Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2010

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 00:12, 31 August 2010 [1].

Nominator(s): PeterGriffin • Talk 04:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list for the following reasons.

1. The lead is full of valuable information, that gives the reader a nice taste of what a career of 20 years has done for Mariah Carey.
2. The lead is well written and has been gone over.
3. All certifications are sourced by certification agencies and are done in a neat fashion. The sales are also sourced by only Billboard magazine, and other prestigious sources.
4. All chart positions are sourced as well and are all updated.
5. All sources are properly formatted and accurate and reliable. PeterGriffin • Talk 04:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One comment, this has the same problem we're discussing over at WT:GAN, when you cite a book, the page number you got the information from is required. Courcelles 22:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was just brought up though, so I didn't get a chance to correct that. I have done it though, the page numbers are included. Do you have any other concerns?--PeterGriffin • Talk 00:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

A lot, actually. Oppose at least until the matter below is resolved. Courcelles 08:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope this matter should be clear, before this nomination begin to be reviewed. Baratayuda (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Category:Mariah Carey.

• support Looks like info from above was removed/fixed..My only suggestion would be to find a better picture--maybe a crop of File:Hill and Mariah.jpg. Moxy (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry after seeing the change to the picture i see the one i picked is up for deletion...best to pic another.Moxy (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose I see no reason why this and Mariah Carey singles discography are different articles. See the excellent FL David Bowie discography for an artist who has released more albums and singles than Ms. Carey, yet has only one discography article. 114.143.169.4 (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you oppose because you don't like that there are two separates articles of her discography? both of Madonna's discography pages are featured lists, and she have released about the same amount of both albums and singles. I don't think this is a valid reason to oppose. Frcm1988 (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem has been fixed, and we had Moxy and Discographer agree (I believe)agree to this being a FL article, so lets make the final decision.--PeterGriffin • Talk 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This process takes ten days, at a minimum. Often longer. Courcelles 23:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Okay. One more question, can I nominate her singles discography at the same time, or do I have to wait for the verdict on this one first?--PeterGriffin • Talk 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you can have both nominated, but the article stills needs a lot of work, you may want to focus on this one first. Frcm1988 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you cannot nominate another article untill you have the verdict on this one. At present there is no consensus to promote this list. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frcm1988, if I were around during the Madonna discography FLCs, I would've opposed those as well. But why the eagerness to have more than one discography article? Especially when I have shown the example of an large discog article that still manages to be elegant? I don't see why my oppose should be invalid. 114.143.168.35 (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So basically your telling us you would only support if they were merged??? So y is it your trying to push your POV on this type on article by votes..perhaps you should bring this up at the music project...Because spamming all the FLC of discographies with a Strong oppose is not helping at all...Perhaps if you can you could write your views and bring this up for consensus, because the way your doing it now is not going to get you anywhere. Moxy (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ref 69 need a fix and the infobox image need to be replaced because it would be deleted. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 69 has been changed, formatted and is now functional. The photo has been changed as well.--PeterGriffin • Talk 21:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Lead and infobox disagree in numbers.
• "certified 9x Platinum " prose please, so "nine times" (besides, there is a specific "times" character to use, instead of x, see recently promoted FLs for examples). Check all lead.
• I see no good reason for the Mariah Carey singles template. It's already in the Mariah Carey template in any case.

Well RamblingMan, thanks for your review. I have corrected pretty much all of your concerns, so please express how you feel towards the article now. As for mentioning her singles page, I think its necessary for readers who are not familiar with Wiki templates on the bottom of the page, to be able to easily access her other discography. The same takes place on many other FA level discographies.--PeterGriffin • Talk 17:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen a template being both used and referred to on the same page, it doesn't make any sense to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Date formats in the references need to be consistent. (e.g. ref 9)
• Ref 31 needs an en-dash. Check all.
• "topped the charts in most countries worldwide" - most countries? Like, 150 countries?

Fixed!--PeterGriffin • Talk 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Please see the remaining comments above. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest RamblingMan, I don't know what you mean with "Ref 31 en-dash" or "ref 9 date format." I don't see the inconsistency. If you explain it to me, I'd be glad to go over each reference from there.--PeterGriffin • Talk 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, see ref 74. It needs an en-dash rather than a spaced hyphen. Ref 32 needs one too for the year range. (per WP:DASH). Check all other references. And see ref 18 for odd date format compared with all the others (e.g. you have "Published 6/16/09 by." and then "Retrieved 2010-07-25." This is another WP:MOS failure. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is now fixed. I still don't fully understand what you meant, but someone helped me so I think the issue is resolved. The other with the source was removed because in turns out the source was contradictory, so thats also solved.--PeterGriffin • Talk 02:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Two parts in the lead are not supported by the sources presented. Music Box, which was certified Diamond in the United States and topped the charts in many countries around the world. It have RIAA as a source, Im pretty sure that the last part of the sentence can't be mentioned in there.
• The Emancipation of Mimi produced "the biggest song of the decade," We Belong Together, which topped the US Billboard Hot 100 for fourteen weeks, and became a success across the globe. It have Billboard as a source, no where in that page they mention something about it being a worldwide sucess. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that claim is fine, in the chart there are sourced chart positions for the album. Anyway, I placed a source there as well with some of its top positions, proving my point.

I changed the words to reaching the top five in most music markets, and provided a source for its chart positions. So i believe your pointed out issues are fixed.--PeterGriffin • Talk 02:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is half of the countries equal to most of the countries, it didn't reach the top 5 in Belgium (Flanders nor Wallonia), Germany, France, Austria, Sweden, and Norway. And also "the biggest song of the decade" should be clarified because that was only in the US, not worldwide.

