Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2012

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 Giants2008 20:25, 25 July 2012 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 17:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i think it's ready and contains all information that could be found, correctly sourced. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 17:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Several changes have been made for the discography style, many of which can be found on the Jennifer Lopez discography article. In addition to those changes, other stuff that needs to be change include: Certifying certification authorities should be pipelinked to their abbreviations, not the country name. You only need to link the first instance of Latin. Also please note that graphics (such as the Done graphic) are strongly discouraged on any featured candidates. Erick (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Graphics? --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 19:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm referring to the "Done" template you are using in this page. Erick (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Sales need a footnote to indicate an "as of" date. Done.--Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 17:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Removing of overlinking certifications. You only need to link them once in the table. *Since Argentina and Chile do not have a database online (or at least until the former starts working again), the format to reference Hits of the World should be different. See Michael Jester's suggestion how to deal with Hits of the World here. Fixed.--Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 17:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Okay for Chile I want you to add that the chart for Chile is provided on the Hits of the World by the courtesy of the Asociacion Fonograficos De Chile now known as IFPI Chile. Also when referencing Billboard magazines, include the volume and issue of the magazine you're using which can be found by clicking on "Acerca de esta revista". Erick (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Only list certifications to countries that have also have a chart on the table. Done.--Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 17:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] *It seems unnecessary to divide albums into decades. I've divided into pre-2000 and post-2000. i've put them together. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 01:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] For Mexico, it should be linked to "Top 100 Mexico", not AMPROFON. Top 100 Mexico is the name of the chart, AMPROFON is the publisher. :: "On Mexico, both Hung Medien and AMPROFON chart information is used." What does this mean? Also, you only had to use the Mexicancharts.com as a source, I only asked for the piplelink to be changed. Erick (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I can't only use Mexicancharts, since it does not contain peak positions for Adentro and Solo. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 20:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Alright, disregard on my last comment then. Erick (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I've already linked them to Top 100 Mexico. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 03:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] *The countries should be in alphabetical order. First Argentina, second Chile, third Mexico, US last. Normally, the artist's home country would come first, but since Guatemala doesn't have a record chart, that can't be helped. Done. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 17:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] For Chile, the album chart name is "APF" according to Hits of the World. IFPI Chile is for certifications. See above for APF Perhaps I should rephrase that. APF is the abbreviation for the Chilean albums chart, I do not yet know what it stands for nor does it have an article on Wikipedia. I delinked it for now. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 17:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I disagree the need to include shipment figures on the discography table. I'm sorry, but I really don't think it satisfies the FLC criteria at this time. I would suggest a withdraw and get it peer reviewed. I've asked Michael Jester to provide assistance for you and he said he is willing to help. Erick (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Erick (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All issues resolved and article has been copy-edited. Erick (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Michael Jester Good work on the article so far, but I do see some issues. Take a look at K-Ci & JoJo discography or Jennifer Lopez discography (which are both FLs) to see how yours matches up. The countries should be in alphabetical order (ARG, CHI, MEX, ... instead of US, US Latin Pop, ...) Done. The references in the tables can be a bit confusing. Combine them, so you don't have references all over the place. I think it's done. Still got one lone reference in the studio albums table, and a few more in the singles table. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 15:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Those refs are needed, since that info is specific for that song/album in that chart. Should i move them too? --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 02:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Just combine them all like you already have. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] The sources may be in the lead, but I noticed some albums/singles do not have a reference to show they existed. For example, Jesús, Verbo No Sustantivo did not chart or receive a certification, so how do we know it existed? Because it is mentioned by several newspapers and magazines such as Billboard and Allmusic has a review and tracklist of the album. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 23:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Okay, but it still needs a source to show it existed. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 15:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Isn't it enough with having an article on Wikipedia about the album to verify it existed?. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 02:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Nope. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ok, i'll do it. No problem. Just wanted to note that, FL Jennifer Lopez discography has Glow by J.Lo Remixes and JLo Collection Fall Winter 2003 without chart positions and unreferenced to prove its existence. I know my comment may fall on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST; it is not my intention. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 05:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] For the live albums table, take away the US, MEX, and ARG charts since no albums charted on them. Ok. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 23:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Still need to take away US. Done. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 02:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Some certifications aren't sources (i.e. Galería Caribe) Did you meant 'unsourced'? --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 23:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yea, my fault. You got it though. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 15:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why are the singles split into decades and the albums not? I'd prefer to just have one table, but it's up to you. Be consistent, however. The albums were split into decades. I'll fix the singles as well. