Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2007

Powderfinger discography

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: 18 days, 7 support, 2 oppose. Circeus's opposition seems to be based on the fact that it is (or was) completely different than other FLs. However, this page is well formated, and "Must be similar to other previously promoted FLs" is not among the FL criterion. There does seem to be active discussion, but it seems to be more suited for the talk page rather than here. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Nomination

I'm nominating Powderfinger discography for featured list status because I believe it meets all of the featured list criteria sufficiently. I discovered this article in a "not-so-good" shape, and decided to improve it, alongside Lincalinca and Dihydrogen Monoxide. Any suggestions for the article, criticism or errors that need fixing, feel free to point them out. ~ Sebi _[talk] 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Votes and discussion

4 October

• Support, as nominator. ~ Sebi _[talk] 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support as contributor. --linca^linca 02:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support as contributor. Slabba 05:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Consensus through numbers XD (contributor)  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Very nice. Lara❤Love 03:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support This is so well done it blows my mind. Bravo! --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much coloring, so much that it's really confusing. In the infobox, the color key states that blue color represents both studio albums and video releases. In the list itself, every other cell is blue. Does that mean that every other album is "studio album" or "video release" or both? Then what are the rest of them, the grey ones, supposed to be? It is very confusing.--Crzycheetah 06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's two different shades of blue for studio albums and music videos. A darker blue and brighter blue, respectively. As for the alternating blue and grey in the list, that's just for alternating between rows. The colors relating to the key are vertical lines on the left of each table. Grey represents soundtracks, television and film, however it is not used in this discography. Hope that helps. Lara❤Love 07:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  Hi Crzycheetah, I've darkened the colour of the Studio albums, and I hope that the readers can more easily distinguish between Studio albums, Video releases, and the alternating colour of the rows. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  Hello Spebi, I am afraid it's still very hard to distinguish among Studio albums, Video releases, and the alternating colour of the rows because there are five(!) different versions of blue used in this list right now.--Crzycheetah 08:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  Did you see this revision with the colours darkened, or this revision with the original colours? Just making sure. ~ Sebi _[talk] 09:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  I only see 2 different versions of blue. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 09:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  Again, Cheetah, as Lara❤luv stated, they're the standard colours used by WP:ALBUMS. Though the colours may have some similarities, they are based on existing criteria set out by the wikiproject. If you believe the colours are indistinguishable (or simply, not easily distinguishable) you should take up the matter there, but there's over 10,000 articles that are separated by this same colour use. I actually reverted Spebi's change because it's unnecessary, unless the project changes the colourset (which I don't think they will, but there's not harm in trying; bring it up at WT:ALBUM). --lincalinca 10:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  The five shades of blue used in this list are: #96B0D3, #BECEE4, 99CCFF, #BBEEFF, and #F0F8FF. I found at WP:ALBUMS, provided by Lincalinca, the color for "Studio albums" is #B0C4DE while this list uses two different shades for "Studio albums", #96B0D3 and #BECEE4. I couldn't find what the color for video releases should be per WP:ALBUM, would you please tell me what the exact code(e.g.#0000FF) for "video releases" is per WP:ALBUMS? I highly doubt that it's blue, but I'd like to make sure. Oh, and I'd like to see a link where it says that you need to alternate colors of the rows with blue and grey. If there were two shades of blue, dark blue and light blue, I probably wouldn't have any problems, but the fact is there are FIVE "blues" used in this list. --Crzycheetah 18:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

7 October

In order, table of all shades of blue used in Powderfinger discography

#	Colour name/hex triplet	First usage	Second usage
1	lightsteelblue	Studio albums, and the vertical bar along the side of Studio albums section.	6
2	#99CCFF	Video releases, and the vertical bar along the side of the video releases under "Other albums".	–
3	#BBEEFF	3, not used again.	–
4	#F0F8FF	Alternating colour used throughout the article (note, doesn't look blue here)
Example:
1	#ABC123	Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.	–
1	#ABC123	Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.	–
1	#ABC123	Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.	–
1	#ABC123	Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.	–
1	#ABC123	Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.	–
1	#ABC123	Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.	–