I'll tell you how. That is on the given list, but putting into consideration all the other countries around the world (which I can provide sources for each), it is most. The song reached the top-five (or better) in Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Europe, Ireland, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States = 10. Now the rest which are not top-five are Austria, Belgium F, Belgium W, France, Germany, Hungary, Norway, Sweden = 8. As you see, that is most. You see? if you want refs I'll be glad to provide. The second issue has been fixed.--PeterGriffin • Talk 02:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You already mentioned the US, so how can that be included as a worldwide market? and Europe is not a country. Frcm1988 (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so then it will be 8 - 8, so I'll just put "many" countries. That way I'm not saying more than half, but I'm saying a nice amount. Work for you?--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, but one thing Billboard should be in italics: like this Billboard Hot 100, and songs should be in quotes not in italics "We Belong Together". Frcm1988 (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gotcha, yup thats fixed now.--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I favor merging this with Mariah Carey singles discography into Mariah Carey discography. --Dan Dassow (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please sign your edits. Secondly, as Frcm1988 indicated, that is not a reason to oppose the article. That issue was discussed here seven months ago, and a consensus was reached, with all 5 editors voting for the split. We are not going to just change it, or fail the article, simply because you decide or because you do not approve.--PeterGriffin • Talk 19:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for similar reasons as Dan Dassow above me. A talk page vote on splitting is not immunity to 3B opposes at FLC. Peter, what you need to argue is Why this "could not be included as part of a related article"; i.e., why two articles are necessary. Not point to an eight month old discussion among those who worked on the article. FLC is designed to generate critical, hard commentary on an article. So, explain to us why this needs to be separate from her singles. Courcelles 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure if you would like. Mariah Carey has a career spanning 20 years. She has 12 studio album, soon to be 13, and has over 61 singles. Now In order to give the reader a neat and clean-cut explanation and definition on her career, I feel that one article is not enough. I mean, take a look at her single discography, she has certifications on almost every single from various countries around the world, I don't feel there is a way to place all this information in one article. Some editors may say, well then you can remove unnecessary certifications, and sales from her pages, and you know what, then we could re-attach them. But Wikipedia, is to give the reader a broad understanding of the subject. I feel it is more important to have a broad and neat experience for the reader, and include allot of information, then to be bland and knowledgeableness in oder to be able to mash all of her info into one article. I feel quality and good information would need to be sacrificed in order to put it all into one article, a change I am not willing to uphold. I'm not going to bring up other pages and artists for reasons not to do it, but I'm going to try my best and explain to you why it is necessary to have both articles separate.--PeterGriffin • Talk 19:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge and oppose (for now) FL nomination. Why are the references in teeny tiny print and under the heading "Notes" ? Change it. You must go through each reference because they need reformatted. You have incorrect work/publishers, some refs are not formatted correctly (EG: Mariah_Carey_albums_discography#cite_note-71). There not major issues just please correct them. Also WP:OVERLINK is a big issue. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its all fixed Lakeshade, let me know if you have any other concerns. Thanks :).--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I forgot to mention Courcelles. This article is about 42KB long and the singles discography is around 60KB long. According to Wikipedia rules, an article should already be considering a split after around 60, with a very strong urge at 100. This article would equal around 103, with more info by November when Carey releases a new album. So as you see, having this split is required.--PeterGriffin • Talk 10:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i now support. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 The Rambling Man 16:37, 24 August 2010 [2].

Nominator(s): Talk Shop (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has undergone many changes to bring it up to speed with other FL listed discographies. I use the most credible sources to provide such information. In the lead section care has been taken to try and accurately portray the success of his releases.Talk Shop (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.billboard.com/album/andreas-johnson/the-collector/933935 is dead. Ucucha 18:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't dead.--Talk Shop (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirects to Collector - Andreas Johnson. The first time I accessed this I received a page load error. Subsequently, I had no problems loading the page. At the very least you should consider updating the original link to the redirected link Collector - Andreas Johnson. --Dan Dassow (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Talk Shop (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• No reason for a single-sentence opening "paragraph".
• "reaching the number three" no need for "the"
• Link "certification" appropriately.
• "five hundred thousand units "-> 500,000 units (per MOS)
• singles that never charted anywhere, can you prove they existed with your current set of references?
• Music videos have no references at all. Usually would see directors in this section.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The alt text for the image is far from sufficient.
• Is there any point in listing five charts in the 'Compilation albums' section, when only one is relevant?
• The 'Music videos' section is missing directors.

Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 The Rambling Man 10:27, 18 August 2010 [3].

Nominator(s): --Nascar king 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel like this article could become a Featured List.--Nascar king 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A bunch of unreferenced sections of prose + "the chamber has since rivaled Hell in a Cell as the most demonic structure there is"—two thumbs up for thoroughly professional, NPOV and encyclopedic writing.114.143.169.4 (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a reference to know the Elimination Chamber and Hell in a Cell are two structures that when people step in it, it never ends well.----Nascar king 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the IP. First of all, a twos entence lede is not acceptable in an FL. Second, the writing of those two sentences is lacking in the professional standard of writing expected in a featured list. (Seriously? "most demonic structure there is."... That would be an interesting phrase to use in a Buffy or Charmed article, maybe. But it doesn't work here.) Add entirely unreferenced sections, such as "Brand and pay-per-view designation" This needs a solid, intensive copy-edit from someone who knows nothing about wrestling. Courcelles 19:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this is more of an article than a list. --Golbez (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the Featured Article and GA Nominations failed was because the Lead used to be one sentence. I added that sentence to make it look longer. You don't need a reference to know The Elimination Chamber is something no one walks out the same man.----Nascar king 20:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, we don't need references for pointless hyperbole, as it shouldn't exist in an encyclopedic article. Also, just because 1 sentence was too short doesn't mean 2 is just right. Have a look around the featured articles and lists and see what's expected. --Golbez (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just it, what the FLC states doesn't really make sense. I don't know what prose means.----Nascar king 22:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a start, try reading our article on the concept. Courcelles 22:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest withdrawal, it seems like this would be better suited to a peer review first. Plus, it may be beneficial to the nom if he reads up on what does and does not need to be cited, as well as the prose suggestion above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that method but no one ever responded for over a week so I just went ahead with this.----Nascar king 23:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I know this is a reeply to something higher up and not to the comment immediately above.

