Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/David Bowie discography/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 by The Rambling Man 19:13, 21 September 2009 [1].

David Bowie discography

edit
Nominator(s): JD554 (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. I spent quite a few months getting it up to scratch only for the BPI to decide to redesign their website and take the certification database down. It's finally back and I've rechecked the BPI certifications and it looks like we're good to go. The BPI certification database does seem to be a bit flakey, so perseverance may be the key if it doesn't work for you. JD554 (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • The third link in the infobox (Compilation albums) doesn't link to the correct section name.
  • "Born as David Jones, Bowie's debut..." I think you can take out "as".
  • Some "notes"/"details" entries have periods while others don't. Make this consistent.

A very good article, and I'll have no problem supporting once these issues are fixed. Mm40 (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed, the remaining notes/details without a full-stop at the end are sentence fragments which shouldn't have one. --JD554 (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good article; supporting. Mm40 (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Excellent list. I'd like to give it some more time for a thorough review, but here's a few quick things I noticed on a first-pass.

Resolved comments from Drewcifer
  • A bit over-wikilinked. The Certifications column header only needs to be wikilinked the first time. Also some of the Formats are wikilinked again in new tables. They only need be wikilinked the first time mentioned. Same with album names in the singles tables.
    • In shorter discographies I would agree, but given the size and number of the sections, it is worthwhile to repeat links when the "later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first" per WP:OVERLINK.
      • True, though it is still possible to overlink within the guideline; it just depends on how you determine a "later occurrence". Here is seems to be every table warrants a new link. This results in, for example, the certification columns being wikilinked a total of 10 times, often times within less then a page-distance. I would also argue that the guideline applies differently to text than it does to tables/lists. One may read three paragraphs and need a reminder of what something means, but a table is something that one pretty much skims through. That said, it is a long article, so maybe a bit of re-linking would be helpful. So, my recommendation would be to simply re-wikilink based on some other criteria other than a new table. Such as resetting based on release types (Albums, singles, then video-stuff). Drewcifer (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of formats, the list has both "DD" and "digital download" stick with one.
    • Fixed
  • Why is there no space between "5×" (and other numbers) and "Platinum"? It's not one word.
    • Fixed
  • The chart columns are kept below the recommended 10 for most of the list, but jumps to 11 for some reason in the 1990s table.
    • Although the recommendation is for 10, it is only a recommendation and having 11 certainly isn't excessive and this keeps charts that are used in other decade sections.
      • There are many reasons why 10 is the recommended limit, and the fact that it "isn't excessive" isn't really the point. And your point that the charts are used in the other decades isn't entirely true: "Hallo Spaceboy" is the only Bowie single to chart in Australia. This column would be an easy one to loose, and would also reduce the clutter of dashes. Drewcifer (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some list items have a "Released" value of just the year, but this is made redundant by the year column directly to the left. If you can be more specific that would be nice, but if not, no need to repeat the year.
    • Fixed
  • What's up with all of the "aka"'s? I assume it's just different titles for different territory releases? It would be good to at least mention that in the lead, that some releases had different titles under diferent circumstances. Also, if you're up to it, it would be good if the articles themselves gave the same info. I clicked through on a couple of them to figure it out, but had no luck on any of them. Drewcifer (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are other names for the same release as listed in the general reference, I'm not sure that adding something to lead would add anything here. Your other comments have either been fixed or commented on further. --JD554 (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

