Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Interpol discography/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Dabomb87 23:10, 26 January 2010 [1].

Interpol discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards of other featured lists, as well as the criteria neccessary to be featured. So here goes. SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Drewcifer
Comments A few things catch my eye right off the bat:
  • 23 chart positions? Really? MOS:DISCOG recommends a limit of 10. 23 is not only an indiscriminate amount of information, it's also bordering on fandom, in my opinion.
    • Done - Dropped to ten chart positions.
  • Some general references would be helpful, a la The Prodigy discography.
    • Done - Added general references.
  • "Download only single" is neither a title nor a proper noun, so it shouldn't be capitalized nor italicized.
    • Removed capitals, italics.
  • Why are the live eps seperated from the other eps?
    • Since they have more than one live ep, I thought to separate them, but I've since joined the two groups.
  • Not sure if the recording for Mammoth qualifies as a music video per se.
    • It's listed on the band's official website in their "Video" section, and it was used on various music channels as the promotional video.

Further comments by Drewcifer3000 (This is just a straight copy+paste of a message from my talk page left at 06:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)):[reply]

  • Try to keep the column widths consistent between tables (mainly the second column, which usually holds the album/ep/song title).
    • Done - I've made the widths consistent for eps/albums/singles, should i be doing the same for music videos/other appearances (which have slightly different column headings)?
  • The second table only has one chart column, so I don't think you need the header and sub-header thing going on there.
    • I've retitled the section simply "French Albums Chart".
  • The single table re-wikilink the album titles, which are already wikilinked before that.
    • Yeah i was thinking about this one actually, I've delinked the repeat links.
Replies by SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discographies should only include previously unreleased material. It appears that many of the track listed in compilations were released previously (on the albums), so I'd recommend taking those out. There's no need to list every compilation/commercial/movie trailer a song of their's has shown up in if that song had already been released.
    • I realised it would be unneccessary to include every time any song was included on some sort of compilation, so included songs which were not stand-alone singles, but which were included in third-party formats. A similar style is used in Bloc Party's discography, another featured list, and the section's lead mentions this.
    • See below.
      • This still bugs me. The see blow link isn't work for me.... But also, I don't think the argument that "the Bloc party discog did it, and it's FL" is much of an argument (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Those songs have already been released, so their inclusion in another table is redundant, as it's basically a recycling of old material. And the fact that they've been re-released by a third party in my opinion only means that they've less of a place in a discography, not more, since we're concerned with releases from the band, not by releases they have no control over.. Drewcifer (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC
  • Whoops, forgot about that. I had put in a lev3 header but it was removed because of FLC rules. It was linking to the bit below about "In response to issues with "Compilations"". Numerous FLs include it and i think this is with good measure (i know I'm all sorts of WAXy right now), it shows where else their music has been included, such as film soundtracks (if applicable), and compilations by websites and magazines. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 08:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is continued below, under the section mentioned above. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 10:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to issues with "Compilations"