I have researched the peer review, which was closed because you came to FLC. Thus, now no one can review it until you withdraw and go back to PR after doing some additional work. I will suggest this time around you go to the talk page for the Professional wrestling WikiProject, which this article is a part of. Simply post there that the article is up for Peer Review (see here for the one I used for the Glee (season 1) review, which got a quick reply). Hopefully someone will come to your aid quickly this time around. But first, withdraw the nom. CycloneGU (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and speedy close, please. FLC is not a substitute for peer review. Bencherlite^Talk 00:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Peer Review. I made the same mistake going to FAC without knowing about peer review. I feel this editor may be in the same boat I was, not knowing about the PR option. I will also recommend that step to this editor as it can prove beneficial, then after a PR if the article is deemed ready by the reviewer come back here. CycloneGU (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor knew about peer review, but didn't wait for comments before trying FLC (four days or so, not "over a week" as claimed). Bencherlite^Talk 00:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I noticed that afterwards. =) CycloneGU (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Peer Review thing kind of connects to a ongoing Peer Review on the WrestleMania (1985) article. It still hasn't gotten a response in over two weeks. Doing a peer review for The Elimination Chamber and not getting a response either made me even more impatient.----Nascar king 01:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, you are getting no peer review. In order to get one, withdraw this FLC and repost the request after the article history is updated (give it a few days, but check the talk page periodically). In the meantime, start working on looking at some of the areas raised here (references, for instance). Always feel free to ask for help getting a peer review going! Usually one good review is enough, then at least there is a record of some work being done and you can later consider FLC once again. It sucks sometimes, but on Wikipedia, patience is a virtue, and just sitting and not trying to get people to your peer review will get no results because no one knows it's there from the WikiProject in question. See my comments above. CycloneGU (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 15:22, 17 August 2010 [4].

Nominator(s): Ahmetyal 23:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has undergone many changes. From this to this. Ahmetyal 23:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. There seem to be currently no "Foreign relations" articles that are either featured lists or featured articles, but I would expect an article like this to be an in-depth exploration of the international relations and foreign policy of Denmark, not just a list of countries it has exchanged ambassadors or consuls with. There is some of that in the lead, but most of it is unreferenced. In addition, the year that formal relations began is missing for many countries and unreferenced for more; there is a link to a dab page, one to a redirect that points back to this page, and somewhere on the order of 78 dead external links. Ucucha 06:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per Ucucha, should be renamed to List of foreign relations of Denmark. Lede is also completely unreferenced and not backed up in list. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 11:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, looking into it a bit more, it's probably better to follow the model used by Foreign policy of the United States and Foreign relations of the United States—the first a prose summary of foreign policy, the other the list of bilateral relations. "List of foreign relations of Denmark" sounds ungrammatical. But all that doesn't do anything to the other problems this list has. Ucucha 11:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and urge withdrawal. Of the 159 references, not one is properly formatted with even the most basic bibliographic details. Add that to Ucucha's issues, and I think these are problems best fixed outside of FLC. Courcelles 21:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 19:05, 14 August 2010 [5].

Nominator(s): Augustus Loren 1982 (talk) Digirami (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it currently meets the FL standards. I worked all night fixing whatever was wrong. Augustus Loren 1982 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—the links to Carlos Valderrama, Mario Soto, and Neiva lead to dab pages, and the external links to http://apf.cerocinco.net/hist_apf.php and http://blogs.elmercurio.com/deportes/2008/02/28/las-patas-y-el-buche.asp are dead. Ucucha 15:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the dab pages (somehow, I missed those). The external links were replaced.

• Comment Jamen have you asked the main contributers to the list about nominating? Perhaps Digi would like to co-nom and get a star. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 15:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less if he wants partial or full credit (although the former sounds more fair since the page wasn't going anywhere before I touched it). The important thing is that the page is up to standards now. But yeah...I have no problems co-nom this. Augustus Loren 1982 (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose

That was fixed. One bad thing doesn't warrant a strong opposition.

The list was not going anywhere. It has been 3 years since it existed; in one night, I transformed it into a legitimate FL. I am not blaming anyone for this (when have I ever did). There is only like 3 real South American editors in the entire english wikipedia site so I understand it can take a while.

In short, 3 editors are better than 2. Don't put words in my mouth, please.

South America is not Europe where everything is pretty much Anglocentric; the bulk of information coming from CONMEBOL is either in Spanish or Portuguese. It should be easy to understand why.

If you do have some English sources, we would more than welcome it.

Fair enough; I took that part out. But I assure the directors that every piece of information on that list is verifiable.

The images are clearly on the right of the screen (more specifically, 1/3). So, yes, the reader can easily read the article...just stay on the left side.

Alt text are no longer a requirement for Featured content.

Really bad speculation...show some prove...or is it guilty into proven innocent? I did not upload a single of those images; they have been labeled legit long ago.