I count 4 uses of blue in this article. ~ Sebi _[talk] 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this little table of colors. I removed the 5th shade, #BECEE4, of blue, so, yes, there are now 4 "blues". Now, #BBEEFF(the color that is next to "video releases") and #F0F8FF(the alternating blue color) look very similar and one or the other need to be changed. I would recommend to get rid of 99CCFF and #BBEEFF blue colors, then to use #F0F8FF for video releases since it's a lighter blue than "studio album"'s. As for the alternating blue, it should be changed to something not blueish.
P.S. I am so focused on this blue stuff that I am forgetting to state my other concern about the Other appearances section: Why is the table not formatted as other tables in this lsit? Why is there dark grey color alternating with blue while light grey is used in other tables? Why the refs column not placed last in the table? Why are the years linked?--Crzycheetah 00:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about misleading you with the WP:ALBUMS having the light blue for DVDs and videos. The Template {{Infobox Music DVD}} has just been delegated as falling under the heading of WP:ALBUMS, so it's not listed there yet, but it's in progress (you'll note that I'm an active participant in its inclusion). The infobox itself, however, already does utilise this colour, leading towards why I used it in this one.

Now, as to your other concerns, I'll address them now. Part of the reason the OA (as I'll call it) table is differently formatted is that it requires a different format, The inclusions listed are not descript because they're studio albums, singles or whatnot; they're simply notable songs and singles contributed to various works and performances by the group. The formatting could well be more similarly designed to the rest. I'll see what I can do to align its design. The design is just that; its colours don't actually bear any relevance to the rest of the page, so I understand that the colouring mechanism ued in the rest of the page can be sullied by this inclusion. As to the references, that's my bad; I guess I was just being lazy or something and instead of placing them at the end, I placed them pretty much in the middle. I'll fix that. As to linking the years, various guidelines indicate the years shouldn't link to "years in music" however, in order to build the web, the necessary years have been linked, though only once (and it's not exactly an example of Allwiki). Was there anything else you asked that I missed? --lincalinca 00:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done. I removed all non-essential colours from the page, such as alternating blues used. I've simply replaced them with shades of grey and have massively adjusted the colours (as well as flushing out unnecessary formatting code/consolidating it). I've also moved the refs in the "other appearances" table to the end as suggested/requested. I have left the years linked in the table, though, now that I think about it, the years aren't linked in any other tables. I'll ponder which way to go, but either way, I'll try to keep it consistent within the page itself. --lincalinca 01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I really like your changes. You basically eliminated the confusion concerning the blue color. As for the linking years, I think only the first instance in the list should be linked. Oh, and the "year" columns in Singles and OA(as you call it) sections look different, this should be fixed.--Crzycheetah 02:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As to the years, that's a legacy matter. I originally brought the table in as a sortable table, but the consensus was to remove the sortability, meaning we now can span rows, whereas in a sortable table, spanned rows seriously foul things up. I'll get to that now. --lincalinca 02:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done that stuff. I also spanned the rows and formatted the years in the same way as the singles table to keep the two consistent. Plus, I've linked to the first time of the years being shown in the list, so that it's not overlinking but it is building the web. Are we getting closer to your support Cheetah? --lincalinca 02:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support You already got my support. Though, I'd rename Release history section to just History since that section just describes how this discography is growing. Overall, this is a great list.
  Since you are very active in these discography pages, could you and your fellow WP:ALBUM members start working on "Discography guidelines"? Many discographies have been created lately and contributors are nominating many of them for a featured status. I believe it's time to create a Wikipedia guideline on discography to keep overall structure similar. The reason I am asking this is that this discography is creating a precedent of colored tables. Currently, none of the featured discographies use color, so it would be better to decide whether dicographies have to be colored or not.--Crzycheetah 04:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• I can certainly bring up the idea. I think it's definitely something that needs some degree of mediation, but whenever you get too specific in WT:ALBUM, you end up having someone shoot you down, invariably, stating that it's instruction creep. Personally, I think it's crap, but that's just me. Give clear guidelines for all areas and mistakes are seldom encountered and when they are encountered, they're easily amended and consensus is easier to achieve or maintain. But that's just me complaining. I'll bring it up over there, though. Thanks for your support here! --lincalinca 04:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Nice, but something is just not right. As it has been established that non-free "fair use" images are not acceptable in a discography, neither are the "fair use" audio samples. They are not free samples, and therefore must be removed from the list. NSR77 ^T_C 19:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not correct. Non-free images are not able to be used in lists, however because these sound samples are simply being linked to and not being made ready for listening on this page, they are within fair use. If we were using them as audio samples to be played on the page itself (using {{audio}} or something of the like) then yes, I'd say to remove them, but these don't play on the page. --lincalinca 01:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me. NSR77 ^T_C 01:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. lincalinca 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, it's like linking to an image description page, which is OK. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said... or at least, it's what I meant. =p --lincalinca 06:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Absolute oppose