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 23:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] In the references section, dates are different. I see 12-10-2010 and 13 October 2011 in the first reference. Fixed them all. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 23:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Reference 1 is missing the language parameter. Fixed. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 02:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] A lot of the works/publishers are in italics when they shouldn't be and vice verse. For example, in reference 12, you have Billboard when it should be Billboard, and in reference 20, you have Allmusic when it should be Allmusic. It's Allmusic, followed by Rovi Corporation, which is the publisher. I've modified all references and rewrote them with {{cite web}}. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 02:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I still see errors. If it is a website, it should not be in italics. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] But that's the way the {{cite web}} handles it. on work= goes Allmusic and on publisher= goes Rovi Corporation. The template returns Allmusic italized. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 05:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Did any of his singles receive certification? Only "Mujeres": Gold (500,000) in the United States. I haven't found a reference yet, but when i do, i'll put a note of it. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 02:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I don't see any of Arjona's singles certified on the RIAA database. If it's not on the RIAA database, chances are it was not done a by certifying authority. Erick (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yeah. That's another reason why it is not on the article. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 03:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] You don't have any WP:ALT for the image. Added. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 02:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Some unsourced stuff in the lead: "Because of his negative experiences while recording the album and its commercial failure, he decided to abandon the music industry and become a schoolteacher." Forgot the source. Already fixed. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 02:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Calling songs a "hit" without a source is WP:OR I've added the sources. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 02:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] "has claimed many times that those albums are the best-selling of his career." I only see one source, and he's not claiming that it was his best-selling, nor is one source "many times". The sources says exactly this: "En esas condiciones saqué discos como Animal nocturno e Historias, que dicho sea de paso son los dos discos que más copias han vendido en mi carrera." (Traduction: "In such conditions i released albums like Animal Nocturno and Historias, which by the way are the two best-selling albums of my carrer".) The source: "Arjona desclasifica los episodios menos glamorosos de su paso por las discográficas". El Mercurio Online. The second source says: "Los dos discos que más copias han vendido en su carrera son "Animal nocturno" (1993) e "Historias" (1994)," (Traduction: "The two albums that has sold the most number of copies of his carrer are Animal Nocturno (1993) and Historias (1994)."). Source: "Alista Ricardo Arjona lanzamiento de su nuevo disco “Independiente”". Milenio. So the sources say he's claimed that and that it is true. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 02:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Erick. This should be withdrawn and peer reviewed. If you do go to PR, I'll provide more comments. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment I have fixed all dates. I withdraw the nomination for further improvement. I cannot ask the article to be peer reviewed, since i still have Independiente (Ricardo Arjona album) being PR'd at the moment. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 23:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Please check the article again to see what else needs to be done. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 01:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work on the article! I'm going to assume all the sources are right, so it's a support from me.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why you say that the m-dash "denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart", while you only use them in the Singles section?--GoP_T^C_N 11:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• They were on all the tables, but were changed to n-dashes. Fixed and Thanks for the comment. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 14:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Statυs (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments by Status Singles with no articles need to be sourced. A chart position is not enough to show this, considering that songs can chart without being a single. It is almost impossible to find a source for that. I prefer to write all the song's articles. --—Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 00:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm pretty sure the Billboard Latin Songs charts only accepts singles for chart positions since just about every song in the chart are done by airplay and promos. Erick (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Keep consistency with "US Latin". The albums section has a line break, while the singles section does not. Consistency? What do you mean? Line break? --—Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 00:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] In albums it is: "US <br />Latin" and in singles it is: "US Latin". Statυs (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Are you sure? I've checked the tables and no <br> is written between "US" and "Latin" neither on albums nor singles sections. —Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 00:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] It now appears to be fine. Statυs (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] This is a picky thing, but for the "did not chart" dashes, the longer ones should be used. WP:DISCOG: "Where a release did not chart, but a column for a particular chart or territory exists since another release charted there, either an en-dash (–) or an em-dash (—) should be placed in the cell. There is no requirement to use one type of dash over the other, but they should be used consistently throughout the article and centered in their cells." --—Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 00:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Not sure why notes on US Top Heatseekers is relevant as a note. They're additional peak positions that must be on the article; i think. --—Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 00:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why not just include it in the table? There's surely enough room for more chart positions. Statυs (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Good idea. I'll add them to the table. —Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 00:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Not sure why live albums are first. It's not as if you put it in ABC order or anything. There'a an option for live albums in the infobox, no need to create one. Thanks! Fixed. --—Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 00:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Statυs (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Everything looks good. Statυs (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose some quick comments, but overall this isn't ready yet. Suggest a WP:PR. "Guatemalan recording artist Ricardo Arjona has released throughout his career a total thirteen..." bad English. Perhaps "The discography of Guatemalan recording artist Ricardo Arjona consists of thirteen..." " forty-three singles." infobox says 46. "Four Arjona albums had debuted and/or reached number one on the Billboard Top Latin Albums, and ten had reached the No.1 position in Argentina." poor English. It should be "have" rather than "had", and the "and/or" is very awkwardly phrased. "Also, four albums had charted inside the Billboard 200, being Poquita Ropa the most successful of them, reaching No.43." bad English -> "Four albums also charted on the Billboard 200; Poquite Ropa was the most successful, reaching No. 43". " and stands as one of the most successful latin artists in music history" you mean "Latin", not "latin". "Arjona begun his musical career at age 21,[3] when he released his debut album Déjame Decir Que Te Amo in 1985." I find it hard to believe anyone begins a musical career by releasing an album. You mean, more likely, that his first album was released then. (I expect he did gigs and concerts etc before being signed to a label and then before releasing an album...) "Because of his negative experiences while recording the album " explain? "In 1989, Arjona returned for a second chance with..." nope, "returned to music when he released..." "which gave him media attention and moderated success." not "moderated", just "moderate". Sorry, but the prose is really, really poor. I suggest you ask a copyeditor to have a look over it, or as I said above, ask for a peer review, and then bring it back to FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I think i have addressed everything. I can't take the article at PR because I still have Independiente there ans the guidelines says i can't run two Prs simultaneously. —Hahc21 02:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a ce of the lead as requested by you, Hahc. Ty. Till 03:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Till. I appreciate the help. —Hahc21 03:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's next? I think I have addressed everything above. If i missed something, please tell me. —Hahc21 02:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support prose issues have been addressed apparently. Till 07:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now as the list was copyedited. Good work! ;) Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 17:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It looks good enough to be a featured list. Good work Hahc :)! — Tomica (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – "His album Historias garnered further success, where it sold two million copies". Don't think "where" is correct phrasing, since the album isn't a location. Some re-wording should fix this. "In December 1998, Arjona recorded his first live album, Vivo, on the Hippodrome of Guatemala City...". Should "on" be "in"? I'd think "on" is appropriate only if he was standing on top of the arena, not inside it. "the" is missing from "which reached No.2 on Billboard Latin Songs chart...". For consistency in the lead, I'd suggest putting it in. Should there be a space in "No.2" in this sentence? Similar issue exists in notes D and L. Typo in "becoming his second chart-topper con that list." "con" is the troublesome word. How does that get past five supporters? And this, from note B: "chart positions shown is the published in Billboard's 'Hits of the World' section." Replacing "is the" with "were" should fix it, but again I'd have expected one of the prior reviewers to catch this. That also appears in note C. In note E: "belongs" should probably be the singular "belong". One more while we're waiting for the site to become operational again: "were" should probably be "was" in note C. I don't think the change from the other note works perfectly here. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Fixed. Thanks for your comments. I'm afraid i don't know when it will become available again :(. It's worrying me, since i tried a lot to find a replacement but was unsuccessful. Regards. —Hahc21 01:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] I see both words now. I don't think that's what you intended to do. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] I didnt't understood haha. Intended to do what? The word change worked? —Hahc21 18:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] He wanted you to change "Chilean chart information were published in Billboard's "Hits of the World" section" to ""Chilean chart information were published in Billboard's "Hits of the World" section" and you accidentally put both in. Erick (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Oh my!. Fixed. —Hahc21 02:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] I made a mistake on my post. It was supposed to say "were" to "was". Erick (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Is it "were" or "was"? The "chilean chart position" is singular, so "were" is not correct, Am i right? Haha XD —Hahc21 02:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] It's "was", and yes you are correct, it's singular or "was" would be the one. Erick (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 22 has a dead link tag. I'd be very hesitant to promote the list as long as this is present. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed all but this: No.2 doesn't need a space between the period and the number. The argentinian site was hacked and is dead until they restore it. There's no other source that could replace it, since it's the official argentinian certification entity's website. Thanks for your comments. Cheers! —Hahc21 17:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the verdict? There hasn't been activity for 10 days. If the CAPIF site is still being an issue, then an archive version of it can be used, right? Erick (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if an archived version showing all certifications is available, then i think it might be good to go. —Hahc21 15:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Archive is probably your best bet in finding an archived version, assuming nobody made a copy of the page through WebCite. If that fails, you can always remove the CAPIF certifications until the site comes back. That's not the ideal, but if there's no good source for them there's no good source for them, and I don't believe comprehensiveness requires us to add details that can't be adequately cited. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found an archive on the WayBack machine. Before the search option was required to view the certifications, the CAPIF site allowed you to search for certifications by year. Unfortunately, it only goes from 2001 to late 2007 (selecting 2000 does not work). This means that certifications before 2000 and after 2007 will probably have to taken off. At any rate, here it is. Erick (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any update here? I don't want to see this left at FLC forever while we're waiting for the site to come back up. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't found the way to see some years. I will use the archived version for some albums and delete the rest until the site comes back up. UPDATE: Still confused with the archive. I'm not able to see the certifications. I think that, as a complete substitute is not available, then you might close this and then, in a future, i will renominate it. —Hahc21 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, [2001. That's all I got for now. Erick (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2012 (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 14:04, 22 July 2012 [2].