I chose the images carefullly, of course. The list in question deals with South American leagues so I chose players, people, settings, etc. that were notable enough in the leagues they played at. I focused, first, with players from the same nationality as their league and that have achieved something important (various national leagues, Copa Sudamericana, Copa Libertadores). In some cases (like Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil) it was easy.

Others (like Venezuela, Peru, etc) were a bit harder so I was forced to dig around to find some good stuff.

In short, I chose people that were highly relevant to the leagues they represented. Alfredo di Stefano did win two national leagues with River Plate but he was never a key player of those successes. More imporantly, Argentina has had plenty of players that have done more in the league and represented, with success, their clubs in the Copa Libertadores, Supercopa Sudamerica or Copa Sudamericana.

The 12 people I presented are just a small sample.

Wild accusations doesn't lead to anything. Really, really bad speculation...especially when it isn't true (which it isn't). I could care less about di Stefano. I don't like him or hate him...I just don't care much about him.

I just signed up for wikipedia yesterday. I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems you are doing everything and anything possible to not have this list become a FL.Augustus Loren 1982 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C-- 16:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Falklands are part of the British; highly irrelevant in a CONMEBOL section. It isn't even part of continental South America.

I have no idea what you or your buddy up there is talking about.

Good for you. Augustus Loren 1982 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this lad is talking about. Can someone entertain me on this? This guy sure is highly uncivil to be calling others "uncivil", not to mention launching wild accusations of sock-puppetry (please lol), copyright violations (that's a good one), and having a distinct hate for Alfredo di Stefano (now that is hilarious!) Augustus Loren 1982 (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 15:10, 13 August 2010 [6].

Nominator(s): Candyo32 14:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

In transforming the discog from this to this, I now believe that the article satisfies MOS:DISCOG, and is up to par with other FL's. Everything is understandable and comprehensive, doing justice to the representation of Ciara, as well as removing unnecessary fancruft and other unneeded information. Candyo32 14:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 18:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, ugh! Amazon has confirmed the suspected, Basic Instinct has indeed been pushed back to October 5 (see here). You might wish to update the lead and album tables ;( --Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:( Poor Basic Instinct. ugh, I'll make the fixes to the lead & tables. Candyo32 14:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I've just noticed that column widths for the charts should be formatted using !style="width:3em;font-size:75%;"| rather than style=width="30"| as this automatically allows one's web browser to automatically adjust column widths to match the screen resolution. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- All my issues have been addressed, i fully support this article now. Great work Candyo32 :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 02:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WereWolf (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pancake (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - some basic issues...

• And singles is inconsistent in the infobox... if this is entirely the discog, shouldn't the infobox reflect the list?

not done Per other FL's all singles are stated in the lead, but only solo are in the infobox.

Not sure (a) this is true or (b) if this should be the way it is anyway, very misleading. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, I'm just going by other FL discographies. Although they are singles they aren't her solo singles.

Repeat - shouldn't the infobox be consistent with the lead? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bursting onto the scene in 2004 hailed " reads like a tabloid.

Somewhat done, while I'll change "bursting onto the scene" to debuting, as The Princess of Crunk&B is an American music honorific title, hailed can be used.

The reword is better but "hailed" is still very odd here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Link certified appropriately.

??

Link certified to a relevant article which talks about record certification. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "top five" hyphenate.

??

top-five. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "US top five hits and international performers "Lose Control", " I don't get this, what do you "international performers"?

The song's performed in international markets?

Unclear, should be reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "which saw her remain consistent to her urban roots, and R&B and hip-hop driven dance while experimenting with old school songs combined with huge pop hooks" urban roots, experimenting with old school, huge pop... this isn't a review of her work, it's an encyclopedia, this needs toning down and neutralising.

not done I'm just taking excerpts of what critics have said and its no way to say it other wise. While using old school music she incorporated pop hooks and used R&B and hip-hop dance music? Candyo32 03:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If critics say this directly, fine, quote them and reference the quotation, otherwise use less tabloid language. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's supposed to read "R&B" and "hip-hop" "dance" while using "old school" sounds and "huge pop hooks." ? Candyo32 01:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not, R&B, hip-hop and dance are statements of fact, "old school" however is colloquial and subjective and "huge pop hooks" is opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ""Just Stand Up!."" avoid the repeated full stop.

not done Not understanding the problem.

Don't need a . after a ! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the lead. I'll review the rest once this lot is resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It looks like a lot of work is needed to achieve consistency in the article, in terms of references, prose, content etc. I will outline a few.

• Lead — In the first line, released since 2004 seems undue. The second paragraph is the one which should have followed the lead sentence. And all the extra info regarding the sales stuff comes at the last. This is a discography, not a sales estimate. You should put her music to the front instead of commercial reception.

• Lead — I see you have five paragraphs in the lead, try to reduce it to four paras per WP:LEAD.

• As well as a vocalist, Ciara is known for being an accomplished dancer, garnering comparisons to Janet Jackson and Aaliyah,[3] as well as being dubbed the female counterpart of Chris Brown.[4] She is also noted for her whispery soprano vocal style, also compared to Jackson. — Seriously, what is the need of these sentences in an article about discography? It talks about Ciara as a musician, and her styles and accomplishments. This is more suited for the biography page, rather here.

• Debuting in 2004, hailed with the honorific title, "The Princess or First Lady of Crunk&B,"[3][6][7][8] her debut album, — consecutive usage of debut makes for an unprofessional writing. Better would be to have the honorific claim later when you talk about the reception of Goodies.

• Ciara also participated in her most successful collaborations — Refrain from using PEACOCKY words liek most success, you can simply reitereate it as "Ciara also participated in a number of successful collaborations, including... [names]"

• Having the similar success that Goodies had, Ciara: The Evolution debuted at number one on the Billboard — on the Billboard what?

