Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Boredoms discography/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates | Boredoms 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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [1].

Boredoms discography

edit

I've made some severe modifications to this list as of late, using other featured discogs (mostly Nine Inch Nails discography) as inspiration for bringing this up to a higher quality. A few quick notes about the page:

  1. While most discographies include chart info, Boredoms albums have never charted to the best of my knowledge (and I've looked long and hard).
  2. This was also the best method I could think of for noting reissues, since there are tons of reissues. There was no standard for me to go by, so I've done what I think is best to include this information.

Thanks for taking a look at this. = ∫tc 5th Eye 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Japan charting. Searching online for charts hasn't proven fruitful, any online info about the albums themselves doesn't mention anything, and it would be next to impossible for me to check offline sources since I live in the United States. = ∫tc 5th Eye 22:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must say it sounds very strange that you do not check Japanese charts for a Japanese band. Anyway, Nirvana discography lists a book called "Album Chart-Book Complete Edition 1970-2005. Orikonmāketingupuromōshon (2006). ISBN 4871310779." for Japan chart info. indopug (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to check their charts online; I've found some but Boredoms were not on them. Considering how they don't make pop music, I'm not surprised (if) they haven't charted. However, I'll try to contact whoever has that book and see if they can look them up. = ∫tc 5th Eye 15:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, the user who added the Japanese chart source was a suspected sock puppet and has been blocked. Great... = ∫tc 5th Eye 18:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments:

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • While that's easily changeable, I find it interesting that most, if not all, of the featured lists I looked at had bold titles in the same style.
  • Sure.
  • They do have their own sections. I don't understand what you're getting at. = ∫tc 5th Eye 02:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just disregard that. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm going to have to agree with indopug's take on the bolding issue: that is, to ignore the Manual of Style in this case since bolding is very convenient for discographies that contain a lot of links so that readers can more easily see and click the titles. I hardly need to reiterate that many featured discographies already do this. = ∫tc 5th Eye 07:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I remember looking at this article a few months back and wondering if it were even possible to get it into shape, so I'm definitely impressed with the work done so far! It looks pretty good, but I do see alot of room for improvement. A few suggestions:

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
  • Have they never charted anywhere?
  • All of the info about re-issues is unnecessary. We're really only concerned with the initial releases, not all the multitude of re-releases, versions, etc.
  • And along the same lines, only one label is necessary to mention, since in most cases the original releases is from one label.
I'd say there's usually a pretty clear "original" release, in this case the Japanese release, so I'd recommend going with just that label. But I'll let you be the judge of that, if there's not a clear original release to go by. Drewcifer (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The catalog numbers would be much clearer if you add a "#" and separate the number from the acronym.
  • The year column should be center-aligned.
  • Dates should be international format, not American format. ie DD Month YYYY.
  • Label and release dates and all that stuff aren't necessary for singles.
If they aren't singles in the traditional sense, maybe calling the section as such is a bad idea. But again, I'll let you be the judge of that. Your suggestion of merging it with the EPs might be a good idea as well. Drewcifer (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's with all the question marks in the cassettes table?
I think this might be made clearer if you said "? Records" or something like that, instead of just a random question mark. Drewcifer (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the comments. I can fix most of these things without problem. A few of my own comments though:
  • The '?'s in the cassette section is because they were released on a label called ?. I don't know of a good way to get this across, but it's clarified in the article itself.
  • As I've stated before, I have searched extensively and have found no evidence of them charting anywhere.
Thanks for checking it out. =∫tc 5th Eye 03:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, their "singles" aren't really standard singles—that is, the songs didn't come straight off of the studio albums; these releases are more like mini-EPs. They are usually considered independent releases (the band's official discography reflects this). Now that I think about it, I should just merge two of them into the EP section and leave "Michidai"/"Fuanteidai" in the singles section.
Also also, their albums were usually released at the same time (or very close) on different labels for different countries, which is why I listed several different labels for each one. Thoughts on this? =∫tc 5th Eye 03:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just addressed the above issues with my last edit. =∫tc 5th Eye 22:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definately looking better. A few more minor issues:

  • What's with Boretronix 4?
  • What's up with the years of "Psycho Nite Tape II", "Eat Shit Noise Music", and "Ne San"?
  • Boredoms shouldn't be wikilinked in the bold intro. Try linking it as soon as possible afterwards, though. (Perhaps change the second sentence to "To date, Boredoms have released"
  • "Although the band's work can be documented back to 1982 with the Early Boredoms compilation released with Soul Discharge,[1] the earlier records by the band under the name Boredoms, Anal by Anal and Soul Discharge, were put out on the small independent Japanese labels while American label Shimmy Disc and English label Earthnoise distributed records overseas." Very long, kind of confusing sentence.
  • "picked back up" somewhat unencyclopedic wording there.
  • "When the band reconvened in 2004 as V8redoms for the release of Seadrum/House of Sun, they were signed on to Vice, who also reissued the band's catalogue of Super Roots EPs up through 8 (minus Super Roots 2)." Another long confusing sentence.
  • Similar columns between tables (in this case the "Title" columns) should be kept to a consistent width between tables.
  • This does not look like a reliable source.
  • Discogs is also not considered reliable. Drewcifer (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is stated in the article itself, there isn't any information (reliable or not) about the release date of Boretronix 4, but it is mentioned in a discography here (that is sourced at the bottom).
  • The years of those compilation albums were taken from the Pop Kiss site, and that is how they are listed there. I should have looked elsewhere for dates.
  • No, Pop Kiss isn't a reliable source by WP standards, but it's honestly all I have for certain things and I think it is good enough for now. I can also definitely remove the Discogs source, but I don't know if I can find another to replace it.
I'll take a look at fixing the rest of the points as well. Thanks! = ∫tc 5th Eye 02:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which parts are of debatable accuracy? = ∫tc 5th Eye 02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Per WP:LS#Bold title, do not wikilink the bold lead sentence. Also, "This is a discography of Boredoms" would be better than "This is a listing of the recordings by Boredoms", but please read WT:FLC#Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence about it being unnecessary.
  • I would rename the section "Various artists compilations" to "Other appearances", per other FL discographies
    • Per WP:NOTCATALOG, do not include any song in that section that has appeared on an Official Boredoms release as they were not made for the compilation, they were simply licensed for inclusion. Only include songs that are original to the compilation
  • Echoing the comments above, I'd like to know if any release actually charted in (at least) Japan. Just because noone (on Wikipedia) knows, doesn't mean they haven't. As of now it appears incomplete, unless a citeable statement such as "No album or single has ever charted on the official music charts of any country" could be included.

So mostly for the final reason, but also because of the MOS errors, I'm opposing at this time. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've fixed all the style things you've mentioned. I understand that it's possible that they could have charted, but seeing as how the article doesn't state either way if they have or not I don't see that as too big of a problem. I know they haven't charted in the US but searching for Japanese charts is difficult at best. It's a little disappointing that no one's offered to help, either, but I'll ask around. = ∫tc 5th Eye 13:45, 29 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/Boredoms_discography/archive1&oldid=1126596249"