After looking through various discographies found in FL-Class Discography articles, I noticed that a similar manner of displaying songs found on other releases is used in Nirvana discography, here titled "Other appearances". I have retitled the section in this discography accordingly. Please see there for the rationale for its inclusion. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 19:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just because another FL has it, doesn't mean it's right. Also, the Nirvana discog was promoted a very long time ago, way before we had MOS:DISCOG, at least. Standards have improved dramatically since then. So I believe there still hasn't really been a non-WP:WAX argument for their inclusion. Drewcifer (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you are coming from, but I am not simply saying ignorantly that this section should exist in this article purely because other articles have it. That is exactly what WAX talks about. I am trying to say that i think the reason that it should be kept in this article, and in all other articles, is because I feel this section is relevant. It shows where songs have been included in areas of notability, for example, a CD released by a magazine detailing the best songs of the year. Its not just another "article x", almost every article in the FL-class discography category contains this section with different wording. AIC, Death Cab, and Bloc Party are just a few of the examples, while David Bowie seems to have an extensive list on his page. Reading through each FL review, it is never mentioned that this is an issue, including by yourself on a number of occasions. I know your retort would be to say that these were a long time ago, but a number were fairly recent, including Bowie. Surely your work still acted on the guidelines of MOS:DISCOG, regardless of whether or not the guideline itself was written? And surely it is not black and white what is in the MOS or not, considering it itself is still only a proposed guideline?
If I am wrong, I am more than happy to admit that and will remove the table (it probably wouldn't be the first time!) So, may i propose that before the conclusion of this debate, a discussion is opened at WP:DISCOG to fully decide this for all discographies? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 10:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the section that I have a problem with; you're absolutely right, most discogs do contain some sort of "Other appearances" type of section. Where this section differs from many is that this one includes previously-released material. You're right, the Nirvana and Bloc Party do include them, but WAX says that doesn't matter. The reason MOS:DISCOG includes this caveat is because songs tend to be used all over the place (commercials, tv shows, trailers, "Best of the Year" comps, etc). If we say one type of re-release is worth noting (in this case a CD compilation), then the others must follow. It is a very slippery slope, so it's far simpler and more focused (and this goes for the discog as a whole) to keep it to original material, and not re-released material, regardless of how it's packaged. Drewcifer (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll back down on this if it means that the article looks better as a whole. A lot of the foundations of this article were based on what was written on Bloc Party's, which is probably the reason I included it here. I think we should probably sort some of the FL's out though, as they were all let in to the club with this section whereas it has to be removed here. As a comprimise, I propose leaving "Direction", as this was not previously released? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 12:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Direction should definitely stay, as should the first two, since these compilations were the first time they were released, correct? If you feel this is worth a larger discussion at MOS:DISCOG I'd he happy to participate, but I think the examples you've given are in the minority, not the majority. However, I'd be happy to bring this type of thing up to the larger community, if you think that would help. Drewcifer (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←Its quite good to hear you say that, considering I was going to mention something about the releases pre-dating the EP in my next comment. I will downsize the table to include these three songs. Should the releases be mentioned in the article's lead?
As well as this, I think we could act on what has been finalised in this review, as i previously mentioned I based most of the table on what was written in Bloc Party's discography - meaning a lot of the data is the section there should probably be removed too. If we comb the articles in FL-class Discography articles - or possibly all articles included in the project - we could swiftly remove unnecessary information and bring the project to a better status as a whole. The topic could be discussed outside of this review, on WP:DISCOG, perhaps? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 05:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me. Happy to finally support. Drewcifer (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, If you feel like bringing up the Other appearances thing at WP:DISCOG, let me know and I'd be happy to contribute to the conversation. Drewcifer (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cannibaloki 03:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cannibaloki (talk · contribs)
  • Add alternative text and caption for the image on the infobox.
    • Done.
  • "Interlude" is not a song from Turn On the Bright Lights?
    • Done - "Interlude" was released as a bonus track to the above album in Japan and Mexico only, yes, but prior to this it had not been available in the UK. I've added a note to clarify that.
  • "Doug Aitken/Adam Levite" Add a comma instead of a slash.
    • Done - this formatting was used in the source, but I have changed regardless.
  • "Recorded live at London's Astoria, February 7, 2007" is the director of "Mammoth"? Also, why the sentence is in italics?
    • It was explained above that the video is a live performance which was used as a promotional video. The sentence is in italics to show it is not a director, what formatting do you think is a better idea?
  • "Listed are songs that were not released by Interpol as stand-alone singles, but which were included in third-party formats." What?
    • It would be more useful to the candidacy review as a whole if you could explain your point more in future. If you mean an explanation. the sentence simply means that "This is a list of songs which the band have not released as singles (see single (music)), but have been released by a third-party (ie, on a compilation release, in a manner not controlled by the band). This line is used in Bloc Party discography, a fellow featured list.