• and charting in the top thirty of most international markets, reaching Platinum status in the US,[10] and selling around two million copies worldwide.[1][3] — I find it very difficult to navigate through such sentences. You begin with a Billboard charting, then move to international charting, then come back to US certification, then move back to worldwide sales. Its haphazard and out of tune.

• Top twenty US and moderate international performer "Like a Boy" was also released — Gives the impression as if "Like a Boy" was a top twenty US success and then it was released.

• Three years after the second release, Ciara released her third album, Fantasy Ride, while remaining with her trademark R&B and hip-hop sound, the work also went towards a mainstream pop and dance direction, as well as using with soul influences. — Please chop the sentence.

• lacking certifications, — is not an indication that an album is unsuccessful commercially. Eminem's Relapse has sold 2 million copies per Soundscan, but remains uncertified. Would you call it a disappointment in this market era?

• Although the album was a commercial disappointment compared ot her previous releases — You just said it in the previous line.

• It will be preceded by the single "Ride" featuring Ludacris — "Ride" has already been released.

• Fantasy Ride: The Mini Collection — Its unsourced completely.

• Singles — Ciara is an American artist, so US certifications comes above any other market, just as US charts are present in the beginning of the table.

• Any reason why you are using Recording Industry Association of New Zealand for the New Zealand albums, and the redirect RIANZ for the NZ singles?

• "And I" column formatting please check.

• You don't need to link the labums again, as they are linked in the section above.

• Why is "—" denotes a title that did not chart, or was not released in that territory not included in the other tables, and only in singles?

• Writing and production credits — Unnecessary section. As I said before, this is a discogrpahy, not a songography that you need to list everything Ciara has done, even writing a line or two for obscure artists.

• The certification for Goodies: The Videos & More really doesnot take me anywhere.

• References — You don't need to have well known publishers in references, like The New York Times Company, Pitchfork Media, Inc, Amazon.com, Inc., RIAA, etc.

• there is no consistency in the reference formatting. Sometimes Allmusic appear as online source, sometimes as a published source as Allmusic. Sometimes it has Rovi Corporation as its publisher, sometimes not. Thats just one example.

• Aria.com.au is not the publisher of Australian certifications, its Australian Recording Industry Association. Aria.com.au is just their website.

• Reference 30 and 31, both are same, then why have you added it as two different interpretations?

• For German charts you have wrong title. Discography there is called Chartverfolgong.

• A number of online sources are italicized, and vice-versa.

These are the things I could find at a first glance. This discography still needs tremendous work. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 The Rambling Man 17:48, 10 August 2010 [7].

Nominator(s): WereWolf (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-5- (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I strongly believe that this list meets all of the criteria for FLC. I'm stunned how the first nomination was not successful. The list is comprehensive, reliable, and deserving to become a featured list. I also believe that it deserves a second chance. Thank you, WereWolf (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Transcluded at 22:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are four dead external links; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed all of the dead external links using WebArchive. Done. WereWolf (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't dispute the quality of this list, although I do think that Boom Gaspar's image should be moved alongside his entry to reduce the amount of whitespace. Undeniably the layout is useful for someone who specifically wants to know about the member history. But I can't support promotion, as I don't think there is anything substantial here that isn't covered in the main article, meaning that this list does not pass featured list criteria 3(b). Sorry. --WFC-- 20:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, does this mean you dispute all of the other featured lists, such as List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members, List of Slipknot band members, List of Megadeth band members, and List of Nine Inch Nails band members, as well? Those lists clearly meet criteria 3.b, or they wouldn't be featured. What makes this list any different? WereWolf (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • With RHCP, Megadeth and NIN, I think the lists can be justified on the basis that they literally change a band member every year, and therefore the band member history is probably too confusing to bundle into the main article. With Pearl Jam, the band has remained unchanged for 20 years, apart from the drummer and the fact that they've had one touring musician since 2002. Slipknot is a more borderline case, but given that (deaths aside) all the changes happened in a three-year period, I probably would have taken a similar stance to the one I've taken here. --WFC-- 08:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pearl Jam has had a long history of membership. Every current official band member was part of Temple of the Dog, which isn't even mentioned in the main article. There is also no mention of Matt Chamberlain recording any material with the band in the main article, but that information is listed here. Also, there is a lot more information given to why each member left the band, which are supported by quotations from the other members. Dave Krusen only gets half a sentence on the main article explaining why he left the band, but here, he gets a paragraph. There is a lot more information stored here on this list, which is why it meets criteria 3.b. If we felt as if we didn't, -5- and I wouldn't have nominated it. WereWolf (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support An excellent list that meets all of the criteria. It was a pleasure to read. AcrossTheOcean (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— AcrossTheOcean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Director's note Very likely sockpuppet or meatpuppet of nominator. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 15:15, 10 August 2010 [8].

Nominator(s): GroundZ3R0 002 10:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have nominated twice before and have since addressed every issue that made the nomination fail before. Therefore this article should reach FLC with little to no problems. GroundZ3R0 002 10:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links, but the external links to http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/saw-vs-paranormal-activity-war-gets-bloody-for-halloween-2010-box-office/ and http://www.buddytv.com/articles/scream-queens/tanedra-howard-wins-vh1s-screa-25123.aspx are dead. Ucucha 11:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted all dead references. GroundZ3R0 002 03:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Nowhere near ready. Multiple issues, fails WP:FL? 1, 3a, 5, and WP:V at least.

1: Fragmented sentences galore and odd phrasing in the Notes boxes for the films. Not limited to:

"The full film made from the script of the 2003 short film"

"The first film in the series to be directed by Darren Lynn Bousman."

