Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hoodoo Gurus discography/archive1

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 User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [1].

Hoodoo Gurus discography

Discography of Australian iconic rock group, Hoodoo Gurus - is being nominated because I believe that it is complete and well referenced.Dan arndt (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Definitely a good start, but I honestly see alot of problems. The majority of my issues with the list come from the WP:DISCOG style guideline proposal, so I'd recommend looking there for further suggestions, specfically the examples at the end. Here's a few of the issues I see:

I edited it a bunch myself, feel free to revert if you dislike my changes. I still feel like there's more work to be done, so I'll take another fresh look soon. Drewcifer (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

The style in general doesn't follow the trend of any other FL discogs. Some of this could be excused for differences in aesthetic styles, of course, but some of them have content/readability/reliability consequences as well. I'd recommend taking a look at other FL discogs for some good examples, my personal favorites being Nine Inch Nails discography and The Prodigy discography. In particular, take a look at table organization, the use of in-line citations, and the use of wiklinks.
Discogs is not a reliable source.

If Discogs is not a reliable source then why is it used in The Prodigy discography which you cite as a good example of a discography? Dan arndt (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The areas where Discogs was used as a source aren't really needed so I've removed it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not used as a source in the Prodigy discog, only as an external link. Drewcifer (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cerfified" columns are too vague. Which country does this certification come from?
- Noted that it's ARIA. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use the multiplication sign ("×"), not the "x" for multi-platinum certifications. They should also be "3× Platinum" not "Platinum 3×".
- Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the notes are awkward complete sentences where they don't need to be ("Is a.." "It was...")
- All fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Magazines should be italicized (ie Billboard).
- Done all I could see. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No-need to wikilink albums in the singles table, since they're already wikilinked above.
- Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
B-sides are generally discouraged. This is a discography, not a songography.
- Really? Many discographies have these sections; Powderfinger and Silverchair spring to mind. Has something changed recently? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, yes and no. There is MOS:DISCOG, but that's still just a proposal at this point, so nothing is set in stone. But no recent discogs have been passed with B-sides intact, and I have yet to see an argument for their inclusion other then "these other ones do it."
    - I see your point. I'm fairly impartial, and Dan is welcome to remove the section if he wishes—this is "his" work, after all.
      - I understand your viewpoint if everyone had adopted the discography style guideline proposal but as it is just a proposal and there are a substantial number of other 'FL' discographies apart from those identified by dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O)(i.e. Red Hot Chili Peppers discography, Nirvana discography, Depeche Mode discography, Wilco discography) I would prefer to leave it in (it did take a long while to put together in the first place and we'd hate to lose all that work/effort) however if this is the only impediment to moving the assessment forward... Dan arndt (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Have 'biten the bullet' and deleted the table of B-Sides - on the basis that it wouldn't otherwise conform with style guideline proposal. Dan arndt (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Acronyms should be spelled out in the citations (such as ARIA).
- Did ARIA, could see no others. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This doesn't seem to be fixed yet.
  - Oops...didn't read "in citations". Sorry 'bout that. I think it's done now. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs an External links section.

Fixed - external links provided.Dan arndt (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations 12 and 17 lack publishers. Drewcifer (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Dan arndt (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the publisher value of citation #17?

I thought that the citation was obvious as it references how the albums charted on the american charts. Dan arndt (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the refs have changed around a bit, could you clarify (Drew or Dan) which ref this now refers to? (A URL works best...) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I forget what my reason for this criticism was. So, nevermind! Drewcifer (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations 5 and 16 have differing publisher values. Drewcifer (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Dan arndt (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the details are inconsistent between tables. For example, the Studio albums table says "Released:", the EP and Video tables say "Released in", and the Live table uses "Released on" and just "Released".Drewcifer (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed so that they are all consistent. Dan arndt (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the dates where only a month and year are given (such as "October, 1982" in the lead), there shouldn't be a comma. Drewcifer (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Dan arndt (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The placement of VHS/DVD/CD in the Videos / DVDs is very awkward.
- Have tried to amend the title so that it is clear.Dan arndt (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry to not be clear enough. What I meant was I think it's awkward how they're centered and bolded at the top. Another line that says "Formats" would be much better, I think. Some of the entries already have something similar.

