Talk:Foo Fighters/Vote

This is a poll that would decide whether the Foo Fighters article should include the Singles chart as devised by Xinger or continue to list simply the songs that were singles. The survey is being carried out under Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution guidelines.

To support either case, add a comment under Option of your choice, and please sign the comment with your username and the time and date of the comment.

Option Include Chart

This option would include the chart as devised by Xinger. article with chart included

Xinger's Singles chart should be included. It's visually more appealing than a list of singles. The dashes represent information unknown or if they did not chart. I guarantee they did chart, but I am not able to verify what their peaks were at this moment. The Modern Rock Chart and the Mainstream Rock Chart are both very important charts (along with the Hot 100, R&B/Hip-Hop, Rap, Country & Latin charts). They are actually considered more important to rock bands and artists than the Hot 100 because the Hot 100 shows airplay from all genres, including Pop, which outnumbers all other genres. As a result, a rock song's popularity is best shown by the rock charts. Xinger 16:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. -Ravedave 00:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Option No Chart

This option would keep the simple list of Singles. original version of article

Xinger's Singles chart should not be included. It's glaringly large visually. More than HALF of the chart consists of dashes because the songs have not charted. Furthermore, the Modern Rock Chart is a niche chart, not one that denotes major popularity, and it's the only one of the four that contains a substantial number of Top 20 results. The Foo Fighters are a popular band, but it's not something that is accurately reflected in the chart. The list of Singles is more than enough to demonstrate the long history of the band. -- ChrisB 14:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Option Chart, but not Xinger's

I believe the Foo Fighters have enough singles to warrant a table, but as I have mentioned to Xinger previously (only to be shrugged off), it is the formatting of the template Xinger uses which makes it look incredibly sloppy. There is no need for a "Mainstream Rock" column since it's almost all dashes, and especially since the column header is a red link (i.e. de-link it or write the article for the Mainstream Rock Tracks chart before putting it in a discography table). The columns themselves are too wide and of varying widths. The numbers within the columns should be centered for easier reading and the dreaded "#" symbol is completely unnecessary (it's redundant, plus the "#" symbol is not an internationally-used abbreviation for the word "number"). Most of the Foo's chart activity has been on Modern Rock Tracks so I agree with Xinger's assessment that Modern Rock chart peaks should stay. Perhaps the table could include US Hot 100, Modern Rock and UK Singles chart. The over-wikifying of the album titles is not necessary either. -- eo 16:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just recently looked at the Singles links and nearly every single has charted on the Mainstream Rock chart, so instead of just changing the hyphens to the correct numbers, ChrisB decides to be stubborn and try to use that against my argument. As for the red link, a Mainstream Rock page has been recently done and the link should no longer be red. And if the country speaks english, they'll know what the # symbol means. As for the wikifying: agreed. There doesn't need to be any wikifying in the table aside from the year, chart titles and single names (if there's a page for them).

Xinger, you have to admit that you are being a bit stubborn as well. As I have said on your own talk page, your table format does have aspects that are good, but also things that are not good (such as the #'s), but you refuse to compromise or change them. As far as the FF's having a lot of Mainstream Rock enties - this (I believe) is where you sometimes run into trouble with people. Before publishing your table to an artist's page (such as the FF's), research all that you can first. If all of the individual singles pages have Mainstream Rock Tracks chart peaks, then gather that data into your table template and publish it to the page after you have all of it. Then that way you will have fewer dashes and one less gripe about your tables from other Wikipedians. Don't be in such a rush to get a billion tables put on a billion pages in the quickest amount of time. Slow down a bit and research first and work with the other people in this community so that everything is as comprehensive and accurate as possible. There is no time limit on this stuff; we're supposed to be working together on this, not competing with each other. -- eo 21:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current one ([1]) ok for me. --Monkbel 19:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Old version of the page is way better, and there is a table on each page for the charts for that particular single, aswell as a table of singles charts on each album page aswell. I actually added them on there myself. The problem with having that big chart on the main page is there will be way to many gaps that will never get filled and it looks stupid! For example: There is usually 4 to 5 singles from each album, normally the first single from each album makes it onto the Billboard chart, but then you have all of those gaps which makes the Foo Fighters look crap. With the exeption of the UK not every Foo Fighters single makes the chart, so there will be permanent gaps on the table, no what I mean ?