q=%22tin%20machine%22&f=false]. --JD554 (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The column widths are pretty immaculate for the first few sections, but seem to break down and vary widths starting with the singles. And for no apparent reason, as far as I can tell.
    • All the chart columns are set to 3.5em and have a font-size of 75% and they look good on the two different computers I use (with different resolutions). It could be the resolution of your screen. If you let me know what settings you have, I'll see if I can replicate the problem.
      • I meant the Album details columns. The first bunch are 225, but then it jumps to 250, and jumps around quite a bit after that. Drewcifer (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • All the "Album details" columns are set to 225. The colums set to 250 are for song titles in the singles tables and the music videos table. --JD554 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think I've been unclear again. You're right, the album details are the same, 225, and the song titles are the same, at 250. But why not make every second column over the same? I don't see a reason for the song titles to be a different width than the album details. The same goes for every table. Drewcifer (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well the "Album details" columns and the "Song" columns are presenting different things so there isn't a need for them to be the same. That said, I think the song columns did have a little bit of excessive white space, so I've reduced them to 225 as well. --JD554 (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the Tin Machine stuff should be included. This has been an issue in the past with FLC discogs like Gwen Stefani discography and Devin Townsend discography, and I believe the consensus is to not include separate work done in bands outside of their solo career. Same thing would go for the first three singles. Though I would say that that type of stuff should at least be mentioned in the lead, perhaps a la what I've done for Santigold discography. Kind of a round-about way of getting that info in there one way or another, but keeps the tables and stuff to the solo career.
  • "Non-album single" isn't a proper noun, so don't capitalize it.
    • As a single data item, being capitalized doesn't mean it is a proper noun and this is used in other FL-class discogs such as Nirvana discography and Pearl Jam discography.
      • Just because another article does it doesn't meant it's right. Besides those articles were promoted two years and a year ago, respectively, and standards have improved since then. As a solitary data item I would agree that it doesn't mean it's a proper noun, but since it is mixed into a column meant to feature list items that are proper nouns (album titles), a distinction should be made. Drewcifer (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it is right to capitalize the first word of a single data item in a cell without it meaning it is a proper noun. I'm really struggling to find any policy/guideline which would suggest otherwise, or a substantial number FL- or FA-class articles which show the consensus is against this. --JD554 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough; there's no policy on this either way. Nor is there necessarily a precedent set either. Most lists that I've seen promoted to FL have been un-capitalized, but that doesn't necessarily make it a rule. So I'll respectfully disagree with you guys and move on. Drewcifer (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drewcifer, by your logic shouldn't each of the table headers (Title, Director, Peak chart positions) have to be in small-letters too? As for confusing Non-album single with actual album/song names, shouldn't the fact that these are in Italics and "Quotes", respectively, deter that from happening? indopug (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'd disagree with your first statement since column headers are proper nouns: the names of the columns. "Non-album single" is not the name of anything, hence, it is not a proper noun. And my point about caps was never to avoid confusion between album names and the words "non-album single" (you'd have to pretty stupid to think that is an album title). My point was that in a series of proper-nouns, any non-proper nouns should be treated differently, as far as types of grammatical rules that applies to proper nouns. Honestly, I don't want to waste my our anyone else's time arguing about petty grammar rules, which is why I was happy to move on. Drewcifer (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try abbreviating the names of the secondary charts. "UK Singles Chart" could definately be abbreviated as just "UK" (I don't think there's any other singles chart in the UK, at least not as "official" as the UK Singles Chart, is there?) Same with "GER Albums Chart" → GER. "US Hot 100" could be abbreviated to "US 100", "US Mainstream Rock" to "US Rock" or "US Main", etc. It doesn't really matter what stupid name Billboard is calling the chart this week (and it changes alot, believe me), just as long as we get the idea of what the chart is charting. It would also fix some of the too-big cells with these long names in them. Drewcifer (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've change "US Mainstream Rock" to "US Main. Rock" and "US Modern Rock" to "US Mod. Rock." The "US Hot 100" column header shouldn't be affecting the width of any columns as it is only a maximum of 3 characters wide. For the EP, I feel we need to specifically say "UK Singles Chart" as, being an EP, it could be either the singles chart or the albums chart. Also in the UK we have the downloads chart, the indie chart, the dance chart, etc. Similarly for the video, I feel we need to specifically say the albums chart for Germany as, being a video, it is quite plausible for it to be a video chart.--JD554 (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My main concern was actually vertical space, not horizontal space (some of the headers took up 4 lines, which looked odd). I made a few small edits myself to further fix the problem and to get those cells down to two lines to match the others. Feel free to undo them if you hate it, but it's a minor change that I think helps. As far as the UK Singles chart and GER Albums chart, that's fine, since there's a rational behind it, but what about removing the word "chart". That seems a bit redundant to me. Again, that would save some vertical space in those cells and would get them down to two lines. Drewcifer (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I had to revert as the browser won't put a line-break in between the last character and the reference, which caused the columns to go wider than the 3.5em I'd set them to. --JD554 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support (massively) Been keeping an eye on this for a while. JD's done a ridonkulous job. Content/source wise I dare say it's without peer in Wikipedia artist lists. Well done and it deserves the star (and more). RB88 (T) 05:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jpeeling (talk · contribs)
Comments
  • From lead: "He released three more singles in 1965 under the names of The Mannish Boys and Davey Jones & the Lower Third". In the list there's only two singles for 1965 and spellings are Manish and Davy.
  • Article switches between "The Lower Third" and "the Lower Third", is this the correct usage?
    • It is. When I've referred to them as "The Lower Third" they were an act in their own right and when "the Lower Third" is when the act was earlier known as "David Bowie & the Lower Third". --JD554 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the 1970s singles made it into the Swiss charts, so shouldn't that column be removed?

--Jpeeling (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, comments resolved, can't find any other issues. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2009 (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/David_Bowie_discography/archive1&oldid=1138479405"