Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/MercyMe albums discography/archive1
- 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 The Rambling Man 14:25, 4 June 2012 [1].
MercyMe albums discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 00:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria. It contains a lengthy and engaging lede and solid prose; all charting albums are covered, with less notable or minor albums listed in an 'other albums' criteria. All media and visual criteria are met and the material is not being warred on. Toa Nidhiki05 00:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One FLC at a time, please - see the instructions on the FLC page. Pick the one you want to withdraw for now. BencherliteTalk 07:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so you're withdrawing MercyMe singles discography. Per the question at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/MercyMe singles discography/archive1, why not combine these two discographies into one page, as per the example of David Bowie discography (a FL)? BencherliteTalk 20:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One, because both are fairly large and can exist seperately. Two, the lede would be gigantic and would inevitably have to focus primarily on albums - my work on Casting Crowns discography essentially had to favor albums. Three, I like the format better with two discography pages. I think it is smoother and more focused, allowing proper attention to be paid to both. Toa Nidhiki05 21:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One, the test is could they reasonably form part of the one article? (3(b) of the criteria) I think at the moment that they could. Two, no it wouldn't have to be a gigantic lead. You're just summarising the tables, remember, so the information is there already. If the Middle Ages can be summed up in four paragraphs and in under 500 words, I'm sure the works of MercyMe can be too. Three, I'm not convinced that those are reasons why the criteria shouldn't apply. So oppose on 3(b) grounds alone, nothing else checked. Four, thanks for the example of Casting Crowns discography, a FL discography about a band with 9 albums and 14 singles as opposed to 9 albums and 18 singles for Mercyme. BencherliteTalk 21:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One, because both are fairly large and can exist seperately. Two, the lede would be gigantic and would inevitably have to focus primarily on albums - my work on Casting Crowns discography essentially had to favor albums. Three, I like the format better with two discography pages. I think it is smoother and more focused, allowing proper attention to be paid to both. Toa Nidhiki05 21:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree with Bencherlite here, there seems no real reason to split the albums from the singles, many featured discogs have them combined in such numbers. Suggest you withdraw this nomination as well and work on the merged list? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a sample one I am working on, yes, as apparently this won't work and the content can be included. I should be done with it today or sometime soon so this can be withdrawn, I guess. Toa Nidhiki05 17:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.