  • Tacky, pointless coloring
    • Your argument of the colouring being tacky is obsolete as it's a subjective opinion. The point of it being pointless is also adressed above where the colour selections were appointed based on the colours used by WP:ALBUMS, which discographies are looselycovered by (nearest would be WP:MUSTARD or WP:SONGS, both of which advocate the same colouring use, rendering this comment moot. I mean no disrespect here, but your argument is null here. If you disagree with the colours used, you need to adress it at those other wikiprojects, though I strongly believe you'll receive much resistance to any changes of the colours used. --lincalinca 12:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pointless links to year articles (those, as well as equivalent "year in music" links were removed from the very start of the FLC process)
    • As addressed above, links to years in lists are appropriate as long as only linked once. Read WP:BTW for more info on why this is important. --lincalinca 12:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Those extracts are in blatant violation of the Fair Use Policy
    • Also addressed above, as the files are linked and not used in the page. --lincalinca 12:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • the album -> singles structure is the reverse of the standard structure of all other discographies.
    • Howso? Albums go before Singles and they ascend, which is how they're supposed to go. The incorrect use (which is common) is to descend, though examples (mentioned in a later response by Spebi) all use the same (or at least similar) sectioning and they all ascend chronologically from the top of the list being the oldest release to the newest release at the bottom of the list. --lincalinca 12:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• All in all, this is simply too alien to the current format of any and all other discography articles. If articles are about the same things, their structure should at least be similar. This list throws a basic usability principle out the window, and I sure will not stand for this (unless, of course, the wikiproject albums decide this should actually be the standard model; until then, our existing FL should be considered one). Circeus 16:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You won't stand for it? So you're the Raul of Featured Lists? Lara❤Love 15:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • No. This process is intended to promote our best work. I have every right to oppose something I feel is in stark opposition to what we have previously deemed our "vest work". Circeus 16:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  Okay so, what do you suggest we do to the article to gain your support? I think the fair use issue has been resolved above, the article is only linking to them, not making them playable within the article itself; and if the issue of orphaned fair use samples arises, they are being used in the articles about the singles themselves. As for the reverse structure, we chose to place Albums first over Singles, and naturally, Other albums fell under Albums. I suppose we could merge Other albums and Other appearances into one section, titled "Other material", or something like that... ~ Sebi _[talk] 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  Could we see one of these "standard model"s? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  I've split the "Other albums" section, Studio albums, EPs and "Live recordings and compilation releases" now have their own sections, and I have removed the links to years. As for the reverse structure of the discography: James Blunt discography, FL as of yesterday; Albums -> EPs -> Singles. Red Hot Chili Peppers discography, current FLC that's going really well, Albums -> Singles. Hilary Duff discography (for crying out loud), FL since August, Albums -> Other albums -> Singles. ~ Sebi _[talk] 06:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comments above addressing each individual point. As I articulated in my first response, I don't mean any disrespect and your contributions in the past have been constructive, but you're indicating what you believe is wrong in many of these instances, though many of these matters have either been:

    • • Previously addressed throughout this discussion page
      • Not supported by another list or article (at least that we can find) that is a featured list or
      • Purely a matter of your own opinion, to which you're entitled.

    Though the matter of consensus must take precedence over one person saying they don't like the look of it. Were ten people to decide on the design of anything, you'll always have at least one who's dissatisfied with the consensus of the other nine. If it were five to five, I'd understand, but it's not half and half. If there are more who share your opinion, then fair eough, but so far you're only the second to have opposed the use of colour, out of nine contributants to this page, while the other opposition to the colouring was more dissatisfied with an earlier version where there was more colour throughout the album and single tables, which has been removed in favour of a simpler, alternating list. I hope you can explain where you believe the article needs improving more definitely and we'll be able to address or discuss the matters more productively. --lincalinca 12:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