Fixed Dan arndt (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but why is it bolded? Drewcifer (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, my bad - fixed now. Dan arndt (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Videos / DVDs goes into too much detail per release, mainly Tunnel Vision. Drewcifer (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have trimmed down the detail on Tunnel Vision. Dan arndt (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dates should be in International format, since they are an Australian band.
- Wlinked all I could see (per MOS:SYL)....anything else on that? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They need to be wikilinked and in international format. Drewcifer (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I'm not clear on what you're asking for here (probably because I'm dumb...) - could you do an example edit or something please? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry if I wasn't clear. Basically, Americans usually write dates as Month DD, YYYY. But internationally dates are written as DD Month YYYY. So, articles should go by the system the best reflects the topic. In this case, since the band is Australian, dates should be in international format. Also, full dates should be wikilinked since users can set preferences to change the format of dates to their preferred style if they are wikilinked. Hope that made sense. Check out MOS:SYL for more details. Drewcifer (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed - well at least I think they are. Dan arndt (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. The dates are still Month DD, YYYY. They should be DD Month YYYY. Drewcifer (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All date formats changed. Dan arndt (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cave is still in American format. Drewcifer (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops my bad -

Fixed Dan arndt (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other inconsistencies between tables: Studio albums says "Charts (peak position)", the singles table says "Chart positions". I'd suggest Peak chart positions for both. The singles table puts years at the left, but that's not in the other tables (I'd recommend putting a year column on the left of all tables). Drewcifer (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FixedDan arndt (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The year columns are still not consistent. Also, to be more consistent with pretty much every other FL, I'd recommend "Peak chart positions" or "Chart peak positions". Drewcifer (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do that - am absolutely hopeless at wiki-tables. Dan arndt (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little bit of stuff in the singles table. However, that's just the tip of the iceberg. I'd recommend the same things be done to all the tables, so that they match themselves as well as the majority of other FL discogs. Let me know if you still need help on that. I'd be happy to help some more, but the article might not look the same when I'm finished.=) Drewcifer (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any help greatly appreciated Dan arndt (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Drewcifer (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Completely contradictory to existing discography standards. indopug (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 00:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification: do you mean that each column heading should have a ref e.g. Album details or do you mean that each individual line in the Album details column should have its own ref? Then similarly for other tables. Or have I missed your point entirely?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"This article is a comprehensive listing of all official releases" Couple of issues with this one, firstly, if it were to be featured, it's comprehensiveness is a given, per the criteria, so that doesn't need to be mentioned. Nor does "all official releases", because if they're not official, the shouldn't be listed, and if there are any official releases that are missing, again it shouldn't be featured.
Go for simply "This is a discography of Hoodoo Gurus". But also read over Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence. Perhaps a better opening would be "The discography of the Hoodoo Gurus consists of eight studio albums, thirty-two singles, one extended play, six 'compilation' albums and four video/DVD releases." You could then go on to say that the Hoodoos are Australian and previously known as Le Hoodoo Gurus.
Instead of "(aka Le Hoodoo Gurus until after first single)", how about removing the parentheses and making a sentence out of it, such as, "for their first single, the group was called "Le Hoodoo Gurus""?
Missing/extra punctuation: "Hoodoo Gurus debut release was the single, "Leilani", in October 1982, Hoodoo Gurus first album Stoneage Romeos was released in 1984." → "Hoodoo Gurus' debut release was the single "Leilani" in October 1982; their first album, Stoneage Romeos was released in 1984."
no comma needed after "'Best cover art'"
For "Live recordings and compilations", use "Aus peak chart positions"

So it's an oppose for now due to MOS and prose issues Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had an attempt to cover these Comments and hope I've got all the ones listed here. I changed a number of AUS to Aus not just in the "Live recordings and compilations" one for consistency.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:28, 30 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.