"III holds the highest worldwide gross for any Saw film with just under $165 million." Is it Saw III or III?

"The only film in the series to be directed by David Hackl."

"Kevin Greutert returned to direct."

"Was re-released around the same time as Saw V with minor changes." be specific instead of "around the same time". What does "with minor changes" even mean? Minor changes to what? The date?

3a: Found a number oddities regarding release dates and non official stuff

For Saw, you give the Original release dates for the theatrical release, the original DVD, an uncut DVD version, and a rerelease. What market are these for? The film is American-Australian, so I'm assuming the date it's one of the two. However, the film did the rounds at film festivals throughout 2004 beginning with Tribeca in January, and it's theatrical release in the UK was 1 October 2004.

I also noticed that the Wikipedia practice of trying to get the entire world to forget about the VHS medium is alive and well here. this and this show it was available on VHS. It was also released on UMD,[9] and Blu Ray, and that hasn't been mentioned either.

'Saw II was also released on VHS.[10] And Blu Ray. But again, it's as if it didn't happen according to Wikipedia. If applicable, was it released on UMD? You should include all formats instead of showing bias towards one.

• Changed to "Home media" instead to encompass all DVD, VHS, UMD, and other forms without an extensive list of all the forms the film is available. I also erased all the rereleases and special editions. Also using the initial release date for any medium as a standard. The festivals do not count as releases, nearly every film has prescreenings. I will go by the theatrical premier in the US for consistency, is that agreeable? GroundZ3R0 002 04:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Saw IV -- According to our own article, this movie was released in Australia on the 25th, and in the US and Canada on the 26th. So what's going on in this article? Sometimes it gives the premiere theatrical date, and other times it gives the US theatrical release date.. It's very inconsistent. Again, there's no mention of Blu Ray, and in a somewhat rather inconsistent move, no mention of the multitude of rereleases, extended and directors editions.

Saw V -- According to our own article, this move was released in Australia on the 23rd, and the US on the 24th. This article gives the US release date. Again, what gives with the inconsistent release dates? Sometimes it's the US date, whether or not it was released in the US first, other times it's a date for other countries. Again, there's no Blu Ray mention, and nothing about the directors version

Saw VI. Our article on the film says it was released in New Zealand on the 22nd. This article gives the original theatrical release date as the US's 23rd.

Saw: Spoofed -- Now we're including unofficial spoofs and parodies that aren't supported by Lions Gate or Twisted Pictures. Well why not add Scary Movie 4, then? Oh, and I've spotted a couple of videos on YouTube made by some kids. Let's add those too.

• No need for sarcasm you point has been made. The unofficial media has been removed from the list, as well as the DVD extras, and things not considered "media" per se, like the roller coaster. Also removed all the non retail music albums which addressed other issues below. GroundZ3R0 002 04:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw: Full Disclosure Report, Saw: Spoofed, and Scott Tibbs Documentary -- Now we're listing DVD extras. In that case I want a big box detailing the "Bits and Pieces: The Props of Saw II" and "Bits and Pieces: The Traps of Saw II", too.

Now we get to the video games. For the movies, it fails to list all the mediums it was released on, but the video games details every console in every region. What does "Released alongside Saw VI." and "To release alongside Saw 3D" mean? Consumers can only buy it at the movie theater when they buy their ticket? It's not even true because the dates don't match. We're told Saw VI was released on October 23, but Saw (the game) was released on October 6.

• The information on the regions and console is customary, again, List of Metal Gear media. I have reworded the "alongside" issue. GroundZ3R0 002 04:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Original release dates: 2003 – non-release/promotional pitch" This isn't a release date so don't mention it here

Then again, we've got a bunch of unsupported, unofficial games. Das Spiel, Trapped, Jigsaw's Game, etc. Why is it listing bogus stuff? If I make a game and call it Saw: Chop Off Your Legs and mention it on a BitReactor messageboard, can I list it here too?

Put "roller coaster" in the Notes section for Saw: The Ride, because "roller coaster" isn't a date. Same for "maze" "live action horror maze" (huh?).

By the way, can rollercoasters and mazes and dolls be considered "media" (wikt:media?

The music section gives the length of the releases, so why not give the length of the movies?

• The lengths are a part of the template used which i found on another featured list, List of Metal Gear media, and is therefore the example that should be followed. GroundZ3R0 002 04:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Hello Zepp theme and the Video Game Soundtrack, you list the composers in the Label column. Did the composers release the material on their own labels? What does this mean?

October 26, 2007 (non-retail) -- what?

• The album was released independently and officially, but not by retail stores. This entry may be deleted if you have an issue with inclusion of non retail albums. GroundZ3R0 002 04:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5: Fails this criteria in a number of ways.

Where in the MOS does it say that the names of roller coasters, mazes and "merchandise" should be in italics?

• The template used automatically italicizes the titles, therefore cannt be changed. GroundZ3R0 002 04:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5a: The music albums.. What's with the Blue lines between each entry? There's blue links on top of grey-blue boxes, separated by blue lines. My eyes! My eyes!

• Again, you cannot remove those, it is a part of the template and check List of Metal Gear media, it has them too. GroundZ3R0 002 04:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5b: The image fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 as it fails to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Without the image, we still understand that the Saw media consists of DVDs, video games, comics, figurines, CDs, etc. It only partly shows the entire Saw media anyways as it's an image of one boxset of 5 of the 6 movies that have been released, rather than an image of all the media.

• Will search for an image with more pieces of media present, but until then this image has the highest quantity of Saw media present in a single image. GroundZ3R0 002 04:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

What makes http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=12772 a WP:RS?

Ref 2 needs correct attribution. It's a Reuters publication that tf.org has reused

What makes http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0818519/ a RS?

