Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Smoking Popes discography/archive1
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 by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [1].
Self-nomination. One of my favorite local bands that just recently got back together. This list is similar to other band which didn't have material chart on any significant charts. Teemu08 (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support but with a few questions (cleanup):
- What's a "minor punk rock hit"? How's it different from a minor hit?
- Isn't The Party's Over a compilation?
- No pics? Even of individual band members? Even on Flickr?
- An external link to the band's official website or a one to a discography on a fansite would be nice. indopug (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I've clarified the punk rock statement. I searched Flickr, and there aren't CC pictures that we can use that have a non-commercial license. I should have brought my camera last time I saw them in concert :). The Popes don't have a website, but I'll list an external discography and a fansite. I originally listed The Party's Over as a compilation, but changed my mind. Although it was released after the breakup of the band and released on a different label than the one that recorded it, its still the same studio album that the Popes submitted to Capitol. It's a thin line, but there's nothing I can see wrong about listing it as a studio album. Teemu08 (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. Until the B-Side issue is resolved for good, I'll support the nomination despite their inclusion. Otherwise, good work! Drewcifer (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
Comments Looks pretty good. Only a few suggestions:
- Why doesn't the list include work with Duvall? Though I don't know anything about the band, it makes the list sound incomplete to me.
- Put a # in the catalog numbers to make it clearer.
- We're only concerned with the original, not re-releases, so I'd recommend taking out the stuff about re-releases.
- There's an errant period in the release date of Destination Failure. It's also missing a colon.
- Format should be plural wherever more then one format applies.
- "First overall release by the band" sounds a little awkward. Howabout just "Debut release."?
- I think "7-inch vinyl" is preferable to "7" vinyl".
- Naming a section "Contributions" is a little weird. Surely there could be a better title?
- Why the See also section?
- An External links section is needed. Drewcifer (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. Fixed the colon/period, pluralized "Formats", changed 7" to 7-inch, and added pound signs to catalog numbers. Changed "Contributions" to "Other appearances". Duvall was a band that the lead singer formed after the Popes broke up, so its a completely different entity and should not be listed on a discography for the Smoking Popes. Other discographies contain re-release info [2] [3], and most contain B-sides (either in the singles section or in a separate section, depending on the popularity of the band). Teemu08 (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also suggest including some more (general) references to kind of act as overall sources for everything not cited specifically. Take a look at The Prodigy discography for an example of what I mean. Drewcifer (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like doing that would only be repeating the information available in the external links section. Teemu08 (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a clear recognition of sources takes precedence of any repetition between sections. Perhaps you could also change the External links to reduce repition? An External link to Discogs might be good, or to their official site (rather then a fansite). Drewcifer (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked out their Discogs site and it was so inaccurate that I couldn't bear myself to list it. The Popes don't have an official website, but I'll list their MySpace page (they actually list the fansite as their "official website" there). Teemu08 (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a clear recognition of sources takes precedence of any repetition between sections. Perhaps you could also change the External links to reduce repition? An External link to Discogs might be good, or to their official site (rather then a fansite). Drewcifer (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like doing that would only be repeating the information available in the external links section. Teemu08 (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also suggest including some more (general) references to kind of act as overall sources for everything not cited specifically. Take a look at The Prodigy discography for an example of what I mean. Drewcifer (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alot of the notes could use some citations.
- There's too many periods in the end of the General references.
- The notes are inconsistent with their periods. Some have one, some don't. Be consistent. Drewcifer (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the stuff about re-issues should go. We're only concerned with the initial release, not any subsequent version, re-releases, etc, unless super-notable, like Thriller 25.
- It's not necessary to mention the B-sides, labels, or catalog numbers of the singles.
- Period issues fixed. All notes cited (except non-debatable ones such as "debut release"). I removed the catalog numbers and labels of the singles, but maintained the B-sides. I also kept the Born to Lose re-issue info since I still see no reason to remove it. Having an album picked up from an indie label and released on a major is a pretty important detail for a band. Teemu08 (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that B-sides are unnecessary here since it basically amounts to a track-listing of the singles. We don't put a tracklisting of albums, so why include them for singles? Furthermore, they are also unnecessary since none of the B-sides are notable in and of themselves. If any of the B-sides had an article of their own, then I might see a reason to keep them, but right now their mention is pretty trivial to our understanding of their discography. Drewcifer (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see where you're coming from, but I would like at least one more opinion on the matter before deleting the B-sides (as they are prominent in other FLs and are part of the discography template). Teemu08 (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that B-sides are unnecessary here since it basically amounts to a track-listing of the singles. We don't put a tracklisting of albums, so why include them for singles? Furthermore, they are also unnecessary since none of the B-sides are notable in and of themselves. If any of the B-sides had an article of their own, then I might see a reason to keep them, but right now their mention is pretty trivial to our understanding of their discography. Drewcifer (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Period issues fixed. All notes cited (except non-debatable ones such as "debut release"). I removed the catalog numbers and labels of the singles, but maintained the B-sides. I also kept the Born to Lose re-issue info since I still see no reason to remove it. Having an album picked up from an indie label and released on a major is a pretty important detail for a band. Teemu08 (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.