This is a new process to me, so let me know if the alt text I've added is sufficient. Drewcifer (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Also, the BPI refs seem to have gone dead (check the toolbox). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-oh. After some snooping around, I found this notice on the BPI website: "PLEASE NOTE: THE SEARCHABLE DATABASE IS TEMPORARILY INACCESSIBLE BUT WILL BE REINSTATED SOON - PLEASE BEAR WITH US" ([2]). So could you bear with me as I bear with them? =) Drewcifer (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. First Billboard, then this... Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard's always been a mess. I've never used that stupid site for anything. Though the BPI thing is a little worrying... Drewcifer (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and your support. Drewcifer (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sources look good, the below notwithstanding. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • All fixed except the EveryHit thing. Can't find that particular morsel of data anywhere else. Is EveryHit not considered reliable anymore? (Like I said, I haven't done one of these in a while). Drewcifer (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well the thing is, I haven't found that little tidbit of information anywhere else (which is why its confined to a single cell). So in other words no reliable source states that fact. So if I were to remove it, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, since we're not sure if it's true or not. I guess it depends on how much we trust EveryHit. What do you think? Drewcifer (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's alright either way (editorial decision). Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll leave it in then. I have on reason to distrust EveryHit. If at some point there's a consensus about EveryHit and it's deemed unreliable, then I'll just take it out at that point. Drewcifer (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Solution! I've dug around a little, and I found a chart listing for "Unfinished Sympathy" at Chart Stats! It was listed under "Massive" for some reason, see here (lists at #13). Dt128 SpeakToMe 20:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better solution! From the official website. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Massiveattack.ie isn't the official website. Dt128 SpeakToMe 20:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now I look terribly stupid. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it ;) Dt128 SpeakToMe 20:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following was originally posted at User talk:Matthewedwards
Ah, ok. Everyhit.com. Yeah, the fact that you can't link to the results is a pain in the ass, but http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/, which releases the chart first per their agreement with the Official Charts Company links to the site.
Alternatively, there is the British Hit Singles & Albums and The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles which undoubtedly provide some of the best resources. http://www.theofficialcharts.com/links.php now gives only Radio 1 and The Sun as official chart licensees, but I remember when I lived in the UK that Heat, Broadcast, ChartsPlus, Music Week, and a few other newspapers such as the Monday edition of the Daily Mirror also listed the charts. I suppose at a stretch you could cite a weekly publication for each peak position. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the investigative work! I've replaced the reference. Drewcifer (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I've read the above right and what you need is a reference from one of the British Hit Singles books for "Unfinished Sympathy"'s peak position, I can get that for you next time I'm on WP at home as opposed to at work. Prod me if I haven't done it in a couple of days. Oh, and for info, that single was indeed released under the name "Massive" as opposed to "Massive Attack", so ChartStats is correct there. It was because during the first Gulf War the BBC banned all songs with titles or artist names which evoked war, so they had to lose the word "Attack" or risk getting no airplay -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Dt128 (talk)
  • Instead of "Title", "Extended play details", "Compilation details" and "Release details", shouldn't the column headers should be "Album details"?
  • Are there any sources for the "trip hop" genre?
  • UK Albums Chart is wikilinked twice.
  • Are "11-disc box set of all singles up to 1998" and "Singles compilation" necessary?
  • All the charts should be wikilinked to the relevant chart. e.g. Canadian Albums Chart instead of Canada and Swiss Music Charts for Switzerland.

Thanks, Dt128 SpeakToMe 18:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • No need to wikilink Austria or Finland.
      • I disagree; AUT and FIN aren't neccessarily self-evident, so in the absence of an actual chart page to go to, we should at least provide a link to the country. This is pretty standard, I believe, and is suggested by MOS:DISCOG.


    • As far as I can see, source 1 does not link to anything about Massive Attack?
    • UK Albums Chart is still wikilinked twice within the tables.
    • I still don't think that "Singles compilation" is necessary because this information is already contained within the lead and the album articles themselves.
Dt128 SpeakToMe 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref #6, Allmusic should be linked. The publisher of Allmusic is Macrovision.
    • Allmusic should not be italicized because it is a website, not a publication. Macrovision still not given at ref #6.

Dt128 SpeakToMe 19:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:*Looking at other FL discographies, I think that the "Title" column in the singles table should be changed to either "Song" or "Single".

    • I disagree, since a single isn't necessarily just the song (b-sides, music videos, some times multimedia stuff like computer files or other stuff). But the package is usually titled after the song it's meant to promote, hence we call it by a song's name. So, "Title" is the most appropriate word, I think. Not sure what other FL discogs do, but I know some use "Title", and that's what I'd like to go with in this case. Drewcifer (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any other sources you could use for the music videos section?
    • Why? Although it's a first-party reference, for something non-contentious as a music video director, I think a DVD such as this is not only fine but preferable since it's all in one place and an "official" record. Drewcifer (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not put "Dub version of Protection" in a footnote following the table, as you did in the extended play section?
    • I disagree; the ep footnote is meant as a caveat to a piece of data, while the dub note is meant more to contextualize the whole entry/release. Making it a footnote would marginalize the fact more than is appropriate. Drewcifer (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Titles of web pages shouldn't be in all caps; convert them to title case. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Thanks for all of the help you guys, but I'm finally realizing I was a little hasty in bringing this to FLC. I've already fixed a bunch of things, but there's still alot more that I failed to notice until the helpful comments of all the reviewers. I'll definitely renominate the list soon, but I don't want to waste everyone's time while I figure this stuff out. Drewcifer (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (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/Massive_Attack_discography/archive1&oldid=1089913319"