---

Nominator(s): MatheusLPereira (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria in general. I'm interested in music criticism, so making this list was enjoyable and worthwhile. --MatheusLPereira (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - there's an awful lot of rather tortured English, to wit.....

• determined by a votation realized by the editors - there's no such word as "votation", better would be "determined by a vote conducted among the site's editors"
• The list is organized since 1999, resulting in 13 editions, from the first year to 2011. - better would be "the list has been published annually since 1999", the bit about there being 13 editions is unnecessary IMO
• In 2000, the site made a Top 20 - "made" is a bit weak, better would be "in 2000 the list was expanded to a top 20"
• In 2002 they began the Top 50 format that continues until now - better would be "in 2002 the list was further expanded to a top 50 and has remained in that format"
• Bon Iver was placed number-one with their self-titled album - here Bon Iver is being treated as both plural and singular in the same sentence, you need to pick one and stick with it. So either "Bon Iver was placed number-one with its self-titled album" (sounds terrible to me but might be correct in American English) or "Bon Iver were placed number-one with their self-titled album"
• Thom Yorke, the vocalist of Radiohead, the awarded band in 2000 for their album Kid A. - I would replace "the awarded band" with "winners". Also, as the article seems to be written in American English, should Radiohead not be treated as a singular noun (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm British......)

Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I corrected all the mistakes. Thanks, man, sorry about that. English is not my native language, so I ended up making some confusion in grammar and agreement. See ya! --MatheusLPereira (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • The clumsy lead needs a copyedit.

Partially done. --MatheusLPereira (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Use n-dashes (–) for year ranges instead of m-dashes. See WP:NDASH.

Done. --MatheusLPereira (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Table currently does not meet WP:DTT.

Why not? Could you specify the flaw in question? --MatheusLPereira (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Otherwise not bad.--GoP_T^C_N 12:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! --MatheusLPereira (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: without independent, reliable sources, this article does not pass WP:Notability. This article is about Pitchfork's annual best-album list, so Pitchfork itself cannot be used as a source to determine this list's notability. However this article uses only Pitchfork sources.—indopug (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll provide external sources as far as I can. --Matheus Pereira (talk / contribs) 00:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Matheus, it's been nearly a week, can you confirm that you will be providing some third-party verifiable refs to substantiate the notability of this list or would you rather withdraw it? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2012 (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 Giants2008 00:34, 19 July 2012 [3].

---

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 06:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is based on similar Olympic venue lists and I believe that it meets the criteria. Arsenikk ^(talk) 06:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick note, tables need scope row and scope col tags, see MOS:DTT for more information and examples. Town Plaza under "Non-competition venues", the ndash isn't lining up with the others as well. Albacore (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, these issues have been dealt with. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this article meets the criteria, but I am concerned by the fact that it can easily fit into the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics, and thus violates criteria 3b. I know that venue articles are usually separated, but considering there is next to no content on the parent article, it seems that, at least at this point, this article would be better placed on the parent. Interested in what others may think. Ravendrop 19:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on 3b, this won't happen for four years and there seems no logical reason to split this out from the (very brief) main article as Ravendrop has noted above. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics article was expanded, there would not be room to include all the information in this article, as venues is only a small part any given article about large sports tournaments, which usually center around the sports events themselves. This article allows details not permitted in the main article, especially related to non-competition venues. Even given that the event has not taken place, large amounts of the organization, bids, events, calendar and venue information could be included, and the medal table would be the only significant part which could not be created until the actual events. I am concerned that the review of this article is based on the quality of another article, not the article up for nomination. The reason for my interest is that I have been working on the venues of the 1994 Lillehammer Olympics and this article, along with for instance the heritage venue operator company, become natural extensions of this work. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your concerns, and yes, I think in perhaps 2015, the main article will not be able to sustain all this information about venues, but right now, the main article is pretty much 50% intro and templates, and 50% venues (and it's very, very short, almost stub-like). This article, while excellent, is also very short indeed, and I honestly believe it still could be merged into the main article. I'm sorry to keep my position because I know how hard you work on all FLCs here, but as I say to many people, my opinion is just that, my opinion. Let's see what others have to say about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2012 (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 Giants2008 00:34, 19 July 2012 [4].

---

Nominator(s): Pantera5FDP (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it now meets featured list criteria. Pantera5FDP (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Lead image caption doesn't need a full stop. "currently" see WP:ASOF. Always curious how a discography can contain videos. Would that not exist in a videography? "The band was started in'.... odd turn of phrase, perhaps "was founded... " or "was formed in..." "The Way of the Fist " why isn't this linked in the lead? " Guitarist Darrell Roberts " just "Roberts". Bitch We Have A Problem is in italics in our article while Family Values isn't, yet both are tour titles. Consistency needed, even if it needs fixes outside this list. " at number 7 on " seven. " It also did well in other countries" hate "did" maybe "also charted well"? 3, 6, 14 -> three, six, fourteen. "II^ This single was only released digitally through iTunes." no ref? What are these "Other appearances"? not mentioned in the lead, infobox and certainly not explained adequately. Check ref titles for compliance with WP:DASH. Ref 8 not direct ref, just links to a database. What makes pasta padre.com a reliable source? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Fixed everything but the picture, not sure how to do that? Pantera5FDP (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] OK, everything is fixed. Pantera5FDP (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments "The band began their rise to fame with their debut album The Way of the Fist in 2007." that sentence needs a reference, and would probably not use rise to fame as its POV, 107 on billboard does indicate rising to fame as the sentence suggests References should come after punctuation, you have two (refs 5 and 6) which don't link billboard 200 on first usage last sentence needs a reference The table method you're using is outdated, we tend to use the table method displayed here for discography's now, as it complies with MOS:DTT and WP:ACCESS, that will need changing NapHit (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Everything is fixed except the last sentence, which I do not understand why it needs a reference because it is already sourced in the table? Pantera5FDP (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough, one more comment ref 16 the hyphen should be an en dash. NapHit (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ok, everything is fixed. Pantera5FDP (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Nearly I've fixed the first two tables to meet MOS:DTT but the ones below do not, you'll need to add row and col scopes to make them comply. NapHit (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I believe I have fixed it. Pantera5FDP (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support NapHit (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: No complaints. Goodraise 22:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Is it fine to use a YouTube video as a citation per WP:YT?
• Not sure why a forum is used for certain Billboard citations. For instance, I searched Ref 24's title and got a direct link to the Billboard.biz website. Should do the same for Ref 25.

