Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Microphones 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

The Microphones discography

edit

The Microphones discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I am creating a good topic from the Microphones studio albums. The Microphones is a independent band, and has never charted, so the discography is a little different from most bands. They have many miscellaneous albums which I grouped into one category, since their attributes aren't mutually exclusive (e.g. there are some demo albums, and some compilation albums, but 2 compilation albums of demos. How do you split that into sub-sections). — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • The allmusic ratings are unnecessary as pretty much all featured lists of discographies don't have them, and a chart position column should be added if any of their albums have charted (even if it wasn't on the main Billboard 100 chart). Other than that, it looks good! The Midnite Wolf (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Midnite Wolf: Hi! The reason I added the AllMusic ratings is because none of their albums have charted. Since AllMusic has rated their releases more than any publication by far, I thought it made sense to show them to the reader, since it provides extra context on how the albums were perceived. I'm willing to remove it, but I sort of want a better rationale than to be consistent with other articles: all subjects are different and so the content they require will naturally vary.
    I looked to see if the band has charted, and couldn't find anything. If anyone has any resources or advice for places to look that would be great. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
Resolved comments (Support from ChrisTheDude)
*While I appreciate that all numbers in the first sentence are written as digits so as to be written the same way, "Between 1996 to 1998, Elverum released 6 demos" - looks odd in isolation and could reasonably be changed
  • "The CD Tests released in June 1998 and was compiled" => either "The CD Tests was released in June 1998 and was compiled" or "The CD Tests, released in June 1998, was compiled" but not what is currently there
  • "The band's first studio album, Don't Wake Me Up, released on K Records in August 1999 and gave the band a small following" => "The band's first studio album, Don't Wake Me Up, was released on K Records in August 1999 and gave the band a small following"
  • "Two more 7-inches released in 1999" => "Two more 7-inches were released in 1999"
  • "The extended play Window: released in February 2000" => "The extended play Window: was released in February 2000"
  • "In September 2000, the studio album It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water released on K" => "In September 2000, the studio album It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water was released on K"
  • "The Glow Pt. 2 released on K in September 2001" => "The Glow Pt. 2 was released on K in September 2001" (I sense a pattern emerging here :-))
  • "Two 7-inches released in 2001" => "Two 7-inches were released in 2001"
  • "The limited-copy album Little Bird Flies Into A Big Black Cloud was released in September 2002, and the single compilation album Song Islands was released in August" - August of which year? If it was 2002, why is it mentioned after an album which came out later in the year?
  • "Foghorn Tape released in March 2021" => "Foghorn Tape was released in March 2021"
  • "In February 2022, Completely Everything, 1996 - 2021 released" => "In February 2022, Completely Everything, 1996 - 2021 was released"
  • Two of the demos were apparently released under totally different names - this should probably be mentioned in the lead (assuming they belong on the list at all.......?)
    • Yeah, it's tricky, since it was essentially the same musical project, but not really. They're such obscure releases that there's barely any mention in sources, and its all after the fact. Elverum re-released 5 of the demos on digital (not sure why he didn't do the X-Ray Means Woman one, since it definitely exists), implying that they belong to a set by the same artist. Also, Early Tapes, the compilation of demos by the Microphones includes a track from the Mostly Clouds and Trees release; it kind of just seems like a pseudonym. But I found a source I hadn't seen before X-Ray Means Woman and Mostly Clouds and Trees made way for Elverum to begin naming his project the Microphones after developing an interpersonal relationship with his recording equipment and a deep reward in putting songs to tape. (KEXP, 2020) implying that the 2 demos aren't part of the Microphones. I think I might just remove them, and leave a footnote somewhere. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now removed. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of those two has no source to confirm its existence
  • Note such as "Compilation album of "singles and rarities"." which are not complete sentences so not need full stops
  • Song Islands is listed in the table after a later release
  • Notes a and c don't need full stops
  • Note b should write 2 as a word
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks so much for the comments :). Sorry about the "was released" vs "released" thing, had a brain fart. All the above done except noted. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - never heard of this band/project before I reviewed the list, but off the back of the review I listened to Microphones in 2020 last night and enjoyed it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! That's awesome you checked out that album— it's a great album. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments (Stricken oppose from Indopug)

Oppose as the writer of multiple discography FLs, I have to oppose this on account of the inclusion of the allmusic ratings. It is not standard practice to do so, nor is it a substitute for the band failing to chart (it's fine to just list the releases without any chart positions). Further it encourages pointless discussions like "why Allmusic? Why not Pitchfork too?" etc.—indopug (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug:
I will remove the ratings column if you want to oppose. I just want to present why I added them originally.
The ratings column gives the reader a bit of extra context, (for an artist with rather sparse information) and may give the reader a rough estimate of how the release was received (e.g. given AllMusic has rated the most The Microphones releases than any other publication, an unrated album can give the context that the album's release was not widely spread, e.g. Foghorn Tape)
I don't see why the use of ratings has to be consistent with other articles. Every article is different and has therefore has different best practices. There is nothing in the FL criteria or manual of style that backs up this desire for consistency.
The reason why AllMusic was included—and not, for example, pitchfork—was because it's the publication with the most comprehensive coverage of the discography. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: Sorry for pinging twice, but do you have any response to this? Would you prefer if I remove the columns altogether? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to give readers a little extra context, why not include the allmusic review in the references? The ratings do not give additional context, they just give an arbitrary, subjective assessment expressed in numerical form. On the other hand, the lede and the Description column you already have does a much better job of explaining the band and its records to the reader.—indopug (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: I think I have to agree, thanks for the arguments. I've removed the ratings, are you able to support the FLC now? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sebbirrrr

edit
  • "Mount Eerie is a concept album that portrays a linear storyline." - I'm not sure this is relevant for the discography
  • "has implied that the box set signifies the end of the Microphones" - is there a better way to word this? The source says: "implied that the box set marks the end of the Microphones"
  • The note about the labels is somewhat unnecessary; the readers could go to the album articles to find more about the release history
  • I don't think it's worth mentioning that none of their songs charted as it is obvious from the table itself
  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, the album titles should be italicized in the refs

That's all I have! I'd really appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my current FLC, which is also a discography! Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AJ29

edit

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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/The_Microphones_discography/archive1&oldid=1142000708"