Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Basshunter 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:03:02 10 November 2019 (UTC) [1].

Basshunter discography

Nominator(s): Eurohunter (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nomination failed to reach consensus after very long time nevertheless whole list and the lead has been almost completly rebuilt since start of previous nomination. I tried to resolve every mentioned problem. This time the discography is starting from significantly better position. Eurohunter (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from ChrisTheDude

"Basshunter's second single" => in the table it's his third single
- Done. Numeration could be removed anyway. Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"It was also certified platinum by British Phonographic Industry" => "It was also certified platinum by the British Phonographic Industry"
- Done Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"was certified gold by British Phonographic Industry" => "was certified gold by the British Phonographic Industry"
- Done Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"like the single was certified platinum by British Phonographic Industry" - guess ;-)
- Done Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The album was certified silver by British Phonographic Industry" - ;-)
- Done Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"the tracks "Go Down Now"" =>: "and the tracks "Go Down Now""
- Done Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I have so far........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Done Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - can't see any issues with the tables so now content to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

I would add ALT text to the image in the lead.
- Any ideas? Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look at the linked article, it tells you how to do ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Once the ALT text is added, I will support the list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Aoba47: Seems to be enouh detailed. Done Eurohunter (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For this part (The third single release was "All I Ever Wanted",), I would say "The third single" instead of "The third single release". I do not think "release" is necessary.
- Done Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For this part (The fourth single released was "Angel in the Night",), I do not think "released" is necessary.
- Done Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For this part (which accompanied a Deluxe Edition re-release of the album), I do not think "deluxe edition" needs to be capitalized.
- It's re-release called "Deluxe Edition". Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not really true, because according to the Apple Music source, the re-release was called Now You're Gone (Deluxe Edition) not just Deluxe Edition. I will leave this up to other editors who review this though. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. Full name is "Now You're Gone (Deluxe Edition)" but I thought it's obvious. Anyway in some articles main title of film or video game were omitted. Eurohunter (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I will not press this point further. I still disagree with it. Articles that shorten the title of a film or video game would first establish the full title. I did not find it obvious, which is why I pointed it out, but I will leave this up to other reviewers to decide. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Isn't the title established with information about initial release? Eurohunter (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really, but again I will not press this point further. Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For this sentence (The second single from the album was "I Promised Myself", a cover of a Nick Kamen song), I do not think "from the album" is necessary as it is understood from context.
- Done Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For this part (A Basshunter compilation album titled The Early Bedroom Sessions was released on 3 December 2012), I would remove "Basshunter".
- Done Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For this part (and the tracks "Go Down Now", "Trance Up" and "Wacco Will Kick Your Ass", which had previously appeared on singles and three unreleased songs), I believe there should be a comma after "singles".
- I think no because it mean exactly these three songs from album previously appeared on singles. Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the comma is necessary to break up this phrase "which had previously appeared on singles and three unreleased songs" as it can literally that "Go Down Now", "Trance Up" and "Wacco Will Kick Your Ass" appeared on singles and three unreleased songs. I'll leave it up to other editors though. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are right. I missunderstood your point. Done Eurohunter (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the release for "Calcutta 2008" marked as "unknown"?
- @Aoba47: Date of release is unknown. Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is the release date unknown? Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Aoba47: Release date never been announced. Eurohunter (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is odd, but if the information is not available, there is nothing that can be done. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Aoba47: Not that odd in promotional releases. Maybe in the future information will be avaiable. Done Eurohunter (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support this for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Do you know if I schould mention that certain single stayed at number one for some consecutive weeks? Now we have only information that "where it stayed for fourteen weeks" and "and stayed there for five weeks". Eurohunter (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is necessary to say consecutive as I generally assume that is meant in sentences like the ones you cited above. I would think that these sentences would only need qualification if a song charted for non consecutive weeks as they seems to be more out-of-the-ordinary. Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoba47: Thanks. Eurohunter (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giants2008

Source review – One issue that needs addressing is the presence of Discogs links in refs 37, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 60. This is a site with user-generated content, making it unreliable in general, and certainly not reliable enough for an FL. The liner notes are okay to source by themselves, so removing the links will be enough to solve the problem. Otherwise, the reliability and formatting of the references are okay, and the link-checker tool turns up no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Release is a source but link is optional which supports it with images or additional data instead of nothing. It's probably not possible or it's very limited to find detailed release photos of CD, box or notes in "professional soures". We could expect that there is atleast one example of CD or notes photo on Discogs that may be fake/messed with unofficial release but wouldn't it be really overcomplicate the problem? I guess it's the reason why you are oppose of these links but otherwise I have no other ideas. Eurohunter (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the source isn't reliable, and I don't believe it is (this thread dismisses its reliability pretty strongly), then we shouldn't be linking to it at all, regardless of whether it provides additional information. As I said earlier, the liner notes themselves are perfectly fine as sources (offline references are still verifiable), so there's no need to link to an unreliable site. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Let's focus directly on scans/images of releases alone avaiable on Discogs. Are they not reliable and should be removed above all? Eurohunter (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since they are on an unreliable site, they are not reliable and should be taken out of the citations. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: I have removed all links to Discogs. Eurohunter (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With that done, I'd say this source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – definitely have waited long enough on this one. Happy to support. – zmbro _(talk) 00:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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