• Scratch that, notice it lists the album and singles charts. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Allmusic's publisher Allrovi or Rovi Corporation? Lemonade51 (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "joined shortly after.^[1] After searching for" – Unnecessary repetition. Please reword.
• "...was released in 2007. The album peaked..." – Consider combining these sentences.
• The lead appears to be written like a history section. It could be made clearer that these events are presented in chronological order.
• Is there a reason why this article doesn't employ sortable tables?
• "This single was only released in the United Kingdom." – Please provide links to both uses of this note. This can be done, for example, by using {{note label}}.

I'm still uncomfortable with the placement of the "'—' denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that country" note in regard to accessibility, but as this objection did not garner consensus support in the past, I won't let it keep me from supporting. I may return with more comments. Goodraise 11:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes KornSpace.com a reliable source? Who is the publisher?
• What makes Metal Hammer a reliable source? Who is the publisher? (Could it be Future Publishing?)
• Reference titles aren't arbitrary. For instance, I don't see "Australian charts portal" anywhere on the linked page.
• I'm fairly certain that Chart Stats shouldn't be considered a reliable source. It will have to be replaced.
• Refs. 19–21 are incorrectly cited. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Furthermore, the linked pages (on canadianrockalt.blogspot.de) do not strike me as reliable.

I'm not all the way through yet, but at this point, I'll have to oppose. Goodraise 21:23, 15 July 2012 (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 10:47, 17 July 2012 [5].

---

Nominator(s): Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  08:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have made changes to this list as per the suggestions from the previous nomination request here and think it is now ready to become a Featured List. I look forward to your comments and suggestions. Thanks! Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  08:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• WP:OVERLINK: Words like writer, actor, member, ambassador are linked too many times. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 fixed Thank for bringing this to my notice. I have fixed the issue.--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  17:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That list was not comprehensive. More exist: Chairman, MD, CEO etc. Scan whole article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Apologies, I'll just fix that.--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  09:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorting: Armed forces is not ordered by class year nor alphabetical name. Check all sections and standardize. Also, add sorting facility for reader as in Works of Rambhadracharya eg. Khaṇḍakāvyas (minor poems): year, title etc. are sortable

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Fowler&fowler: Sorry for being impatient with you, but this is not the first time it has been pointed out to you that all princely titles and privileges were abolished in India in 1971. In spite of being told this repeatedly, you continue to stuff garbage in the princely alumni section, with grandiloquent reigns, some lasting into the 1980s. Shatrujit Singh, whose page, in spite of the paring-down snow job that I've just undertaken, is a excellent candidate for AfD, is typical of these claimants. Also, royalark.net is not even remotely a reliable source for royalty claims. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC) I've fixed the princely pretenders, I'm traveling again now and consequently unable to follow up. You have my support. Hope others weigh in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment suggest given the strength of feeling here (and in the previous FLC), that Fowler&Fowler's issue needs to be discussed and resolved before this FLC can be satisfactorily progressed. There's little point in having an open nomination which just keeps repeating the same arguments without resolving them. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. After having read Fowler's comments closely in the last FLC nomination, I do not believe that he is an unbiased reviewer. His previous arguments were more along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This FLC needs fresh eyes.--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  17:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either that, or it needs an honest peer review where we can gauge the opinions of a number of other editors who aren't list- or Doon-biased. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that my presence is a wet blanket, but it's not the case that editors galore have been champing at the bit to have a go here and I have their stalls locked up. A peer-review might be good, but I shall soon be also posting on WT:INDIA. A year ago something similar had to done with Indian caste-related articles, which too were written by SPAs, who had exaggerated, textually and visually, and used for sources social snippets in India's popular press.

