Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dischord Records discography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 19:32, 8 January 2008.
As far as I know, this is the first list of this type to be nominated here, so here goes nothing! Since this is the first of its kind, hopefully we can set a solid precedence on which to model similar articles in the future. So, along those lines, if there is any formatting or content issues, let me know. I would also like to mention that I'm not completely satisfied with the formatting/placement of the in-line citations. Currently they're somewhat awkwardly placed in the Co-releases section, which I'm not completely satisfied with. So any suggestions you might have would be appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support One comment however; MacKaye and Nelson set up Dischord to release Minor Disturbance by The Teen Idles, and then, with the profits from that, then released records from other hardcore bands. May be worth noting. Also, in the last para of the lead, "continues" seems a little repetitive; try rephrasing it.
Overall it's well-written and formatted; you may want to place the refs in a separate column. I'll be using this as a model when I get around to working on SST Records discography. CloudNine (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for the support! I'll see about expanding the biographical stuff a little bit. As for ther references, I tried doing a separate column at first, but with the weird way the general souces work, I only needed to provide in-lines for releases #126½ and on. So in other words, a reference column would be completely blank for the first 126+ entries, which looked a little weird. But if you think that's a good solution I'll be happy to give it a shot Drewcifer (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added some semi-historical stuff. Again, thanks for the support! Drewcifer (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support! I'll see about expanding the biographical stuff a little bit. As for ther references, I tried doing a separate column at first, but with the weird way the general souces work, I only needed to provide in-lines for releases #126½ and on. So in other words, a reference column would be completely blank for the first 126+ entries, which looked a little weird. But if you think that's a good solution I'll be happy to give it a shot Drewcifer (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's arguably not the first, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The KLF discography (which covered the entire - small - output of KLF Communications). Anyway: I've renamed this article to Dischord Records discography. Discography is the accepted term for a list of records, and this brings the article into line with the convention established by it's fellow occupants of Category:Discographies by record label. --kingboyk (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm not sure if the convention is right in this case. Odds are one or two articles used the word discography and the rest followed suite: that doesn't mean it's right. That said, the fact that the word catalog/catalogue is regionally-specific makes me a little less resistant to the change. So, let's see what happens with the discussion topic on the category's talk page, if anything. Also, it's probably a bad idea to rename something nominated for something all willy nilly without discussing it first. Drewcifer (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, it's never a bad idea to implement naming conventions nor is it bad to be bold :) That the article is under Featured content consideration doesn't place any duty on the rest of us to refrain from editing it or even moving it. I don't mean to come across as confrontational, just felt that the misunderstanding needed to be cleared up :)
- "Discography" is the accepted term not just here but in record collecting circles. In Record Collector magazine, for example, I'm quite sure they would use the term for any list of records, whether it be releases by an artist, a record label, or some other list. The article "discography" also says that the term can apply to a list of records by a label. "Catalog" is more of an industry term and, as you're now aware, it would be "catalogue" in some part of the world. In summary, convention both here and in the outside world would indicate to me that "discography" is correct.
- All that said, I think it's best to discuss the page name elsewhere and focus on the content here. Good luck with your nomination. --kingboyk (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that, but I never said you were wrong in renmaing it, just that it might have been hasty/bad timing and that doing so based on precedence was iffy logic, that's all. Drewcifer (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm not sure if the convention is right in this case. Odds are one or two articles used the word discography and the rest followed suite: that doesn't mean it's right. That said, the fact that the word catalog/catalogue is regionally-specific makes me a little less resistant to the change. So, let's see what happens with the discussion topic on the category's talk page, if anything. Also, it's probably a bad idea to rename something nominated for something all willy nilly without discussing it first. Drewcifer (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional WeakSupport As soon as I see an explanation for the "No." column and, most importantly, why there are so many half or quarter of points, I'll support.--Crzycheetah 20:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all record labels have some sort of cataloging system, where each release is given an official catalog number, working in a loosely chronological fashion. These numbers usually aren't advertised greatly, but they're almost always there, Dischord Records releases being no exception. The system is usually at the discretion of the label, and Dischord Records being the somewhat unusual label that it is, I guess they chose to give some releases decimals/fractions. I don't know why, but that's just the way it is. Check any of the sources and you'll find the same thing. Drewcifer (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was mostly interested why there were those fractions used. I am sure any other reader would ask that question, as well. But since this info is not available or unattainable, I give my weak support.--Crzycheetah 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Although I do feel that an explanation to why these use fractions, or even just stating the this is the type of numbering system used would help out a lot to a new or unfamiliar reader. Good job on the list though!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update (diff) I added a bit of an explanation at the beginning of the list, so hopefully that helps clear up any confusion and any other reservations with the list. Drewcifer (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am OK with that.--Crzycheetah 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.