Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tool discography

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 promoted 23:23, 18 May 2008.

Tool discography

[edit]

I'm nominating on behalf of Wikiproject Tool's article improvement goals. Lara❤Love 13:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Since it appears Lara has retired, I'll do my best to finish the FLC in her absence. So please excuse any ignorance as far as the band itself goes or arguments made so far in the FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looking good! Drewcifer (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential conflict of interest given the above? Feel free to disregard my support if you think so. Drewcifer (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here. Lara❤Love 13:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whew. That was a close one! Drewcifer (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks good! I only have a few nitpicky comments:

  • The dates in the DVD table should be spelled out, not numerical.
    • I thought that because of user date preferences it didn't matter what format was used in the edit window.
      • You'd think, but the date-change-per-preferences isn't as robust as one would expect.
  • The Demo, EP, box set, and other section confuses me. Demo? Check. EP? Check? Box set? Check. Other? There is no other!
  • The labels should be wikilinked the first time they appear in the discography itself.
  • The DVD Features should probably have citations.
    • To the DVD? Wouldn't the information be the same in the citation as in the discog?
      • What I meant was a source referring to what is included in the DVD. Obviously that would be redundant if it was just a citation to the DVD itself.
  • Citation #8 is missing a publisher.
  • RIAA and CRIA should be spelled out in the citations. RIAA should also be spelled out in the lead the first time it's mentioned.
  • An external links section would be good.
  • Numbers under 10 should be written out, numbers over ten should be numerical (fourteen=14).
    • Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs). --Wikipedia:DATE#Numbers
      • Fair enough! I wasn't aware of that.
  • "Although typically intended only for record labels" I don't think typically is the right word here. It's their first release, and typically implies previous examples to go by.
    • What I mean here is that demos are typically intended only for record labels, but in this case the band was so pleased with their demo that they sold it to fans. I'll try to reword to make that more clear.
      • Looks better.
  • Seems kind of a non-sequitur And even if it did apply, it's POVish.
    • I'm not really sure what you mean. What is that POVish? That they sold their demo because they were pleased with it? If so, how is that POV?
      • Maybe it would've helped if I had included the actual quote I was referring to, huh? Here's the one: "notwithstanding a decline in popularity of alternative rock music during the mid-90s in the United States".
        • Ah, okay. I pulled that from Tool (band). I'll reword it.
  • I think U.S. should be spelled without the dots. There's an MOS on that somewhere.
    • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations). U.S. is the American English abbreviation. I'm not sure if there's another mention of this somewhere else in the MOS or if it's been altered since last year, but there used to be something that specified that it should always be abbreviated as U.S., unlike United Kingdom, which should always be UK.
  • Similar columns between tables should ideally be kept a consistent width.
    • I think this is corrected. Let me know if there's a issue I've missed.

Drewcifer (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - WTF?! Is it Pretentious Art-Rock Band Discography Week here at FLC? (Sonic Youth, Tool, Pink Floyd...) Anyway,