Doon is one of some two dozen elite schools in India that all have alumni of more or less equal notability. That a veritable horde of Doon school unknowns (see, for example, CG Devashar, Inder Pal Khosla, Trilochan Singh Brar) have been recently pushed, by Merlaysamuel, into the realm of dubious notability, speaks to the dangers that lie ahead. This is not just my assessment, user:Stfg, who copyedited the Doon School article for GOCE, wondered if some parts of it were not written to appeal to prospective parents. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS Consider, for example, the first of the dubious notables above, CG Devashar. His page has two sentences: "Air Marshal Charandas Gurudas Devashar PVSM was the head of the Indian Air Force from 1977 to 1981, as Air Marshal (India). He completed his schooling from The Doon School." I became suspicious when I saw the words "head of the Indian Air Force," (for Chief of the Air Staff), so I checked. It turns out Devashar was never chief of staff; it was another gentleman, Idris Hasan Latif, who is a great deal more notable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PPS Now that I've become aware of the other schools-for-the-privileged in India, I have also just realized that Merlaysamuel (talk · contribs) has been removing names of notable alumni from at least one of those schools, Modern School (New Delhi). See this edit with edit summary "removing many false entries." Well it turns out that the first two names he has removed, the musician, Amjad Ali Khan and the author, Amitava Kumar, did in fact go to that school. (See evidence here for Amjad Ali Khan and here for Amitava Kumar. These are pretty water-tight sources: the journal of India's national academy of music and an author's own web site.) I'm afraid, I don't know what is going on, but it does not bode well for this nomination. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Amjad Ali Khan because his Wiki page says he received homeschooling (and your reference for his attending Modern does not show anything). And as for Amitava Kumar, his Wiki page says he attended St. Michael's school. It was my fault that I didn't bother to check out if he actually did. Sorry for that. --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  11:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that link is not good. I've now added three more there. I accept your explanation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Spot checking three references resulted in all three failing to verify the content:
  • Surendhra Kandhari, the ref only mentions that they were 18 when they met at Doon, not that either was an alumni.
  • Roshan Seth, ref doesn't mention anything about the school.
  • MA Murugappan, ref only mentions Vellayan was on the board of governors of Doon, not any alumni verification for Murugappan.
  • Also, if people are notable enough to be included in the list, the ought to be notable enough to be linked.
  • With the ref issues, I'm not sure it's ready to be discussed for FL currently, at least not until every individual ref is checked out. —SpacemanSpiff 09:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the main contributor to the list hasn't edited since 2 July, I will archive this nomination. Of course, once suitable attention can be given to comments here, the nominator is welcome to return to FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2012 (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 Giants2008 22:29, 2 July 2012 [6].

---

Nominator(s): GoP_T^C_N 15:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can see, Miles Davis was a prolific jazz musician. He started his career as a sideman, but he later formed his first nonet. Davis is known for his complex music style, ranging from bebop to hip-hop jazz; no wonder that he is one of the who-is-who of jazz music. But yet this discography is incomplete and it is unlikely it will ever be complete, but I believe it is an overview of his most important albums and compositions. The lead is, unlike other leads of discographies, a very short and concise summary of his musical career, and it does not contain any duplicated information already mentioned in the several tables. GoP_T^C_N 15:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick query why is there a separate section for "vinyl records" when almost every album on the rest of the page was released on vinyl? Were these releases actually singles? If so, they should be labelled as such, as "vinyl records" is a confusing heading....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "singles". Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "By 1945 he had abandoned his academic studies making his first recordings as a sideman." Comma needed before "making".

• done--GoP_T^C_N 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What is intended to source "although the data is not conclusive"? Without a reference, it sounds like original research.

• Several sources state a different number.--GoP_T^C_N 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case there should be a footnote here giving some of the various numbers. My point about that part sounding like OR stands without some evidence to the contrary, such as a note. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Who says his second quintet was "great"? That seems to be editorializing.

• This is the official name of the quintet. Capitalized as proper noun.--GoP_T^C_N 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Below multiple charts: "denotes releases that did not chart or was not released." Tense conflict between "releases" (plural) and "was" (singular).

• Forgot to edit that. Done.--GoP_T^C_N 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Singles table, the footnotes don't need to be sortable.

• Done

• Below the Video albums table, consider removing the unnecessary comma after "denotes".

• Removed.--GoP_T^C_N 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes All About Jazz (reference 3) a reliable source?

• For every jazz enthusiast, AllAboutJazz is of course THE source for jazz music. It is the most comprehensible and reliable source for this genre. Several authors are former writers of magazines and the content is maintained.--GoP_T^C_N 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Encyclopedia Brittanica (ref 6) is not unreliable per se, but it is a tertiary source and I feel a stronger secondary source could be found for such biographical information.
• What makes 78discography (ref 18) a reliable source?

• The source is simply the liner notes, but as it is not permitted to use that as a source I had no other choice to use a well-known source for vinyl records. Note that the author says that he maintains the content.--GoP_T^C_N 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also unsure about kind-of-blue.de (many refs).

