Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mark Lanegan discography

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 User:The Rambling Man 13:19, 22 July 2008 [1].

Mark Lanegan discography[edit]

Nominating it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki
  • Comment The tables aren't aligned, there are two directors for the music videos that were missing and the first word of a sentence so that I know has to be capitalized (comments column). Cannibaloki 22:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible to find not kiding used three hours on it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • "succsess" → "success"
  • Peak chart positions in all tables should be in one of two orders:
  • Independent → Us Ind..
  • US charts → All other charts (alphabetically). or
  • US charts → English language charts (alphabetically) → Foreign language charts (alphabetically)
  • The tables aren't aligned.
  • I don't understand why the table that is With The Gutter Twins this writing ["—" denotes albums that were released but did not chart.], if all did chart.
  • ["—" denotes albums that were released but did not chart.] is a little redundant. Can an album not be released and not chart? Write ["—" denotes a release that did not chart.]
  • In Collaborations table, all albums titles should be in italic.

Cannibaloki 15:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support Good work. I made some changes in order to help you improve the quality of this list, I understand that you are experiencing difficulties in some things. If you agree with my changes in this discography give you support, if not explain why. Cannibaloki 17:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support and its always nice to get help from a user with two FL, and its true that i'm experiencing difficulties in some things. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments
    • "As of August 2004" - why not as of July 2008? especially when you go on to say "In May 2008 Lanegan and Isabel released Sunday at Devil Dirt."(DONE)
    • "and didn't chart" - "but did not chart"?(DONE)
    • " a hugh success" hey?(DONE)
    • Image caption is a fragment so remove period.(DONE)
    • You have a section called "With The Gutter Twins" but you don't mention them in the lead.(DONE)
    • "to influence a music chart." do you mean it actually entered the charts?(DONE)
    • Missing director for the 2004 videos.
Impossible to find. Tried for hours. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Avoid links in the headings.(DONE)
    • 2001 in collab table is left aligned.(DONE)
    • As are most years in the other appearances table.(DONE)
    • "(Willie Nelson tribute album)" parentheses, not italic, "Tim Buckley tribute album" no parentheses, not italic, "(The Kinks tribute album)" parentheses, italic. Pick one style.(DONE)
    • Which reference contains the collaborations and other appearances?(DONE)

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments-
    • Are there any references to reliable sources that verify the release dates of the albums?(DONE)
    • Where are the refs to the collaborations and other appearances?(DONE)
  • In the lead, In 2006, Lanegan released Ballad of the Broken Seas with Isobel Campbell, which became a hugh success, there is a typo of "huge".(DONE)

--SRX 14:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to reference the dates for the albums. I haven't seen it anywhere else on Wikipedia too. indopug (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you use ref [15] over 20 times, if you are going to use it for the collaborations for each one, just use it as a general ref in the column.SRX 16:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting indopug - is that like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Why wouldn't we need to provide reference for these facts? If they are disputable they should be cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its not disputable enough to have cite right next to it. More often than not there are general references included in the article that would give you the release date. Here for example, the Allmusic link. Or any books that were written on the band. indopug (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm disputing it and I'll be bringing it up at WP:DISCOG. Definitive date claims should be referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The links to Allmusic, I think it resolves the problem, because the other discographies not have references to the dates. Not that I am saying it is unnecessary, but is very strange! All release dates very loaded with references... Cannibaloki 17:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) not sure. The Winding Sheet has a release date of 1990 on allmusic, not July 1990. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And allmusic and discogs disagree with each other about Whiskey For The Holy Ghost - so it's not right yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Winding Sheet release date at the record label's page [2]. indopug (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And where does that particular reference appear in the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this page (Sub Pop releases) could be added as a general reference at the bottom. indopug (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well there does seem to be a general problem with conflicting information in the various sources provided (and even those sources require a certain amount of delving into to get the info needed). Perhaps this should be discussed at WP:DISCOG too? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the existence of conflicting information, but in the case of Allmusic vs Discogs above, Discogs is a commercial, user-contributed non-RS, while Allmusic is an excellent RS. Another thing you need to consider is that albums are released n number of times in n different formats, but at Wikipedia, we are mostly concerned with the original release date (that's what is in the discography). indopug (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so if you're saying Discogs is not RS then it should be removed immediately from all discographies. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind; but its always just used as a EL, not a reference. indopug (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should we be linking to non-reliable external links? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
External links are governed by WP:EL rather than WP:RS. Besides, Discogs is used everywhere in Wikipedia (music articles), not just discographies. I remember asking for its removal from the EL at an FAC, and the editor pointed out that discogs had its own template. While I couldn't care less about the site being in/excluded in the EL, I guess you could argue that it provides extra information (album art, release details, versions) well enough. indopug (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Presumably fine if WP:DISCOGS are happy with conflicting information from non-RS to be used. Seems a little odd to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • I didn't say remove the caption altogether.(DONE)
    • Rated R leads to a disambiguation page. (DONE)
    • "who is best known as the vocalist" - best-known.(DONE)
    • The following "claims" need citation.(DONE)
      • "who is best known as the vocalist"(DONE)
      • ", the band broke up due to internal strife over its creative direction. "(DONE)
      • "which became a commercial success."(DONE)
    • Who is "Isabel"? Do you mean Isobel? In which case you should refer to her as Campbell. This is an encyclopaedia.(DONE)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support:
    • I am concerned about the way you are including Mark Lanegan's work with other bands. These FA rated lists feature artists who have contributed to another album, and album data has not been ripped wholesale from respective discographies: 50 Cent discography and Róisín Murphy discography (from Moloko).
Are whole albums appropriate for listing when Lanegan has contributed to only one or two songs.
If your talking about the Quenns of The Stone Age section he was a member of the band it wasn't a collaboration. So yes it needs to stay. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But then that would be exclusively QOTSA discography. Is this Mark Lanegan as a solo artist, or all Mark Lanagen's "contributions" to other artists. Does this come under his discography. I think this list is very good, but I reiterate, does this other work come under the remit of this list? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well QOTSA aside (That could redirect to their discography), surely Lanegan's work with other bands means he's a special case? He's a fellow who essentially is famous for his collaborations and his recent works have been full albums with acts like Soulsavers or people like Greg Dulli and Isobel Campbell. Just as important have these there as it is his proper solo work. Red157(talk • contribs) 15:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is to say, why aren't individual songs listed? Is this within the remit of the discography?

