Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of U2 awards

List of U2 awards

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 4 support, 1 oppose. There is unstruck opposition, but I think it has been addressed Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modeled after the recently promoted List of Powderfinger awards. It's been greatly improved by User:Neranei (before, after). It's well-referenced, up-to-date, and easy to read. I think it is of great quality. Here we go! --Ag ü eybaná 00:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support — as nom and minor contributor. --Ag ü eybaná 01:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as major contributor. --Neranei (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I see no reason for the list right before the TOC, and wikilinks should not be in headers; move them into the prose after the header. --Golbez 01:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Neranei (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make a few comments:

The list in bulleted points (after the text "Awards included in this list:") seems really out of place, considering it is placed right next to the infobox which provides the awards in almost the exact same order. I recommend inserting the major major awards (e.g. BRIT awards or Grammy) into prose, or removing the bulleted list altogether.

Done--Neranei (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the tables in the article have the reference cited in the cell where the name of the award is provided (e.g. "Best International Group"^[6]). This is okay when you have multiple sources, but when the whole table is citing and reciting the same reference, it looks rather redundant, and to avoid this, you can cite the reference in the dark gray "Award" cell.

Done--Neranei (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year	Award^[1]	Year	Award
2007	Sample Award	2007	Sample Award^[2]
This format as opposed		to this format

Grammy Awards section: have 3 columns; year, award, and nominated work. Combining the award and nominated work into one cell looks extremely messy.

Fixed. --Ag ü eybaná 02:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove wikilinks from the headers and insert them into prose; looks much nicer this way (e.g. U2 have won # awards from XXX Organisation).

Done --Ag ü eybaná 02:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the tables that only have 2 or 3 awards listed in them. You may want to merge them into a one table to reduce the amount of headers (e.g. below:

Award A
Year	Award
2007	Sample Award
Award B
Year	Award
2008	Sample Award

I'm not sure that would work; how do you think it would work within the article's current constructs? Neranei (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only intended that suggestion to apply for some of the sections that only have 2 or 3 awards in them, the rather small sections. Don't worry about it. ~ Sebi _[talk] 02:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the article, though :) Good luck, ~ Sebi _[talk] 01:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment, take a look at List of Powderfinger awards and you'll notice the combination of background colours (e.g. light grey, light blue, light grey, light blue) for the cells. Using light grey, light blue, light grey, light blue, etc, allows for easier reading and still provides the information without relying on colour solely. ~ Sebi _[talk] 01:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't like that color combination. Can another combination be used? --Ag ü eybaná 02:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, I was just using it as an example. ~ Sebi _[talk] 02:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done--revert if you don't like the colors. Neranei (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to the individual tables themselves, and not the infobox ;) ~ Sebi _[talk] 02:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. *sheepish look*. I don't know how to do it; could you explain? (Sorry, I'm horrible with code.) Neranei (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment, rather than linking to just 2004, for example, why not link to 2004 in music and use the pipe function (e.g. [[2004 in music|2004]])? ~ Sebi _[talk] 02:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Neranei (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose current state~~ - Sorry guys, a lot of things need doing. Do them, and I'll support.
- Ref 3's formatting is screwed up.
  - Done --Neranei (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Infobox could do with nominations numbers, as well as wins (in fact, the whole list needs this)
- More colour! Just copy the wikicode out of List of Powderfinger awards and play around with the colours there, it isn't that hard :)
  - Done (I think) Neranei (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When these three (seems like not much, but it's a lot) things are done, I may support. Watchlisted, but give me a yell too! — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose~~ per giggy/H20's comments and a few of my own:

Support vote changed from oppose as all areas of concern addressed. --linca linca 04:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- H₂O, damnit! :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. An important point is that all "minor" awards and, frankly, anything they've won fewer than (say...) 3 or 4 of should be merged into one combined table titled "Other awards". It'd just be much tidier. Any prose preceding these awards could also be merged into a consolidated "Other awards" precipice prose.
- Done
1. This is in the PF list, for an example. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. I like the research that's obviously gone into the list, but I would also like the nominations to be included, as the list doesn't "comprehensively" cover the subject matter, as nominations are key to an awards listing, because you can see how many they've won. It's a ratio game.
  Yes, I said that too :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I know, but I thought I'd elaborate why (especially based on the volume of work behind fulfilling the request). --linca ^linca 08:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  The lead doesn't say that it will list every honor they have received. It just says its going to comprehensively list all awards they have received. Not done, unless someone wants to dedicate ~10 hours to finding every nomination they have received. --Ag ü eybaná 22:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  We refer to the nominations for the awards already listed on the list. It shouldn't take much longer then it took to find the actual awards. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Ooooooohhhhhh.... :-) --Ag ü eybaná 01:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can address these matters and Dihyd's (or at least suitably justify why they can't be addressed), I'd be happy to change my position. Nice infobox, by the way. LOL. (I designed that for the FL List of Crowded House awards, and then copied it over to List of Powderfinger awards which is now also FL). --linca ^linca 07:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get over yourself :P We should make it a standard template so you can't boast about it. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know I'll just boast about the fact that I created it then. "It was so popular in a few pages that it's now a Wikipedia standard". LOL. Hell, it's a year since I created it, and I still boast about the album misc option {{Singles}}. Anyway, back on track. --linca ^linca 08:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*slaps your ES* — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong oppose~~
- ~~Overlinking to~~
  - ~~Single work articles~~
    - I'm sorry, I don't quite get what you mean by this. Could you explain? Neranei (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~year in music articles: arguably a) useless (removed from discographies) and b) taking the room from linking to the ceremony year articles~~
- Unnecessary gaudy colors in the pseudo infobox ~~(and yes, they are equally inappropriate in the Powderfinger list. They certainly weren't there when I supported that list).~~
  Ummm... yes they were. The infobox has only minimally changed over there since you provided your support (the colours are the least of which). --linca linca 04:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I at least replaced that ridiculous blue with the more subdued color from Powderfinger in the meantime. (I could have sworn there were mostly greys originally) Circeus 16:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~No need for individual sections when they only who one award.~~
  I'd already brought this up and it seems to have been ignored so far. --linca linca 04:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry it's been ignored, I've been busy. Done Neranei (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's much better, but I think you need to also include the ¹Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Entry, ² the Juno awards and ³ the NME awards. Once that's done, you should ⁴ move the whole "Other awards" section as the last awards section (before references) to group together (section wise) the bulkier awards lists. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, Circeus. This is at least how I expect it should be done. --lincalinca 13:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know who did it, but the Other Awards stuff is Done. Neranei (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Circeus 01:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Everything else is Done. Neranei (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As we say in French, "You're never so well served as by yourself," so I gave the linking a good swipe and fixed a few pointless repetitions along the way. Hope that stands up. I think I can Support this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 October 2007
- Sorry about the links, some real-life stuff came up. Thank you very much! Neranei (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. I usually do more of it myself, actually, but with the snags I've hit in the discography department recently, I try to be more cautious. I reinserted a small table for Junos and NMEs like the one from Powderfinger. Circeus 17:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How it looks to me.--SeizureDog 19:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't read half of the blue links in the right-hand table.--SeizureDog 19:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Someone tried to use the css shorthand style of entering hex colour codes into an html class, which obviously doesn't work, so the system kind of works its own result out (which turned out to be black). --linca linca 04:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ sample
^ sample

[1] sample

[2] sample

[1]

[2]