Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Ting Tings discography/archive2
- 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 Scorpion0422 22:12, 2 June 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured list candidates/The Ting Tings discography/archive1
- Featured list candidates/The Ting Tings discography/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be well referenced and informative. Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The band has one studio album only. Is it really necessary to create a new page for this band's discography? I don't want to discourage you or anything, but I think any discography with one album should NOT be created as a separate page.--Crzycheetah 07:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment My issues were resolved in the previous FLC, but I'm concerned about whether this list meets 3b. Also, I am still wary about promonews.tv; however, I'd like more opinions before deciding either way. Also, there is one dead link, check the toolbox to the right. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed PromoNews.tv and replaced it with links to articles published by MTV. I have also removed the dead link and replaced it with another reliable source. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, great job. I will support for now, although I would invite more input on the 3b issue above. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 3b doesn't really concern me in this case. Not counting the music videos, the list reaches the rule-of-thumb limit of 10 releases. With them, it definitely does. I'd say it's on the cusp of being enough content to simply transfer to the main page, but I think it warrants its own page. Besides, if they're main page is and indiciation, they'll have a new album soon, which will make this question moot. Drewcifer (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, great job. I will support for now, although I would invite more input on the 3b issue above. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks really good. I can't find much of anything to complain about. The only thing I have to mention is that there's 12 chart columns in two of the tables. MOS:DISCOG suggests a limit of 10, since anymore borders on an indiscriminate stat dump (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Beyond that, if you make the tables too wide, smaller monitors can't handle them and they get squished. For both these reasons, I don't wanna support until this is addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have limited the tables to 10 charts each. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks great, happy to support now. Drewcifer (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- My previous issues were resolved in the previous FLC. But I strongly recommend addressing the table problem that Drewcifer mentions above.--Truco 15:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support - if a band did nothing other than release EPs, singles, videos etc, we shouldn't discriminate against them having a separate discog list. It really is a borderline 3b case but I'm one foot in the support camp. Can't see anything else wrong with the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.