    • "Rolling Stone Magazinw"(DONE)
    • "He released his first solo album" Should be a proper para before this.(DONE)
    • Your para summarising releases is not long enough considering the number of albums released
    • Music videos needs cites(DONE)
    • Who directed""Hit the City"?(DONE)

That's all. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments part III
    • "...six solo albums and one EP as a solo artist..." - solo repeated. Suggest "six albums and one EP as a solo artist". (DONE)
    • Remove the full stop in the image caption - the caption is a sentence fragment so doesn't need full stop. (DONE)
    • " first album to Chart" - why capitalise chart? (DONE)
    • "which he'd become " - he had. Avoid contractions. (DONE)
    • "They would release", "which would peak"... why not just "they released" and "which peaked" etc? (DONE)
    • "which became a commercial success" - no reference for this and it's POV - who said it was a success? (DONE)
    • What makes "With Isobel Campbell" not a "Collaboration" per your sections?(Because its a sideproject and sometime its even called a band)
    • Other appearances table, year column, not all years are aligned correctly.
    • Appearances has citations against the Album, Collaborations is against the With. Why? (DONE)
    • "Lanegan sang 8 of 10 tracks on this LP" is not a song, as far as I can tell.(DONE)
    • And it probably means that Song (in the col heading) should be Song(s).(DONE)
    • What makes zobbel.de reliable?(Has just the same chart positions as Charts Stats and Everyhit which is considered reliable)
    • Your references using {{cite web}} seem to need overhauling, for example the "Charles Mehling videography" has the same link title as actual title and doesn't mention www.clipland.com - and what makes that a reliable source? (DONE)
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Other appearances" year column is still buggered. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still not working in my browser - some of the years aren't aligned. And now the collaborations table extends too far across the page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Why all references for the other appearances were missing?

