Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Pavement discography

Pavement 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 21 days, 4 support, 1 oppose. There is active opposition, but I think it appears to have been addressed. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discography of the 90s indie rock band Pavement. I believe that this article conforms to all the requirements needed to be a featured list. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music. Well-referenced and comprehensive. Well done. WesleyDodds 06:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

original discussion by Circeus

Oppose
- While I appreciate the research that went into that, the "record labels" bit are very needlessly detailed: we normally only list them for the original release (unless it's some sort of joint release).
  - I think that most, if not all, of the labels listed were on a "joint release" for the original release; Matador Records would release the album in the States, some other label in the UK, and then some other label(s) who simply co-released the albums. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like Slanted and Enchanted actually was also released on cassette
  - Done --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The tables' use of dashes is incorrect: they should be actual m-dashes
  - The convention is that dashes are used fro albums that "were released, but did not chart", this way, no dash means the album was not released to begin with
    - Done --Brandt Luke Zorn 02:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We usually lists the EPs in a subsection of "albums"
  - Done --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The details under "singles" can definitely go.
  - If they are to stay, why do "Shady Lane", "Carrot Rope" and "Spit on a Stranger" have 1996 rlease dates??
    - Done Hmm, hadn't noticed this. I think this was an error that happened early on in with copy-paste. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd prefer to keep the detail under the Singles section. Typically, featured discographies for lesser known artists (The Make-Up discography, Lightning Bolt discography, Neutral Milk Hotel discography) contain more information about singles as there's less space being used by chart information or a larger list of singles. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Too many wikilinks to All music guide in the references. Only one should be enough.
  - Done --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Circeus 02:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry, but the more I look at this (And I don't even have a real interest in music, much less this band!), the more I find issues that run deeper than the eye can see and cast, to me, severe doubts upon the purported comprehensiveness of the list. For example, Shady Lane clearly covers 3 different releases (maybe four, I can't tell whether the "two-part" thing actually means "2 CD"), only one of which is listed. Also, Perfect Sound Forever links to a disambiguation page (!). Circeus 19:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made numerous corrections and additions to this list as of last night; I still haven't added the other Shady Lane releases yet but I have corrected the entry for the Shady Lane EP and I plan on adding the other "Shady Lane" singles some time today. --Brandt Luke Zorn 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I now believe that all errors in this list have been corrected. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. I don't like how the "EPs" and "Singles" section seem to be cut in half; it is not consistent with other tables. On another note, I don't really see the significance of a "miscellaneous" section. Are the songs it lists B-sides? Outtakes? Live recordings? NSR77 ^T_C 15:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by the EPs and Singles sections being "cut in half"; could you be more specific? Also, I think virtually every other featured discography has a miscellaneous section, titled as such, which contains compilation appearances. --Brandt Luke Zorn 21:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "cut in half" I mean the width. Compare the "EPs" table to the "Albums" table. The format should be more consistent. NSR77 ^T_C 00:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. The width for the tables you mentioned should now be equal. --Brandt Luke Zorn 01:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I fully endorse this article. NSR77 ^T_C 15:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very well done. It's featured quality as far as I can tell. One comment, that you might want to clarify though: When a box is blank in the "Chart positions" area, does that mean the item wasn't released there? You might want to clarify this. Other than that, it looks great. Well done. Grim 06:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added "Blank entries denote..." below the relevant tables. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure the sentence beginning "According to Kannberg, there is a possibility that Pavement may reunite.." is suitable for a discography, as it should focus on the band's releases rather than their status. "CS" is not an obvious acronym to some (I've seen "CAT", "CT" etc, so it's probably worth adding "cassette" once for clarity). A little inconsistency with the formats (with "vinyl" and then '7"/12"'); why not have 12" in the Studio albums section? CloudNine 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe that all of your comments have been adequately addressed. --Brandt Luke Zorn 02:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]