13 October

Personally I quite like this format. Dare I say it's even beautiful? I really don't think there needs to be any mandatory layout for discographies, either. When I write an album article, (I've gotten three Featured, with another on the way) they are written in a different layout than when one of my peers CloudNine writes one. This layout is impeccable for use in those "middle" bands (who are not international sensations but still retain a good amount of record sales), like Powderfinger. Then there's the discography layout for minor/indie artists like John Frusciante and The Make-Up. Major worldwide bands like Nirvana and Red Hot Chili Peppers need a radically different format for their discographies as they have sold upwards of 50 million albums in their career and often times have many singles (the Chili Peppers with almost fifty). NSR77 ^T_C 15:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points in support of our list. Thanks NSR. --lincalinca 15:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dare I say it's even beautiful?" - I think it is :P Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yay NSR! :) It's certainly come along way since it was first started; this version, containing those fair use violating images (kudos to Linca for starting it, btw ;)) and this is the version of the article today (the version at the time of writing thise message). ~ Sebi _[talk] 04:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, see Wikipedia:Accessibility. Too much information transmitted via colour rather than text. KM 212.219.57.58 10:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • See my comment below. These colors pass all tests for every type of colorblindness. Lara❤Love 05:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - The color-coating system is, on the surface, a clever and seemingly brilliant idea. However, upon examination, it's completely unacceptable. First of all, there's the accessibility issue—and I'll specify the policy concerned in the above mentioned link: Wikipedia:Accessibility#Color. That issue alone is enough to nullify this FLC, and I would stop there, but the format that has been created in this discography has spawned other FLCs with the same format (See Fall Out Boy discography), and a precedent against this format needs to be set. Second problem with the color-coated system: It's confusing. The reader will either have to memorize which colors mean what before reading the article (which only an autistic savant could accomplish), or constantly scroll up and down to refresh memory of what the colors signify. As of right now, there are 15 featured discographies on Wikipedia. They all more or less use the same tried and true format. That format is clear, direct and succinct. The same cannot be said about this format. Furthermore, the sound clips must be removed. Linking to a copyrighted sound file is still an infringement of copyright. Saying that "linking" to a copyrighted sound file doesn't infringe on copyright but making it playable on the webpage does, is not only implausible, but also quite weaselly. Let's be direct here. Discographies don't need sound clips. Discographies don't need fancy colors. The current format serves to convolute information that should be delivered directly. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to deliver information clearly and directly. This discography fails to do that. My suggestion is that you borrow the format from any one of the featured lists verbatim—Nirvana discography is a good place to start. Best of luck. Grim 23:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Plese note that the colour coding here is used according to WikiProject sanctioned colours. I would suggest reading through the rest of this candidacy and WP:ALBUMS before commenting again. The colouring is designed to be a guide, and nothing more. It's not required for one to map through. We're not replacing the text with colours, we're supplementing them, which appears to be something you're mistaking. Colour substitution is definitely something I would oppose, but in no way is that what's happening here. Supplementing with colours is an additional guide that allows an additional guide to what a release is (every instance of mixed tables of compilations displays the colour as well as the words of what the release is, such as "Compilation album"). As to "tried and tested", I know where you're coming from, but the purpose of FLC is to continually improve Wikipedia, not to just say "near enough is good enough". I believe using the colouring system enhances the value of the list and in no way does it detract from the information here, which is equal to any of the existing 15 discographies. With relation to the sound file linking, where is it indicated in any way that this is a breach of copyright? I'm not disputing this, as you're now the second person to bring it up, but I'm rather familiar with copyright and have never heard that linking to a sample to be a breach of copyright. It's a grey area in fair use, but even if we were to include the sound samples, fair use could easily be established (though it's unnecessary to establish fair use when providing a link). Again, to reiterate, there is no accessibility issue here at all, as it's not used to replace text based information, but to support it. I understand you may believe it does, but no information is omitted to take the page of the text (which is actually what WP:WAI is all about)--lincalinca 03:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't see where I'm coming from. See, there are only two options here. Either the colors serve an absolute purpose in the article—in which case it would be an accessibility issue; or they basically do nothing more than serve as a "dress-up"—in which case it'd be the visual equivalent to a "peacock term". You have to realize that the average reader comes to this page for information on Powderfinger's discography, not to marvel in the magnificence of the arrangement. As a result, the current format is terribly distracting to the information being conveyed. Another issue is that the page script is so convoluted that nobody but an expert programmer will be able to edit the page without exposing the script. That's a potentially serious issue as well. Like I said, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to convey information clearly and as succinctly as possible. The confusing and unnecessary color-coating format disguises information and defeats the purpose of the article. I can't find the portion of WP:Albums you were referring to (you linked to the main page), but I'm fairly certain that whatever color-coating system they may have built was not intended for the purpose of which it is being used in this article. I agree that it's harmful to use a "that'll do" attitude when conveying information clearly; but when it comes to dressing up an article purely for the sake of aesthetics, a "that'll do" attitude is critical to adopt. There are countless things that can be done to increase aesthetic appeal. However, what one finds aesthetically appealing another might find obtuse or confusing. As a result, idiosyncratic formating such as the one employed here, is potentially damaging to the very nature of Wikipedia. I strongly disagree with NSR77's opinion that "This layout is impeccable for use in those "middle" bands (who are not international sensations but still retain a good amount of record sales)". The Breeders discography, Goldfrapp discography and Sophie Ellis-Bextor discography can all be used as a guide to creating a table for Powderfinger. As for the the soundclips, they're totally unnecessary, and don't contribute to the understanding of the article at all. Are they there so the reader can listen and try to decide if their chart positions are justified?—bah. Inclusion of copyrighted sound clips fails criterion 8 of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria outright. Perhaps there is a gray area there, but that being the case, it's our duty to err on the side of caution and not risk infringement upon any copyright. That notion is consistent with the nature of Wikipedia, and thus eliminates the gray area. Grim 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a particular position on the appropriateness of including the sound files. I wouldn't mind if they were taken out from a necessity point of view, however, as I pointed out, there's no way they fair fair use. But as the matter has been brought up a number of times now, I'm beginning to feel it might just be the best thing to do to give an inch.

