Jump to content

Talk:Devin Townsend discography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former FLCDevin Townsend discography is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 16, 2009Featured list candidateNot promoted
July 6, 2009Featured list candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured list candidate

Sections

[edit]

I think the page would benefit if each band was listed chronologically, it would represent the bands of Devin's/that he was in, and then group together guesting and appearances. just a couple of tweaks ;) Yellowxander (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epicloud UK official chart entry - 61 in top 100

[edit]

Could somebody add Devin Townsend Project's entry in the UK Official Charts on 06/10/2012 http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/devin%20townsend%20project --Scratchy7929 02:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Page layout

[edit]

Hi, I have combined all the albums into 2 main sections because the page was like a maze finding anything, does anyone have any comments on the page? Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand why you did it, the fact is that Devin has performed and recorded under a variety of aliases for a reason. Each of them deserves recognition on their own merit. The DTP was founded for a purpose, has released 5 albums and 2 box sets, and deserves recognition as an entity in its own right. DTB was pretty much created to serve as the umbrella term for Devin's solo work, and released two albums before he called time on both it and SYL. And SYL has featured on numerous non-SYL albums - "Detox" was on both Official Bootleg and, along with "Love?", The Retinal Circus, for example. And who knows how far Casualties of Cool will go as a unit? I think it better that they be seperated, or at the very least identified, by the name under which they were recorded.Morogth (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think the layout looked better before. DTB, DTP, and CoC are all their own separate projects and should not have been combined like that. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page was all of a jumble before and was puzzling finding anything, I agree with Morogth about each release deserves there own recognition, which is why I have made it very clear in the notes section for each release what is released as (The Devin Townsend Band) or whatever it was released as. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How was it in any way "puzzling"? The Table of Contents was good for finding information on whichever specific project you wanted to read. Click on the correct link, go to the correct section, done. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To start of with there was a section titled "solo work" which is incorrect as all of these bands are Devin Townsend's solo work, then there was loads of little sections that were unneeded? Then the infobox was all incorrect (listing 2 EPs when there's 3 for example.) I have made it clear in the notes section what the album was released as and have made all the albums easier to view and the edits were made nearly a month ago, why all of a sudden the rejection? Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because at the time, you were busy edit warring with everyone, so I backed off so that I would not end up being blocked for that as well. Now that this is no longer an issue, I feel comfortable with voicing my disagreement with these changes. Perhaps the layout wasn't the best before, but I really think the separately named projects should be under their own main headings, as this makes navigation of the list much easier for anyone looking for a specific project. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made mistakes in the past and I have learnt from them and I am willing to discuss this page with you, how do you suggest it is changed? Lukejordan02 (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A reversion to the previous page layout, splitting Devin's discography into its individual bands and projects, would be a start. I looked at the history of this page. You made major, sweeping changes to the layout of this entire page without any discussion with other users of Wikipedia whatsoever. One could consider that particularly arrogant and self-serving; given that Wikipedia is a community-driven internet resource, such huge changes deserve to be discussed, instead of instigated with little to no consideration for the opinions of other users. At this point, the best course of action would be initially to revert the page to the previous layout, then open a new discussion on this talk page as to what, if any, changes should be made. A consensus should be reached upon which the majority agree, and any changes agreed upon should be implemented. You may have found the page a jumble, but you do not speak for everybody. Morogth (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly you have had nearly a month to mention this to me but haven't, and secondly how the fuck did I not consider other users when I blatantly did by mentioning it on here so anyone can comment which I am open to, but cut the attitude. I am willing to discuss but simply reverting back to please you would not help the page, you say it was better before I say it's better now what makes your opinion more important than mine? MrMoustacheMM if you want to discuss a consensus agreement and come up with a new layout to suite both points. Lukejordan02 (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the matter of having had "nearly a month to mention this," your point rests upon the notion that I monitor the page daily. As much of a Devin Townsend fan as I am, there are other matters in my life to which I also give my attention - I don't watch this page 24/7. As for your mentioning your changes on this talk page, that's all well and good, but given how substantial your changes have been, it would have been more appropriate to open the discussion BEFORE such major alterations, so as to determine the consensus view. The reason I suggest a reversion to the page's previous state is not, as you claim, due to my personal preference, but rather because you heavily altered the layout of the page, and its content, without first discussing it with Wikipedia's users. Common decency, not to mention Wikipedia's own guidelines, would indicate that the proper procedure is to discuss the matter and come to a consensus - not to fundamentally alter the content and layout of the page to, as you yourself put it, "please you". If the consensus view favours the layout you have implemented, then I'm perfectly happy with that. If the consensus favours the previous layout then I would hope and expect that you would accept it as gracefully. Of course, if there's a way to find the best of both worlds, I'm sure you'll agree that would be much more helpful. Morogth (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it is good to discuss edits but if everyone discussed edits but making them Wikipedia wouldn't work because half of the edits would never get done, my edits were made in the best interests of the page (I mean does it really matter to me what the page looks like) but I don't see how reverting to edits before will make it better. If someone would have reverted straight away then fair enough but the fact that these edits were made a while back and no one has felt the need to revert them means that can't be that bad. Like I said I am willing to discuss any changes and a completly new layout would probably be the best outcome. Lukejordan02 (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that discussing every edit on Wikipedia would be futile - some edits are merely for spelling and grammar, others to add and update information on the given topic. It's a matter of scale, and on this occasion the scale of the change is such that it warranted discussion first. As for the time between the changes being made and said changes being questioned, it again comes down to how often the page is frequented, as well as whether people choose to speak up to voice their opinion or avoid the issue so as not to make a fuss. However, the issue now is not whose daddy is bigger, but what needs to be done to improve the layout of the page to suit as many people as possible. I've no doubt there are several people who prefer the layout you implemented; likewise, there will be many who prefer the prior layout. So, how best to combine the two? Morogth (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being understanding and for discussing the matter with me, I can see you mean well and want what's best for the page as do I, can I make a suggest that we both come up with a new layout for the page that serves best for both sides, thank you. Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. First thing we should do is revert to the original version. This is not because it should stay like that (I agree that some changes need to be made to that original version), but Morogth is right, these major, sweeping changes should have been discussed prior to being made. I completely understand that you have corrected your previous mistaken editing habits, which is why I said I no longer feel uncomfortable discussing this. Had there not have been those issues at the time you made these changes to this page, I would have reverted then, but you and I both know how that would have turned out at that time.

So at this point, I suggest we revert to how it was, then we start consolidating sections that should be consolidated (as you would like to be done), while keeping larger projects (SYL, DTB, DTP, and possibly CoC, possibly not; but overall the named projects) separate. This can be done by discussion on this talk page. Anyone involved can make a proposal, everyone can discuss it, and everyone (myself included) will need to accept some compromises on some issues. Are we all in agreement that this is a good way to restart this work, so it will be done properly this time? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I agree. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. At the very least, a much more efficient and aesthetically pleasing table, which could be sorted by a number of fields such as release date, band identity or release type, could be a step in the right direction. Morogth (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Devin Townsend discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Devin Townsend discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Devin Townsend discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Devin_Townsend_discography&oldid=1206952633"