Be consistent in ref formatting. "^ a b "Saw: The Videogame (2009)". IGN. http://ps3.ign.com/objects/142/14231741.html. Retrieved November 26, 2009." vs "^ a b Anthony, Gallegos (April 9, 2010). "Saw II Hands-on Preview". ps3.ign.com. IGN. http://ps3.ign.com/articles/108/1082816p1.html. Retrieved April 9, 2010."

What makes http://www.amazon.com/Saw-Cary-Elwes/dp/B0006SSOHC a neutral RS? Why does it look like The Foundation is saying, "if you're going to buy this movie, get it from Amazon instead of WalMart?

• The source is being used to verify the release date of the DVD, a factual and indisputable piece of information and therefore the source is acceptable for this use. GroundZ3R0 002 04:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to attribute website names in the publisher and work fields.

http://www.vh1.com/movies/dvd/192794/dvdmain.jhtml redirects to http://www.vh1.com/video/movies.jhtml

What makes http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_17120.html a RS?

• The source is being used to verify the release date of the DVD, a factual and indisputable piece of information and therefore the source is acceptable for this use. GroundZ3R0 002 04:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/18838

• Bloody-Disgusting is considered reliable for horror articles, as noted by MikeAllen. GroundZ3R0 002 04:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And http://feartotread.com/2009/10/new-saw-online-game%E2%80%A6/

And http://www.ampgames.com/game/666/Saw-IV-:-Trapped.html

And http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://board.bitreactor.to/talk-hobbyforen/humor-r-tsel/45972-saw-das-spiel-angst-hab/&ei=8lntSZWQC4zCM4v5OQ&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=7&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DSaw%2BDas%2BSpiel%2Brelease%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dig%26sa%3DG

And http://www.moviestation.org/movie/287834/The_Scott_Tibbs_Documentary

Ref 44 isn't attributed correctly.

I'm done. There's more but I can't go on. This is nowhere near FL standard. Please don't substitute the Featured list process for WP:Peer review just because that project is backed up. Recommend you withdraw, sort out the issues I've mentioned, take it to PR and find out what else is wrong with it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, Bloody Disgusting and ShockTilYouDrop (well, just about all of CraveOnline’s networks) are considered reliable sources for horror film articles and are used in many good articles. It was suggested in the last FLC to used Amazon.com for the release dates instead of About.com. If this blatantly fails FL criteria, you could have suggested he take it to peer review from the beginning instead of making a mockery out of the review. Thanks for your kind messages. Mike Allen 23:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an organizational tool, I hope you don't mind that I strike out every issue that has since been addressed.GroundZ3R0 002 03:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he wants to review it anyway, he recommended that you withdraw it. I would take it to peer review so it will be without a doubt ready for a FLC (and for more neutral criticism). Also, I don't understand why he says that you shouldn't use the "work" and "publisher" parameter in the citations for websites. IGN Entertainment is the work, while News Corporation is who owns and publishes that work. That is correct and more informative and professional referencing. Why else does the {{Cite web}} template have them. Mike Allen 05:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I left him a notice and if he still has issues I might withdraw. There was a few instances where the work and publisher was misrefed so I fixed those, I think that's what he meant. GroundZ3R0 002 06:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't strike out other editors' comments; the reviewers will determine when their comments have been addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Re the 'template' - Just because it was used in a list made featured a year ago doesn't mean it's quality. The addition of the fancy blank lines goes against accessibility and table design ideals. There should be a discussion on that front instead of just discarding it as, "another one did it". Standards change or are occasionally ignored. --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 22:19, 4 August 2010 [11].

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 18:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related featured lists I have successfully nominated (Best: Alternative Music Album, Female Rock Vocal Performance, Male Rock Vocal Performance, Metal Performance, Traditional Pop Vocal Album). I realize another Grammy-related list is currently being examined by reviewers, but the list has received support already so I thought it was acceptable to nominate another list (and I have other lists waiting as well). Thanks again to reviewers for taking the time to examine the list and offer suggestions! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 18:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 14:59, 7 August 2010 [12].

Nominator(s): Fezmar9 (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC) and Cannibaloki 19:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... A fellow editor recommended that I nominate my article for FLC. That, and I worked really hard on it, and it's really pretty! I honestly do not agree with the general consensus that a Wikipedia discography for a group or band needs to be a mess of charts and statistics. I don't find that style engaging as a reader. I want to read about a band's various releases! I stepped outside the guidelines at WP:DISCOGS, and this article was the result. I think it worked well for Cave In because most of their releases fail to meet the GNG anyways, so this would be the next logical place to mention them. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Not sure how important it is, but I took the liberty of history merging the list development that took place in the user space so it now appears as part of the history for all to easily see. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware such an action was even possible. Thanks! Fezmar9 (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

• Do not bold what is not considered the title of the article, as most FL's of this nature do not bold any words trying to describe the title.

• Removed bold text.

• Merge the first and second paragraphs, no need for those two to be stand alone when they are so short.

• Done.

• In the second paragraph about how they merged, you can easily merge the first two sentenced into something like "Cave In formed in 1995 in Methuen, Massachusetts, where thereafter they began releasing several split singles and demos that eventually culminated in the 1998 compilation album Beyond Hypothermia."

• Done.

• "These early releases from the band are often considered important albums in developing "metallic hardcore" and metalcore." -- is there a difference in what youre trying to say here about metallic hardcore and metalcore? Isn't it the same (please I do apologize I'm not really aware of the genres)

• Reworded. These early releases from the band are often considered important albums in developing the metalcore genre. According to your userpage, you like to listen to metalcore while watching professional wrestling on TV.