As to your assertion that colouring is polaric: all or nothing, either completely giving information or purely aesthetic, having studied graphic design and pursued further study in work and in my own time following college, I can say from a professional standpoint that you are incorrect. Colour is used exclusively in this article in the middle ground. It is decorative with a purpose. You can't get past that when it comes to colours. I'm going to get pseudo-religious (which Spebi's going to hate) but God made us all in different colours, flowers of almost every hue and I believe there's nothing that can be done without some sort of flavour, decoration and colour, and in that context, it may as well achieve something at the same time as being provided for appeal. Another thing to note, from a professional standpoint, is that printed out, the colours in this page achieve less than 3% distribution. What that means, in layman's terms, is that it's little more than trimming. The majority of Wikipedia articles print at about 2.5% dist, meaning this article's just above the average. The majority of other uses I refer to are often in far more solid blocks than this, especially in images and saturated tables.

Lastly, the section in WP:ALBUMS I refer to is the infobox. More specific info can be found here. --lincalinca 06:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's good that you're a professional or learned graphic designer. That's great. I agree that the page is technically magnificent—and the graphic designer's skills are in stark display. You have skill as a graphic designer, and you'll probably go far as one. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to showcase your ability. As I said many times before, the Purpose of an encyclopedia—and the purpose of Wikpedia—is to convey information as clearly and succinctly as possible. The visual pomp and circumstance that this article features inhibits that purpose. Readers of this article don't care about the page layout. The purpose of this article is to convey information about Powderfinger's discography. This article is much more concerned with dazzling the reader with aesthetics and ultimately fails its purpose. You need to check your religious bias at the door. You need to check your bias towards a certain kind of aesthetic layout at the door. What one might find aesthetically pleasing, another might find terribly distracting. There are many ways to convey discographical information clearly, succinctly, and without distraction to the reader. Look at any featured discography for a guide on how to do that. As for the WP:Albums color-coating system. It was not intended to serve the purpose of which you are using it for. It was intended for the infobox of album pages. I realize that you've all put a ton of work into this, and if this weren't Wikipedia, I'd say you've done an amazing job. Unfortunately, this layout is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I almost wish this weren't the case, but it is. Grim 13:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

16 October

Maybe you've got me in a compromising mood, but I've decided to try and meet you in the middle. The sound files are gone and the colours in the tables themselves are gone (even the alternating colours) but I've left the infobox as-is, though using an external template resource so as to (a) allow it to be replicated, if we're to go ahead with this template and (b) reduce how esoteric editing will be (since that seems to be a major complaint you have, and I plainly have no argument that it's ridiculously overly complex).