  • "This is a discography for the American progressive rock/metal band Tool."--I'm not too fond of the genres here, its a little too detailed and rather confusing too (by "/" I thought you implied progressive metal, not where it linked to though). Heavy metal should be enough.
    • I fixed it. It should have been as you expected it.
  • platinum, gold --> Platinum, Gold (always)
  • split the second para into two.
    • Where do you suggest I split it? Other FLs I looked at seemed to flow with one large paragraph. A split would most likely be between the first and second studio albums, which would be weird.
  • Check for Mos -- Bollboard 200 not Billboard 200
  • link alternative rock
  • Although typically intended--typically? In fact I'm not sure that entire sentence is very clear anyway.
    • I clarified.
  • one EP --> one extended play (EP) (for the noobs)
  • "October 1996 saw the release of Ænima."--too short a sentence; club with next one?
  • #1 --> number one
  • 2x Platinum --> 2× Platinum
  • Label: Zoo/BMG/Volcano-- wikilink (only first time)
  • Why is zobbel.de reliable?
    • I pulled it from James Blunt. I swapped it for everyHit.com which I didn't originally want to use because they don't allow direct page linking. As it only does top 40, I removed the UK column from the singles table.
  • please double-check the Billboard charts with Allmusic
    • Allmusic is reliable and Billboard's navigation is teh suck. If someone knows how to search their site without it yielding a few hundred results, that'd be helpful.
  • No need to link the music videos (already done in the singles). Also delink them in the DVD section, which you should rename in the plural. The Videos link in the infobox thing at the top doesn't work. Also no mention of the box sets and live albums in said infobox thing.
  • peak positions and peak chart positions; standardise.
  • "Demo, EP, box set, and other" --> generalise to something compacter? "Other albums"?
  • Are you sure "Opiate" was additionally released as a single along with the EP of same name? I don't think so and there isn't a wikipage for the single.
    • There were two singles released from Opiate, "Hush" and "Opiate".
  • Make the music videos' and singles' Title columns equal in width.
  • The U.S. Hot 100 should come before the other two US charts in the table, cause its more important. indopug (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Do not wikilink the title in the lead, per WP:LS#Bold title
    • This should be made consistent through all the FLs because all the ones I clicked had links.
  • "This list does not include material performed by members of Tool that was recorded with A Perfect Circle..." perhaps include that these bands are their side projects or something
    • Again, this was written based off of other FLs and this isn't consistent with those.
  • "the band was so pleased with theirs that they sold copies to their fans." How? At concerts, through local independent music stores?
    • I don't know. The source didn't say. It just said it was sold to fans.
  • "bassist D'Amour leaving amicably to pursue other projects." This is questionable and so should be cited
    • It's covered by the ref that follows the next sentence.
  • "a decline in popularity of alternative rock music during the mid-90s in the United States," According to who?
  • Per WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations, "In a given article, if the abbreviated form of the United States appears predominantly alongside other abbreviated country names, for consistency it is preferable to avoid periods throughout". So it should be "US" and "UK", not "U.S." and "UK" (or "U.S." and "U.K.")
  • I'd prefer to see the peak chart positions in this format:
    • Home country; alphabetical order of English speaking countries; alphabetical order of non-English speaking countries; World chart
I think this is more of a WP:Discog issue at this point. Drewcifer (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we sure no singles charted outside of the US?
Good catch, they did chart in the Netherlands. I added the data. Drewcifer (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Matthewedwards I think UK/US should come before all other English-speaking countries in the charts. These are the two most important markets in terms of marketing, sales, promotion, media coverage etc. indopug (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my argument to the contrary at the Sonic Youth FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, to note, I sort of put them by success because I didn't see any sort of standard with the current FLs. So I'll wait until this gets figured out, as it's apparently going to be setting a precedence, as a few of these suggestions appear to be going for, and that's a lot of work to swap the columns. Lara❤Love 20:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice. You should list the official website or a fansite with a very comprehensive discography (if it exists) in the EL. Also, add how Undertow reached only 50 while Aenima fared much better at 2. indopug (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm not sure why AEnima fared so well compared to Undertow. It was probably just a matter of exposure. They toured extensively during all of those years, singles from both suffered similar censorship... Any addition on this would be speculation. Lara❤Love 13:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I just meant add the first two albums' chart positions to the lead. indopug (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Recheck all the chart position numbers. I had to redo the singles placings right now because some were simply wrong, or were placed in the wrong columns. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't know what happened with that... I went back through the albums and videos, they're all good. Lara❤Love 13:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discographies (at least on Wikipedia) give a quantitative indicator of a album/single's success; chart positions, certifications, sales figures. On the other hand, qualitative indicators like awards and critical acclaim are not mentioned in tables (although they may be mentioned in the lead, if really important) If a band has won many awards, they can have an article for it, see: List of U2 awards. indopug (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added them to the lead. Lara❤Love 15:06, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Tool_discography&oldid=1126722411"