Cannibaloki 03:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies by SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 04:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per MOS:DISCOG#What should not be included (Non-original or previously-released material used on soundtracks, trailers, commercials, or any other compilation releases.).--Cannibaloki 03:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure I understand the reasoning for your opposition considering you believe the comments above to be resolved, and that the below comments are not to do with "What should not be included".
If the directors consider my comments invalid, you will have no problem seeing this discography as a featured list.--Cannibaloki 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that I think your comments are invalid, I was just puzzled by them. As you will see below, an agreement has been reached regarding the section which you have an issue with. If you are in favour of this agreement, would it be possible for you to reconsider your opinion? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 05:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—" denotes albums that did not chart, or were ineligible to chart. How ineligible? (Are you trying to invent something?) Please reword to "—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that country.
    • Done.
  • Your source for sales is not outdated? Antics was certified gold by RIAA (+500,000 copies sold), but your source says this album sold only 488,000 copies.
    • Fixed - There is no source of updated information, so I have removed the sales figures.
  • Distributor → Label
    • Fixed.
  • Add formats for albums and EPs (see In Flames discography)
    • Done.
  • "Mammoth" was released as enhanced CD (maxi-single) including the music video for this song, probably the name of the director is in the credits of this release.--Cannibaloki 16:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Would prefer to know what NYU is before you abbreviate it.
    • I have reworded to "Interpol was formed in 1997 by New York University students Daniel Kessler and Greg Drudy"
  • Feels a bit like the alt text is cheap and easy, could you not expand it a little to include colours, and perhaps surroundings?
    • I've reworded to mention the orange lit stage and the black backdrop, and noted the pieces of equipment on the stage.
  • "The EP sold out, despite being the band's first release in Europe and the United Kingdom" - I think you've already told us it was the first release. Perhaps look at merging this sentence with the previous one.
    • I've removed the bit about the country, and merged the two sentences following.
  • "two previous EPs" personal taste, but "previous two EPs" works better for me. No big deal.
    • Done.
  • " the band members released Antics" reads odd, wasn't it just released by the band?
    • Fixed. No idea why i did that.
  • "The record charted in more..." perhaps, "The album charted..."?
    • Changed.
  • "longest charting" needs a hyphen.
    • Done.
  • "had parted ways" a little colloquial for a business arrangement discussed by an encyclopedia.
    • Changed to "left".
  • What does N/A mean in the albums table?
    • When the band signed to Capitol, the album was no longer eligible to chart in the independant album chart, which was why i used "N/A". I've replaced it with "—", as I realise the key can cover ineligibility.
  • Why is FRANCE as such in the EPs table?
    • Instead of using "FRA", which left a lot of empty space in the box, but I'll change it to this anyway.
  • The ref [23] doesn't support the fact that five out of six EPs didn't chart. Unless I missed something?
    • Well the ref shows all the albums by interpol which have charted in France, as well as EPs (as i think EPs are treated like albums over there). Only the three albums and one EP have charted. Is this okay?
      • I have also added a key to the bottom of the EPs section explaining the dashes.
  • "download only" should be hyphenated.
    • Done.
  • No I In Threesome has no references at all. Are we supposed to assume that lack of reference (in all the chart info) means it actually did exist and therefore because it isn't mentioned in the references it didn't chart? Not good enough for me.
    • I've scoured the internet for some mention of this and its not really spoke about much past "Radio single" in US and UK. Considering what this means isn't perfectly defined, I'm going to remove it from the singles section but leave it in the music videos section, as it is sourced that it has a video (albeit this implies a full release).
  • Why is Mammoth notes italicised?
    • I've unitalicised (?) them, and moved them outside the box.
  • External link could use a bullet point before the link.
    • Shouldn't have missed that. Fixed now.

The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies by SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 05:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Question—Does a live performance video even count as a music video?—indopug (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well a music video is surely just a promotional video for a single or even a piece of music (the latter applying to No I in Threesome, I think we've discovered), and on that basis I don't think that what the work can be is restricted in any way. On top of this, its listed on Muzu, NME and a few other websites as an "official video", and I can remember them playing it on MTV2 and NME, despite the fact I can't really get a source for that. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 06:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've restarted this discussion here. --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 00:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told here that ChartStats / everyHit fall under WP:GOODCHARTS, while Zobbel and aCharts do not. All of the aCharts references have been removed. I think that all of the Zobbel references can be replaced with ChartStats references (Haven't done this as of yet so i could get a response here first). --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just read that discussion. Nothing substantial has been said there. Aside from everyHit.com (which I am almost willing to accept per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Usage by other sources), all of these sources fail our criteria. Let me remind you that not some obscure guideline but WP:RS and WP:V are what we use to determine the reliability of sources. Remaining opposed. Goodraise 03:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you consider GOODCHARTS "some obscure guideline"? Surely this is the most appropriate guideline in terms of record charts. --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 07:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as a style guideline that focuses on record charts, it is the most appropriate guideline when it comes to record charts related questions of style. However, reliability of sources is a question of content, which is handled by content guidelines, specifically by WP:RS. Even if source reliability was within the guideline's competence (which it isn't), would the sources it deems reliable have to meet the requirements of our policy (perhaps in a way outlined by its accompanying guideline). Goodraise 09:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←After further discussion of the sources, I agree Zobbel shouldn't be used (since it includes disks which are ineligible to chart) and I will side with you on ChartStats, as its reliability is still in question. I have removed references to the above two with the exception of two citations, which I am leaving in for just now purely for flagging. I am currently waiting on an answers to a further question which i have asked RS, so I ask again that this is put on hold until I am given an answer. --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 13:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its official, Zobbel is gone! After looking through one of your more recent FLC's, I found ChartsPlus in the Ashley Tisdale discography article. As such, I've replaced all Zobbel references with ChartsPlus references. This satisfies WP:V per WP:PAYWALL. Took me a while to find that. Can I have your support now? --20:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't understand why you've added the {{nl icon}} template like its French template counterpart, when the |language= field is much better suited for the {{cite web}} template. #47 is in Caps also. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 20:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this was a straight copy from another FL, I didn't think any more to remove it than to include it. I've removed all copies of {{* icon}} and replaced them with the language field. --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 00:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←It was added this way by Cannibaloki, so I don't want to talk for him, but I think it was because we had a discussion above about the widths remaining constant across all tables. Its the same as the widths for the albums and singles. Is this a problem? --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 13:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would be more suited for you to give your support? --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 13:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Interpol_discography/archive1&oldid=1143868306"