Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nation of Ulysses discography/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 19:42, 20 December 2007.

Nation of Ulysses discography edit

Though the Nation of Ulysses had a fairly limited number of releases in its short history, I believe this list is still FL-quality due to its comprehensiveness and adherence to established discography style. This discography was modeled after similar featured lists for similarly obscure bands that I've worked on (The Make-Up discography and Lightning Bolt discography). Like those, it is important that I mention that unlike many other FL discographies, statistics like Chart Performance aren't necessary or possible, since the Nation of Ulysses were by and large an independent band that never come close to any album/singles charts. As always, any comments and suggestions are welcome. Drewcifer (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, Discogs is not considered to be a reliable source. Maybe you could consider linking to the Allmusicguide page for the band instead. Circeus (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Good call, didn't notice that. Drewcifer (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but is "posthumously" the right word? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a comment - I'm not fond of any of those "see also" links. Dischord and The Make-Up are linked in the article (though not to their respective discographies), and Weird War isn't even mentioned in the article. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! And yeah, posthumously is the correct word. As for the see also section, generally speaking Nation of Ulysses, The Make-Up, and Weird War are typically mentioned in the same breath, as the bands shared members, ideals, aesthetics, etc. Drewcifer (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to your knowledge about the groups, but on the discography I don't see a need to link to the others'. Just my opinion - and thanks for the new use of the word - I had no idea! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any pictures? If there are no free alternatives, a fair-use image should be used at least.--Crzy cheetah 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there are no free pictures of the band. That said, I think it's been established in the past that fair-use images aren't appropriate in discographies. Which is why every discography has a free image or none at all. I brought this exact question up at WP:FUC and got this response. Drewcifer (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Could you elaborate on the zines section? Does it mean this zine? It's a confusing section. Other than that section, ~~the list looks fine~~.--Crzy cheetah 23:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the discography can stay in the artist's page. It's not long enough to be separated. I believe I have to ~~oppose~~.--Crzy cheetah 23:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I'll see about clarifying the zine section - though to be honest I was thinking about just removing it altogether. As for your other concern, that it is not long enough, I realize it is straddling a fine line, but generally speaking, transcribing the content placed here onto the Nation of Ulysses page would unneccessarily bloat the NoU page. (ie. diff). Based on the diff, I think the content is clearly better placed here, though I suppose it could be a matter of opinion. Drewcifer (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "diff" that you showed, looked neat, in my opinion. And, removing those zines is a good idea!--Crzy cheetah 08:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that backfired! =) I guess my point is that it's on such a fine line that it comes down to a matter of taste, and matters of taste don't really have a whole lot to do with the FL criteria. Drewcifer (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about a matter of taste, so I have changed my mind again (I've got to stop that). Anyway, you have my support.--Crzy cheetah 00:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks for your support, and thanks for being flexible. Drewcifer (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you make all tables the same width. Also, since the two tables have all the same column headings, could you make each column in the tables the same width too, so that they look uniform? If you can do this then I would be glad to support.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Interesting suggestion. Although I don't believe this is common practice for discographies, it's not a bad idea. That said, there's a problem with making all the tables the same width: different monitors will display them different. For instace I'm assuming you have a fairly high-resolution monitor, so the tables don't fill the width of the screen, hence they're different sizes. My monitor however is fairly small, so they extend to both edges of the frame and are thus uniform. Therefore, making the tables a certain size will make it inevitably look weird on some people's monitors, either by being way too small, or way too big (wider than the screen can support). Does that make sense? I think that's what's going on here, but I could be wrong. That said, I did conform the a few column widths to make the tables more uniform between each other, but it's hard for me to tell since my monitor squeezes the tables. I think what we're really dealing with here is a compatibility issue, and leaving it as is makes it the most compatible. I think. Drewcifer (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made my own changes to the tables, and then reverted myself. I just defined the limit on each column so that tables will always be the same. Tell me what you think and how it looks on your screen. If it looks good, then you can just undo my undo, and if it doesnt then tell me, and I wont hold it against the nomination :)
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nearly identical to me, so I'm fine with it. I undid the undo, so it should be back to how you had it. Drewcifer (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support haha I liked your edit summary, oh and to see what it does, if you take your browser window and make it smaller by grabbing the right side and moving it left (to simulate a smaller screen), the columns and tables wills always stay uniform. Idk, it looks good to me now so thanks! and great work!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.