Now, as to me implementing these changes, I'm setting up a proposal page at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Powderfinger discography/Test. As I type this, that page is not ready, so when it's blue, check it out. If the page in that state (or something akin it) would garner your support, please let me know. (If you check this too soon, I'm sorry, you'll just have to be patient until I'm done). --lincalinca 01:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a great change. Implement it and I'll recant my opposition against the colors. In fact, this infobox, complete with template, is a great idea. I have unearthed one more issue with the article though. The history section shouldn't be there. It should be merged with the lead section and their history, sales figures, popularity and any other notable info should be displayed there. As it is now, the lead section is pretty sparse and the history section would beef it up pretty well. One final thing. You may want to remove the "music video" column from the "singles" section and create a separate "Music videos" section. Complete with directorial information if possible. Oh, and the "Throughout this article, an em dash ("—") in the Chart column indicates that the selected release did not chart. All release dates indicated are the initial release, which is the date of release in Australia." is unnecessary and should be removed. It's not saying anything that isn't already being said elsewhere. That's about all I have left. Best of luck. Grim 04:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As far as the colors go, they add to the article, readers need not memorize the color key or scroll back to it continuously considering each section is labeled. The colors just add to it, in my opinion, breaking the blandness that is too common of discographies. These colors also pass the colorblind filter tests, for all types of colorblindness. I tested each one myself. The coding being advanced is not against policy or any of the criteria. Additionally, while the coding itself is complex, updating the numbers is not difficult to figure out. For example, in the compromise test page above, what's the difference in the content of the list itself, not considering the removal of colors? Lara❤Love 05:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've converted the infobox into its own template for future replication anyway (I've got a few discogs in mind to put it onto as it is, and this makes it easier for them). As to the colour, I would really be for keeping it used in the article, and Lara seems to be agreeing with me and thankfully providing the useful information of the colorblindness, which is one of the greatest concerns of WP:ACCESS. I have implemented the infobox template, but haven't removed the strips/side colour bars and will just await Grim's response to Lara's post. I'm thinking I may remove the alternating colours anyway, as it does make things a little easier on the eye (in the literal sense, rather than the aesthetic sense). --lincalinca 06:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just thoroughly read through both WP:ACCESS#Color and WP:COLOUR and it actually doesn't cite anything about avoiding colour usage in this context. It says to avoid using coloured text (which I agree with) though mentioned nothing about moving away from using it in tables. It does mention "recommended" colours for use, according to the main page, while it also does so for the Commons page. It focuses on consistency, rather than prohibition of colours. Based on this, (and I'm sorry if this seems rude or fickle, I really don't mean for it to) I don't believe there's grounds for us to remove the colour trimming on the tables, in conjunction with the already established explanations that the colours in question are colour-blind friendly (as tested by Lara). I have, however, removed the alternating rows as I do understand how this can be distracting to the eye. Another point I'll mention is that when someone sees that we have the colour on the side (for those who notice) they'll likely click on the articles in question (some, though not all) and will see that the infobox bears the same colour. This actually perpetuates the Manual of Style rather than opposing it. Due to these reasons, unless another compelling reason to do so, I will not remove the colours from the tables.  Not done --lincalinca 12:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, removing the colors will make this discography more consistent with every other featured discography. I believe that's why Circeus is opposing this article, and it's part of why I'm opposing it. I stand by everything I said—that the colors on the side are distracting and confusing, among many other things. Bottom line: It's still unacceptable. You have my strong opposition until the the colors are removed from the boxes. Grim 14:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:IDONTLIKEIT: You can't demand changes be made because you don't like the way it looks, because it goes against your personal preferences. It's not a valid reason to oppose a nomination. State which criteria it fails to meet, or what policy it violates. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS clearly approves of differences in similar articles. So your oppose goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Lara❤Love 15:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of personal preference. There is no policy for or against this format because this is the first of its kind. Please read my previous comments and please check your feelings about another FLC I commented on at the door. Grim 18:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please list one example of what having colors within the tables accomplishes. You might want to stop yourself before you say something like "it makes them prettier". Grim 21:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Grim here. Lara, what you are saying doesn't make any sense; you need to calm down because there is a pissy tone tangible within your words. Truthfully, I can't find any real reason for the colors to stay. On the other hand, I can't see any reason not to include them. I'll remain neutral on this issue, for fear of it breaking out into a full on argument. The discography certainly isn't a paragon, but, likewise, isn't an abhorrent piece of garbage either. NSR77 ^T_C 23:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Guys, we need to have some chilltime, I think. Condescending comments ("You might want to stop yourself") and referring to people as having a "pissy" tone is rather uncivil. Lara's comments are valim, Grim: precedence doesn't mandate perfection, nor does it give licence for one to copy unnecessarily (those are my words, but the spirit in the same). Having confirmed that your primary policy based objection (WP:WIA) was somewhat inaccurate, and having confirmed that colours are encouraged, not discouraged on a further check (WP:COLOUR), I'm still uncertain as to the basis of your opposition. I'm asking this because you've asked for one thing the colours accomplish. What do they achieve? Consistency between this article and its album articles of which this article is, arguably, a "site map", so to speak, that connects all of the group's works into one place. By using a consistency of colours, it strengthens not only this article, but also that of the album/single/EP/live/compilation (etc) articles it connects to. Colour coding, as I said earlier, doesn't substitute the text, but bolsters its point.