Cannibaloki 19:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments part IV
    • "which peaked at 191 on the UK Albums Chart and became Lanegan's first album to chart." I'd reverse this, say it was the first album to chart and then say where and at what number.(DONE)
    • The infobox says 6 singles, the list contains 10.(DONE)
    • The infobox says 5 videos, the list contains 6.(DONE)
    • Why is "Soulsavers" in italics?(DONE)
    • "Song (s)" why the space?(DONE)
    • Why use Zobbel if, as you say, other reliable sources exist?(DONE)
    • Same for clipland?(Why not use these ones when they are reliable)
    • You use the Rolling Stone link for referencing the collaborations - the collaborations are not referenced in that link.(DONE)
    • Only The Grunge Years is referenced by ref [22]. None of the other "other appearances" are referenced at all.(DONE)
    • You individually reference "Creature with the Atom Brain" but none of the other "other appearances". Why not?(DONE)
    • Two references discuss the "Mark Lanegan Band" but this is not mentioned in this list at all.(DONE)
    • One ref says "Hit the City" was featured PJ Harvey, this isn't mentioned in this list.(DONE)
    • Ref [13] does not say anything about Lanegan - it's a general link to chartstats homepage. Not good enough. In fact, most of your specific references are not specific at all, they link to generic chart/award homepages. You ought to be much more specific for these to remain as "specific (DONE)(DONE)references". For example, instead of linking http://finnishcharts.com/, why not link http://finnishcharts.com/search.asp?search=mark+lanegan&cat=s (for singles) or (DONE)http://finnishcharts.com/search.asp?cat=a&search=mark+lanegan (for albums)? (DONE)
    • Ramblin' Man and Honey Child... are not mentioned at all in reference [14]. (DONE)
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments V
    • Typo in second general ref.(DONE)
    • Ref [1] is not called "All music" it's "Mark Lanegan Biography".(DONE)
    • Ref [9] is non-specific.(DONE)
    • Refs [14] and [15] need more explicit titles as they current look identical.(DONE)
    • Refs [31] to [33] don't need Allmusic as the author.(DONE)
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments VI
    • Any reason why "other appearances" isn't in the infobox like it is for the Screaming Trees?(DONE)
    • "This is a discography of"... dull, try something more interesting, like "The discography of Mark Lanegan consists of..."(DONE)
    • EP should say "Extended Play (EP)" on the first occasion so we all know what an EP is.(DONE)
    • Second General reference still has a typo.""Mark Lanegan – Full Lenghts" Lengths I presume.(DONE)
    • Ref 9 is still non-specific - it doesn't reference what you're telling me it references.(DONE)
      • Not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you can't fix it then you need another reference - I have no idea how to get the information you're referencing from that link. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 15 is called "Chart Log UK - 1994–2006, Chris C. – CZR"(DONE)
    • Ref 14 is called "Chart Log UK - 1994–2006, DJ Steve L. – LZ Love"(DONE)
    • Ref 4 still points to a non-specific page.(DONE)
      • You use ref 4 for EU chart placings in 2006 and 2008 - they're not in that reference at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, your use of ref 4 in the lead is incorrect, the 2008 album release is not mentioned in the reference either.(DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 5 is non-specific - you need a reference which states clearly that Lanegan was nominated for a Mercury music award, not just link to the Mercury's homepage.(DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of comments
    • Typo in second General ref is 'still there despite you telling me it was fixed twice.(DONE)
    • Ref 5 is called "Arctic Monkeys win Mercury prize ", it has a date as well, so update the {{cite web}} template accordingly.(DONE)
    • Ref 14 still not correctly named.(DONE)
    • Ref 9 is inadequate - it doesn't point to the right info and it's in German which makes it very hard to find the info. You must provide a good URL or replace it with another reference.(DONE)
    • Ref 4 in the lead doesn't reference the 2008 release.(DONE)
    • Refs 21 and 22 don't explicitly say it was the highest chart position, it says what position it was on the first week of release.(SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE BILLBOARD, IT HAS MANY OF THESE MISTAKES)
      • So find another reference please.(THATS THE ONLY)
    • Ref 4 has Billboard as a wikilinked work while Refs 21 & 22 have it as an unlinked publisher - be consistent.(DONE)
      • Ref 6 now links Billboard but as a publisher rather than a work.(DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some Allmusic's are linked in the references, some aren't - be consistent.(DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary II
    • Ref 5 needs to have the date of publication of the BBC article added. (DONE)
    • You're still linking [22] and [23] to Billboard references which don't explicitly state these are the top chart positions. Not good enough. (ITS NOT THEIR I DELETED IT)
    • Saturnalia (Gutter Twins album) is now referenced but doesn't appear in this list? (NOT A MARK LANEGAN SOLO ALBUM)
      • What? Nor is Ballad of the Broken Seas or Sunday at Devil Dirt but they're in this list...(DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ref 10 is German so use a language=german in the ref. And the title is "Chartverfolgung / LANEGAN,MARK & BAND / Longplay ", not the one you currently have. (DONE)
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why "other appearances" isn't in the infobox like it is for the Screaming Trees? (SE YOUR TALK PAGE) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repeat, why isn't it in the infobox? Like you've got Albums, EPs, Singles, etc, why not Other appearances? (DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 24 and 14 do not mention Gutter Twins at all. (DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5 needs the date to be added from the BBC article (for the third time of asking). (DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 22 July 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/Mark_Lanegan_discography&oldid=1126721834"