• "The band lost their interest in performing metal, and took a more alternative/progressive rock approach to their music beginning in 1999 with the EP, Creative Eclipses.[4]" -- saying they lost interest is WP:POV-ish, try rewording to say that "The band gradually began to move away from metal and took a more alternative/progressive rock approach..." (also remove the comma after EP)

• Done.

• "Two Jupiter-related EPs were released; Moons of Jupiter featuring alternate versions, and Lost in the Air featuring B-sides. " -- 1)Use a colon, not a semicolon 2)featuring "alternate versions" of what? 3) "and Lost in the Air featuring B-sides" -- so B-sides were released alongside this EP? That should be stated more clearly

• Removed sentence

• "Cave In released one more EP through Hydra Head Records in 2002, Tides of Tomorrow, before signing to the major label RCA Records." -- "major label" is POVish, simply saying "signing with RCA Records" does the job.

• Done.

• I feel you should state earlier in the lead that when they formed and did their first EP, they signed with Hydra Records. The way you introduced Hydra Records is a bit way off, you simply said that they released an album with them. You should directly state they were signed by them earlier in the lead.

• Cave In's first studio album, Until Your Heart Stops, was released later in 1998 through Hydra Head Records.

• "Cave In's run with RCA Records proved to be the band's most commercially successful" --> "Cave In's signing with RCA Records proved to be the band's most commercially successful." -- One reword that part I did, but this sentence doesn't make sense. "most commercially successful (what?)"

• The band's only album released through RCA reached the charts in the U.S. and the UK.

• "In 2003 they released their third studio album, Antenna, which became their only album to chart on the Billboard 200. It peaked at number 169." 1)Comma after 2003 2)no need for a separate sentence for its peak, merge it into the same sentence like "on the Billboard 200, which peaked at 169."

• Reworded.

• "The single "Anchor" off Antenna received some minor radio success, and landed on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart at number 34" -- I didn't know singles could fly like planes? Try to avoid giving human qualities to objects, so instead you should use like "ranked"

• Okay, sorry...

• "Cave In began working on new demo tracks in 2004 that were more in the vein of the band's earlier and heavier albums." -- well since they are working on them, of course they are new. So no need to say "new". In addition, are you trying to state "in the vein of the band's earlier heavy metal albums"? Because simply saying "heavier albums" doesn't quite cut the chase.

• Reworded.

• You can add that last part about them reforming in 2009 to the last paragraph, no need for a stand alone sentence.

• Done.

• Is there a reason why they went on hiatus in 2006, and why/how they reformed in 2009? Not their entire story but just a simple sentence saying why?

• This article is about the band's discography, not its history.

• The tables need to be formatted as in other discographies, like The White Stripes discography. The studio albums, for fact, I know haven't just ranked in the United States. If research is done, they definately ranked elsewhere in the world. The compilations, EP's, and Splits can stay as they are but the width of the table should be fixed as they are in the FL is showed you. The singles need to be formatted as in the table in the FL as well, as well as the non-album tracks.

• Formatted like Kronos Quartet discography?

• Actually, this list [Cave In discography] is better formatted than The White Stripes discography.--Cannibaloki 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The music videos, their should be a footnotes as to why their is no director listed for that last entry.

• What?--Cannibaloki 19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall, a lot more work is needed before this FL can be close to FLC standards. For now I must Oppose. Next time, I recommend you take the list to Peer Review, basically which is what I did for you above. I hope this helps.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for peering reviewing the article, next time I will be sure to do that before nominating. Is the table formatting similar to The White Stripes discography an absolute must in order to be listed as a FL? I specifically avoided MOS:DISCOGS (which is still only a proposed guideline and also suggests ignoring all the rules in certain situations) while creating this article for several reasons, some of which are listed in my nomination. I am fully aware of what Wikipedia thinks a discography should look like, as I have edited/created a lot of them in this style. However, I no longer believe that the currently accepted formatting of a Wikipedia discography should be called a "discography" anymore. Personally, I would rather see Comparison of charts and sales for albums by The White Stripes as its own separate article if a comparison is truly valuable to people, and a discography article that delves a little deeper into each release. Something a lot more engaging as a reader. After some quick research, the same two US charting releases also charted in the UK[13]. I absolutely refuse to conform to some archaic and cluttered styling method just for two releases that charted in two countries. If that kind of thinking withdraws this article from FLC, then so be it. Most of this article was written as if the releases by Cave In of questionable notability for an article had been deleted and merged with a relevant article. I just bypassed that whole creation/deletion processes, and presented a lot of information here in prose. I fully acknowledge that the style I have created here goes against guidelines, but also I feel that this is a much better way to present the information for Cave In's releases. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The main issues I see is how you are using the format. In the studio albums, you can at least add notes to the ones that are blank, right? You can add more about the other places they ranked on charts. Remember, Wikipedia is not US-centric. Also, on some of the other entries like the live albums, you give a track listing. I don't see that as necessary. Another thing, why do the tables have to be so wide? IMO it makes it strenuous to the reader. I completely understand your reasoning for it, and I agree you may do that just tweak it a bit.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a featured list discussion is not a peer review. the article does not conform to the usual styles so a peer review would have been better suited. as truco said, i can also understand the reasons. Mister sparky (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Alright, it seems I have gone about this the wrong way as the general consensus is opposed. I will copy and paste these points into the article's talk page, work them out one by one, perhaps submit the article for another peer review, then return here in a couple months. With my short attention span I can really only focus on a few articles at one time, and Cave In discography just isn't one of those articles right now. This was my first FLC and I kind of thought this was more of a pass/fail system. I am sorry for wasting everyone's time. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Nomination was withdrawn but I have reinstated it per a request at my talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.