• Again, the source are the liner notes. It is only used to proof they are no hoax recordings.--GoP_T^C_N 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And Jazz Discography Project (several refs). Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto. Also maintained by a trusted team.--GoP_T^C_N 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll leave the source comments out for others to consider, but for my own education why wouldn't the liner notes themselves be considered a reliable source? Sounds to me like they would be roughly equivalent to primary sources. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree about the liner notes. There is even a template for citing them at Template:Cite album-notes Michael miceli (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This template is useless as the liner notes are always the principal reference, so this template does not make sense. Also, as you can see, I added a book as an additional source. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 07:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*His "major" discog? Is there a minor one? I think I know what you mean but if you're picking a subset of his work then you need to define the inclusion criteria. Major means no bootlegs, etc. We had DISCOGSTYLE but it is inactive at the moment. I clarified inside brackets. Two dab links, "Catalog number" and "Tom O'Neill". Fixed "the Savoy label." not the Savoy you're looking for. :) "released his major" reiterate Davis because you've talked about other people in the meantime. Done "so far" see WP:ASOF. Done "which went platinum" which was certified as platinum would be better. Done If fla. stands for Flemish or similar, shouldn't it be Fla.? Changed What does "Label: Debut* Label: Prestige" mean? Fixed Catalog number doesn't sort correctly. Fixed all I believe. Ref 118 has double full stop. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] --GoPTCN 13:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't easily see where all the info is referenced in the tables. For instance, for every single release that hasn't charted anywhere in the world, where can I find it referenced?

• The new Allmusic is crap but I will think about that. (Is this really necessary?)

• It is. I ask it of every discog. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Columbia/Warner Bros., 1981–1991" table needs to be formatted correctly.

• Not sure what you mean...

• Looks like the last cell isn't formatted right. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I share Giants2008 concerns over the use of those sources he has picked out as dubious. Even if they're "back up", we shouldn't be using sources that we don't consider reliable.

• These are the only sources available. The source are the liner notes. As I said before, the content there is maintained and the German kindofblue.de has even covers. Otherwise I can put a general reference from a German book.

• It doesn't really matter if they're the only sources available. Can you prove them to be WP:RS? If not, we shouldn't be using them as references, especially as you already link to them as external links. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Good, then I will simply remove the references; is this what you want me to do? --GoP_T^C_N 09:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I want you to use reliable sources. That is all. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The references are the liner notes, and they are reliable. So either I remove all references or I keep them.--GoP_T^C_N 10:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But you're not referencing liner notes, you're referencing unreliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources are not unreliable. They clearly state that the information is from the liner notes and they say that they maintain the content. Anyway, I used a book which has the complete discography.--GoP_T^C_N 11:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on sourcing - the entire Prestige/Debut table is completely unsourced, and many many other releases further down are not sourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Click on the several articles listed in that table and you will see they are not hoaxes. We simply do not need sources here as self-evident.--GoP_T^C_N 09:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly do you mean "unsourced"? The other tables do not have any references, apart from the chart footnotes; this is not a requirement to add those. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well where are the release dates sourced from? That's not "self-evident" is it? And what about those releases which don't even have an article e.g. in the Live albums table? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I will try to add sources from the online (!) liner notes I recently discovered. Please don't close this list; I will work on it soon. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 14:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Plosin is probably equally unreliable, right? --GoP_T^C_N 10:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What I do not understand is that I need to cite the release dates; we have articles and several sources such as Plosin and jazzdiscography and they use the same release dates, as their are from the liner notes. An example is this, it clearly says that the recording took place from January 17, 1951 to October 5, 1951, and the dates are even linked to the session details. So explain why these references are not reliable and name me the type of references you think are reliable. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 10:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I need to you to provide evidence that sources used are reliable. I need to see a source which references each release date (or otherwise how do I know you haven't made the whole lot up?). It's pretty straightforward what I'm asking for. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a single discography cites the release dates! It is pretty clear it is nonsensical; the release dates are correct and several sources agree with me. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 11:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "or otherwise how do I know you haven't made the whole lot up?" -> ?? You really believe I would put hoax recordings? --GoP_T^C_N 11:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, of course not, it was a hypothetical question. How does any reader know that those dates are genuine? By the way, discogs which have releases that have charted use the chart references for release dates. You can't do that if the single/album in question has never charted anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not need to be charted if released... I am not sure when the Top Jazz Albums chart was created, but it seems like Jazz albums and singled did not chart in 40s, but there was only Billboard 200 at that time. The release dates are all from Allmusic--GoP_T^C_N 11:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I'm aware that a song may not chart if released, but the links to the various chart organisations used at the top of those tables will provide a release date for the songs that do chart in that territory. Songs which aren't released or don't chart need independent verification as the charts won't list them because, obviously, they didn't chart. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Have you done this yet? For instance, where is the specific reference for the recording dates, release dates and formats of Milestones? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, forgot those.... Done--GoP_T^C_N 14:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I finished the first and the live albums table; will do the compilation tomorrow.--GoP_T^C_N 21:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced all the uncharted albums.--GoP_T^C_N 07:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tables from the singles section down do not meet MOS:DTT. NapHit (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I have hoped someone would skip that... I am not sure where to put the scope rows in the "Singles" section, so I'll wait for suggestions. Regards.--GoPTCN 14:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'd go with putting them in the A-side column. NapHit (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done--GoPTCN 08:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• link Columbia records in third para

• Done

• ref 37 doesn't seem to be formatted properly

• Done

• I also share the concerns raised above about the sourcing, its not evident what makes kind of blue for instance a reliable source.