Now, having said this, I'll return to my question: what is it that colour detracts from the article? Does it reduce the article's factual accuracy? I don't see in any way that it could. Does it disguise the information being given? Again, I don't believe it does in any way. Do the colours meet colourblind conformation? Yes, as checked by Lara (I've also done the honours myself, not in doubt of Lara, but in order to be able to confirm that I also have seen it first hand).

So, where is it that the article appears to fail on the matter? --lincalinca 00:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Laura and I are currently struggling to remain civil over at the Fallout Boy discography FLC and on our respective talk pages. I'm going to stop talking to or about her here because she's not involved and is aggravating me.

Now. Let's get down to it. First off, I think the infobox is brilliant. I'd award you a barnstar for it but we're locked in an argument. Standalone, it's brilliant, that is. When you add colors to the rest of the article, it confuses the reader into thinking it's a legend that they need to pay close attention to. This infobox is so good that I'd like to see it on every discography in Wikipedia. I hope WP:Albums adopts it and mandates its application. However, all it's value is destroyed when the colors are implied to mean more than they do. That is how such a small thing can mean the difference between "strong oppose" and "strong support". Grim 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It must be this time of day, because it was this time yesterday I compromised and again I'll do it today (you buttered me up with words like "barnstar" and "brilliant" and "mandated on discographies" though). Though I believe there's a definite place for the trimbars (and they're actually not all too different from the trims on the recently adopted mainspace noticeboxes), it seems there is no consensus with the matter, and no consensus on this means no sonsensus on article promotion, so I have to let my pride go in favour of allowing the article to be promoted. I'll change it now. Sigh. --lincalinca 00:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could've persuaded you to see my point of view, but it wasn't to be. The lead section needs a copyedit (it goes in to too much detail on a few things), but that shouldn't be too big a deal. Grim 01:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the new "Music videos" section, but you don't need the "Production company" column. It's not really noteworthy. Grim 01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I added that because with about half of them, it's only the production company who's shown, while others only show the director. Maybe I should merge the two columns? Maybe just "Production" and have either the director or the company, whichever is applicable. But the trouble is, what then would we do when it's got both (i.e. "On My Mind" and "Lost and Running" both have the companies and directors listed). --lincalinca 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't you find out who directed all their videos? Here's a good source for a few of them [1]. Grim 03:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't access that from work. Stupid work filters. I'll see if I can bypass it using google cache. --lincalinca 03:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that worked.  Done I've added the ones from that page and have re-formatted the table as requested. As to the prose in the lead, I'll tap Spebi's shoulder for that (it's not my area of expertise to try and work that section). --lincalinca 04:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd still say to list only the directors. I guess if you really can't locate that info then leave it blank. There must be a way of finding out though. Grim 04:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Because of the frequency that they've resorted to using the same production companies (particularly 50/50) I would consider it to be appropriate, as there is such continuity with a few companies, such as Head, 5050 and they had others they often would have make their videos in the earlier days. --lincalinca 05:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