NapHit (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fully disagree. Please look properly. You can clearly see the covers on that site.--GoP_T^C_N 10:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The website seems to be a fan site maintained by one person, just because all the information is factually correct does not make the source reliable. It is for the nominator to prove the site is reliable, I see no indication of this, nor does it seem this is used by others to verify data, so I don't think it can be considered a reliable source. NapHit (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The covers are the sources. Period.--GoP_T^C_N 08:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a fansite, it is indeed reliable as the author does the work voluntarily. Again, the covers are the sources, so do not even start to view the website body but only the covers. It is impossible that a fan would falsify the covers.--GoP_T^C_N 08:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites are not considered reliable sources, plus stating the covers are the sources does not solve anything as on those scans there is no mention of miles davis anywhere. Anyway you use Allmusic for the majority of the sources, why not use it for the majority. For instance ref 95(which is a kind of blue.de), that info can be sourced at Allmusic see here just use that source instead. That's the problem using sources which can have their reliability questioned when reliable sources are available. NapHit (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that some information on allmusic was updated. I replaced nearly every kind-of-blue.de site with allmusic. I replaced the normal pages with the one showing the cover with his name.--GoP_T^C_N 19:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a few kind of blue sources there, one in particular is troubling. The kind of blue source states that the la villette dvd was released in 2001, yet allmusic has the release date as 2009. As all music is a reliable source I'm going to go with them on the release date, there are still a few kind of blue sources remaining and these will need to be replaced and checked against allmusic to ensure we are displaying the correct info. NapHit (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic is often known to include wrong release dates...--GoP_T^C_N 10:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I was correct. Allmusic does not list many releases. Several sources state "2001", including discogs. Now you call Allmusic "reliable"?--GoP_T^C_N 13:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm holding back until after the referencing issues are fixed, but a quick comment: etc. should generally not be in articles (first sentence) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2012 (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 Giants2008 22:29, 2 July 2012 [7].

---

Nominator(s): Idiotchalk (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because My Bloody Valentine is of significant interest to a number of groups, especially alternative rock fans, Irish music fans and fans of shoegazing - a subgenre the band pioneered. Idiotchalk (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

;Oppose Cut the space between the start of the prose and the infobox  Done What makes mybloodyvalentine.net or Imdb reliable sources? Just noticed that per WP:RS/IMDB IMDb is not a reliable source and replaced ref 18 with another source. mybloodyvalentine.net is maintained by fans but is affiliated with Kevin Shields, as the band's web site has been inactive for almost three years. If another source is needed to verify, I'd be glad to add one. Since you have a "Bibliography" semi-colon, why not have a "References" semi-colon under for a separation of the two?  Done No scope row/col tags? See K-Ci & JoJo discography for what these should look like, and see also MOS:DTT for help.  Done The "Year" column is a bit redundant, since you have the year already listed under the "details" section.  Done The "Miscellaneous appearances" section in the infobox doesn't add up to the real total.  Done Ref 3... can you give me the website of Underground magazine, or some proof it exists? Underground doesn't have an official web site, it was an indie magazine that only was active for a few months in the late 1980s, here's some proof of its existence though. My Bloody Valentine' released its debut mini album, no need for apostrophe  Done debut mini album, This Is Your Bloody Valentine, in 1985 on Tycoon Records with its original line-up. ... consisting of who? And this implies the band later changed lineups, but nothing is said.  Done Overall, the prose standard could use another paragraph to summarize the entire list, references aren't up to snuff regarding formatting and reliability, and lists could use touch-up with scope-row and scope-col tags. Albacore (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] Could you give me an example of bad formatting in the references? English is the default language, no need to specify. All-caps should be avoided in references, and everywhere where there is a - various artists should be a – various artists, or you could remove that part altogether. Double-bolding, such as in the Studio albums section, should be avoided, and scope-col for :""—" denotes a release that did not chart." is not necessary. There's something going on with the notes in the "Promotional singles" section, and I would prefer that the notes have a section to themselves. Albacore (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done all of these. The only thing I didn't quite understand was "All-caps should be avoided in references." Was that referring to "ITV Chart Show"? If so, that was fixed too. Idiotchalk (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] The ITV in the references was proper; I was referring to ref 5. Albacore (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "The band recruited bassist Debbie Gorge after its release...". Sounds like the band was released instead of the album, which surely wasn't the intention.
  • I see an "ithe" in there, which needs fixing. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Excess period after ref 4.
• Feels like "has" is missing from "Loveless since sold over 250,000 copies...".
• The lead image could use alt text.
• I agree with Albacore that mybloodyvalentine.net is probably unreliable, and am concerned that the site may not have had the right to republish the book excerpt used here. Would really like to see another source found for this, perhaps from a copy of the book itself. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I replaced the mybloodyvalentine.net source with a reliable source. Which book excerpt are you referring to exactly? Idiotchalk (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The one in ref 2, which is still there and hasn't been removed. It's formatted just like a book, and even has an ISBN. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – No complaints. Goodraise 23:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:CONTEXTLINK frowns against the use of bold links, adding plainrowheaders to sortable wikitable will fix the issue. NapHit (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]  Done Idiotchalk (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support NapHit (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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