All right, if you feel it's completely relevant then I won't press it. The categories should probably be split back to director and production company though. Grim 15:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've restored the column and found some more directors and sources too. How're we looking now? --lincalinca 00:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get directorial info for every box. Is that possible? If that happens then the production box could be removed...Oh, and I realized that you need to list the years of the videos in the far left of the template. Other than that, it's looking good. Grim 03:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done the years and added more production companies too. Finding directors is harder than finding production companies. I need to get the DVD from Dream Days. That should have some credentials added. --lincalinca 05:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

20 October

That would be good—if you could get a hold of the DVD and list the rest of the directors. You really need to have both columns filled out if this is going to be featured. I was going to ask you to reformat the tables because they were inconsistent, but it looks like that's been done.

• I don't know what to make of this statement: "Powderfinger's singles and tracks have made appearances on film soundtracks, and on many compilation albums.". It appears that there's no information to back this up at all. Either the soundtracks need to be listed or this statement needs to be removed.
• I copyedited the lead but there's a sentence that's so problematic that I had no idea what to do: "September 2000 saw the release of Powderfinger's fourth album, Odyssey Number Five, which sold over 350,000 copies,[5] and saw several singles released, as well as contributing the songs "These Days"[6] and "My Kinda Scene"[7] to the soundtracks for major motion pictures." The multiple use of the word "saw" probably isn't ideal, and you don't say which motion pictures they are featured in. And "Major" is a peacock term.

That's just about all I have left. Grim 22:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• The "Other appearances" section would look better without that opening statement. I'll remove it.
•  Done. ~ Sebi 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Great.

• I want you guys to get together and see if you can fill in the blank columns of the music videos section.
• Ref #21 needs to be fixed. The url isn't being displayed right (it's not clickable).

Those are the last things that needs to be done. Grim 04:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Well, I'll get to working on directors. There's still some I can't find. I also suspect that for the video for "These Days" there isn't a director, since it was just someone holding a handicam while bernie played the keys and sang (arguably, the cam-holder would be the director, but I can't find anything on who it was). I'll do my best to look into it. Plus, I'll fix ref 21. --lincalinca 04:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I just checked #21 and don't know why it's not working for you. Do you have Adobe Reader installed? It's a PDF, so it won't open in your window unless you've got an Adobe viewer plugin installed. I just checked with FF2, Opera and IE7. No problems with any. I can check on IE 6 and 5 when I go to work on Tuesday, if you'd like, but I really don't think there's a problem with it. --lincalinca 04:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Grim meant the code between <ref> and </ref>, and the formatting of the {{cite web}} template. I've fixed it now, though. ~ Sebi 04:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got it Spebi. It's displaying correctly now. I've never heard of any piece of video (well, movies, tv, music videos etc.) not having a director. There's always somebody deciding what to shoot, and telling people what to do. Look into it a bit more. Grim 05:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that with most videos but, well, have a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lZDod4DdOY . This doesn't appear to be like most. There's no editing or anything: it's simply been recorded and videoed and the two have been stitched together. I could be wrong, but none of the sources I have access to seem to confirm otherwise. Anyway, I'm working through the others to see what I can find. Giggy has the DVD, I'm sure, so I'll have to get on his case about the directors. --lincalinca 06:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll check up on the DVD now, although I skimmed a look earlier and don't recall seeing anything... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any directors specifically listed - it just said DVD tracks 1-10 == "Mushroom Music Ltd.", tracks 11, 12 == "BMG Group" (or something like that) - I doubt that's what we're looking for, although I haven't been fully following this discussion... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That video definitely has a director. It could be one of the bandmembers though. I'm a film student so I know a bit about things like that. Keep looking into it if you can. Grim 17:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh noes, OR! :P Seriously though, I can't find anything, but I'll keep looking... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Potential Closer's Question: A lot of this debate seems to be about potential improvements, rather than if it still meets the FL criteria. Does anyone still have active objections to this page becoming an FL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the "music videos" section is incomplete isn't really a reason to retain my objection. Although it seriously needs to be done, I know it will be done in the near future. That is my last remaining problem with the article, and it will be fixed. As a result, this article has my full endorsement. The two remaining opposes stand in relation to problems that were resolved as a result of my objection. I can't speak for them, but let that be known. Grim 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)