Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Harry and the Potters discography/archive2
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 not promoted 05:06, 22 January 2008.
Support as nominator. I am resubmitting this for featured list status once again, as the issue from the previous FLC, length, has been rectified. The issue was length which has been 'fixed' by expanding the Live albums section. This article is now as long or longer than featured lists, Billie Piper discography, The Breeders discography, Dave Gahan discography, Neutral Milk Hotel discography and Uncle Tupelo discography and featured article Exploding whale when it passed. I would greatly appreciate all comments related to this list. Thankyou -- Hpfan9374 (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Unlike the many other FL discographies, statistics like Chart Performance aren't necessary or possible, since Harry and the Potters are by and large an independent band that has never come close to any album/singles charts. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not going to lie, I'm really not a big fan of adding NN things like live recordings to pages just to pad it up so it can reach a certain status. An FL should be Wikipedia's best work, and I fail to see how such fluff can be considered that. -- Scorpion0422 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Scorpion: these do not seem notable enough for the amount of attention they're given. They may be worht mentioning, but certainly not in such an expansive table. Perhaps just a quick bullet pointed list would suffice. As it is, it really does come off as unnecessary padding. Drewcifer (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree Scorpion, the section was taking up a large amount of space with repeated information with "Format: Digital download" and "Label: Internet Archive", and therefore I have altered a suggestion by Drewcifer, to put this in a bulleted list, I have however formatted it into a small table (to hold more information than the title), which takes up the same or slightly more space than the list. Lastly Scorpion what does the abbreviation or word NN mean?? Thank you for your comments. Hpfan9374 (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NN=Non-notable. Hhmmm, I guess I'm ok with what you did there. Though it is a little deceiving: now there's no mention that they're just downloads from Internet Archive. I would recommend adding a bit of introductory text to explain things. However, where are you getting the sales facts? I presume it's at the "Downloaded x times" part? Well first off, those aren't "Sales", they're downloads. Second, they're gonna be immediately out of date if you give an exact number. So say 4,000+ or something like that. Also, the citations should give Internet Archive as the publisher, not "Live Archive". Also, repeated cells in the location row should be merged, like the years column.Drewcifer (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking good. One last thing: Internet Archive should only be wikilinked the first time it's used in a citation. Drewcifer (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks again. Hpfan9374 (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking good. One last thing: Internet Archive should only be wikilinked the first time it's used in a citation. Drewcifer (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NN=Non-notable. Hhmmm, I guess I'm ok with what you did there. Though it is a little deceiving: now there's no mention that they're just downloads from Internet Archive. I would recommend adding a bit of introductory text to explain things. However, where are you getting the sales facts? I presume it's at the "Downloaded x times" part? Well first off, those aren't "Sales", they're downloads. Second, they're gonna be immediately out of date if you give an exact number. So say 4,000+ or something like that. Also, the citations should give Internet Archive as the publisher, not "Live Archive". Also, repeated cells in the location row should be merged, like the years column.Drewcifer (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree Scorpion, the section was taking up a large amount of space with repeated information with "Format: Digital download" and "Label: Internet Archive", and therefore I have altered a suggestion by Drewcifer, to put this in a bulleted list, I have however formatted it into a small table (to hold more information than the title), which takes up the same or slightly more space than the list. Lastly Scorpion what does the abbreviation or word NN mean?? Thank you for your comments. Hpfan9374 (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Scorpion: these do not seem notable enough for the amount of attention they're given. They may be worht mentioning, but certainly not in such an expansive table. Perhaps just a quick bullet pointed list would suffice. As it is, it really does come off as unnecessary padding. Drewcifer (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just like last time. Drewcifer (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for you support and suggestions. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I'm on the fence as far as the nomination is concerned, your comparison to the exploding whale article is... I can't think of a nicer term than "unnecessary", and that's being generous. You're comparing a list to an article that became featured almost 3 1/2 years ago... what bearing does that have on this nomination? How does that article relate to this list, and how do the "brilliant prose" criteria of years ago coincide with today's FL criteria? -- Mike (Kicking222) 16:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the article, Exploding whale, has not been expanded that much. And the point I am trying t prove (how it relates) is that featured articles must be of 'appropraite' length, while featured lists do not, and yet the list is quite near the length of an FA. Also, the article was went under featured article review just last year. Hpfan9374 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The list does fit the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Now, does this list exemplify 'our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation'. While the topic is hardly of great importance, the band is notable enough to be on the cover of my local library's newsletter Summer 2007 'Check it Out'. The list is well constructed and referenced. So, yes, 'Harry and the Potters discography' does exemply the best in Wikipedia lists. By the way, I get the comparison to the Exploding Whale. On Wikipedia as in life, there is a tendency constantly to raise the bar so that what was acceptable last year, is considered dross this year. While reaching for the stars is admirable, such perfectionism can be destructive to a project like Wikipedia: exemplary is not a synonym for perfect. Exemplary means 'so good or admirable that others would do well to copy it'. That is true of this list. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou. Hpfan9374 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as before. Barely notable subject which has not had any critical review/press, hence the linked articles are all bare stub tracklistings. The addition of a list of "live albums", if you can call them that, doesn't help FL status because none of them have wikilinks (and please don't create stub articles for them). A features list should be interesting in and of itself, but also serve to navigate to at least some articles that are worth reading. I'm afraid that a music article with little more content than the back of a CD case doesn't hold my attention for long. I still think this doesn't "exemplifies our very best work", though I think you've done the best you can with the material. Colin°Talk 19:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin, as stated on the top of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates under Supporting and objecting, it states that if you object a nomination you must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. And if a specific rationale is not addressed then, the objection may be ignored. Therefore, I will be striking your vote out unless this specific rationale is provided in 48 hours, unless you wish to strikethough it yourself. Regards --Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it may be ignored, but that is up to the closing editor, who must weigh up consensus opinion and make a judgement as to whether my oppose is spurious. But that clause isn't a "get out of jail free card". Lack of third-party interest in a subject causes a lack of sources causes a lack of much to write. The fact that I'm not going "wow" when I read this isn't your fault, but we don't promote the mediocre just because its the best that you can do with the material. As for strike-through: don't ever touch another person's edits. Make your comment but leave my comments alone. Colin°Talk 23:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to you comment specifically, the subject is notable. It has 23 references, so enough critical review/press. The articles may be stubs but this article is a featured list candidate, not a featured topic candidate. A list does not have to wikilink to various others articles, as sections in Nation of Ulysses discography (Vinyl_EPs) and Lightning Bolt discography (7-inch records. Why does "holding your attention dismiss it from achieving FL. I understand that I have done the best I can with the material, yet if so why doesn't it "exemplify our very best work". I will require a specific rationale and I will be most happy to edit accordingly to achieve your support. Thankyou. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, none of those are critical reviews. The closest you get are the two short popular news stories from MSN and Syracuse.com. There are no independent reviews of the albums or concerts, no serious interviews with the band, no coverage in the established music press. As for the other lists, I didn't support them either and WP:OTHERSTUFF is commonly cited when folk start saying "what about XYZ". Colin°Talk 23:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin, I feel that the best way to put an end to this discussion, is if you could write a list of the specific rationale of what edits are required before the article can recieve your support. I will take any suggestions or comments related to editing the article. Ask yourself whats wrong with article and what can be done to rectify that problem. Thankyou. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I'd made it fairly clear that I think you've done the best you could with the material. I don't subscribe to the view that all topics are featurable (mainly due to the restrictions that WP:V and WP:OR impose on creating something out of nothing.) Colin°Talk 23:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry to have to do this Colin, but as per Wikipedia:Featured list candidates > Supporting and objecting, I am striking through your "Oppose" as you have failed to provide a specific rationale. As you have stated, "I think you've done the best you could with the material", then nothing further can be done editing this article. If there is nothing to expand, reformat or fix then is it not the very best work? Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (undone strikethrough) Hpfan9374, please don't strike through my comments, it is not the done thing on Wikipedia. Those comments are mine to do with what I like. Your opinion that my oppose is invalid has been noted and will be considered by the closing editor. I haven't changed my opinion. Colin°Talk 07:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. However what could I do to receive your support? Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin, I believe I have addressed your concerns by using sixteen third-party sources in the list. If not, could you please provide me with a specific rationale of how I can recieve your "Support." Thankyou! Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (undone strikethrough) Hpfan9374, please don't strike through my comments, it is not the done thing on Wikipedia. Those comments are mine to do with what I like. Your opinion that my oppose is invalid has been noted and will be considered by the closing editor. I haven't changed my opinion. Colin°Talk 07:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry to have to do this Colin, but as per Wikipedia:Featured list candidates > Supporting and objecting, I am striking through your "Oppose" as you have failed to provide a specific rationale. As you have stated, "I think you've done the best you could with the material", then nothing further can be done editing this article. If there is nothing to expand, reformat or fix then is it not the very best work? Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I'd made it fairly clear that I think you've done the best you could with the material. I don't subscribe to the view that all topics are featurable (mainly due to the restrictions that WP:V and WP:OR impose on creating something out of nothing.) Colin°Talk 23:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin, I feel that the best way to put an end to this discussion, is if you could write a list of the specific rationale of what edits are required before the article can recieve your support. I will take any suggestions or comments related to editing the article. Ask yourself whats wrong with article and what can be done to rectify that problem. Thankyou. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, none of those are critical reviews. The closest you get are the two short popular news stories from MSN and Syracuse.com. There are no independent reviews of the albums or concerts, no serious interviews with the band, no coverage in the established music press. As for the other lists, I didn't support them either and WP:OTHERSTUFF is commonly cited when folk start saying "what about XYZ". Colin°Talk 23:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin, as stated on the top of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates under Supporting and objecting, it states that if you object a nomination you must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. And if a specific rationale is not addressed then, the objection may be ignored. Therefore, I will be striking your vote out unless this specific rationale is provided in 48 hours, unless you wish to strikethough it yourself. Regards --Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Colin. This list (according to the Featured List critera) is not "a timeline of important events on a notable topic", nor does it "form a significant topic of study". My opposition is non-negotiable; please do not attempt to assuage the non-notability of this band. NSR77 TC 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NSR77, I still require a specific rationale of how I can rectify the issue. Harry and the Potters are notable, the band have been on a tours in four countries, USA, Canada, UK and the Netherlands. There are no levels of notability, so therefore they are just as notable as other bands, for example, Lightning Bolt, so I ask you why is that "a timeline of important events on a notable topic" and a "form a significant topic of study" and this not? I am more than happy to edit this article to the fullest of my potential in order to recieve your support, yet I require a specific rationale from yourself. Thankyou. Hpfan9374 (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NSR77, I believe I have addressed your concerns by using sixteen third-party sources in the list. If not, could you please provide me with a specific rationale of how I can recieve your "Support." Thankyou! Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per 1a3 "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study" and I'm not entirely convinced that an article about a few albums released by a little known band is a significant topic of study. I'm also not entirely sure why it couldn't be merged with the main Harry and the Potters article. -- Scorpion0422 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It shouldn't be merged with the main article, as it is already reasonably length, merging the discography would not be suitable for a GA. Three users, have opposed this featured length status, however I ask these users, repeating myself, as per Wikipedia:Featured list candidates>Supporting and objecting, you must provide a specific rationale of how your "Oppose" can be changed to a "Support". I can understand why you are opposing the list for this reason, however how can I rectify this or any other issue with this problem - I require a means of knowing how to edit accordingly, a specific rationale. I ask, Scorpion0422, NSR77 and Colin, how can I achieve your support, it is a basic requirement when opposing a list to provide feedback regarding this. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not refer to criteria based opposition. It mainly refers to opposes with comments like "Oppose because it is about Harry Potter", but in this case all three oppose votes are based on the FL criteria. By the way, the WP:FLC page says "If you oppose a nomination, write "Oppose" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." That just says that concerns should be addressable, you are misinterpreting it as saying that all oppose votes MUST be fixable, which is not true. -- Scorpion0422 02:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scorpion, what evidence do you have to support your argument that is does not refer to criteria based opposition? I understand the "Opposes" are based on the FL criteria and yes you must provide a specific rationale, it states that in quote you found at WP:FLC: "If you oppose a nomination, write "Oppose" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." Each wikipedian, that opposes the list, must provide a specific rationale, not as you say, "it should?" where did you find that out, do you have any evidence to support this? And also, where does it say "all oppose votes 'don't have to be' fixable", I am not misinterpreting it, you must provide specific rationale everytime you "Oppose" any FLC whether this be for reasons regarding to the featured list criteria or not. I await your evidence. Hpfan9374 (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on your logic, if a list had no sources whatsoever and there were no sources available, then anyone who opposes the list based on that could be ignored because their comments wouldn't be fixable opposition. The supporting and objecting section is not criteria, it just gives you guidelines for how the process generally works. However, the FL criteria page is criteria and should never be ignored. The three oppose votes here are based on that, so they will not be ignored. Sorry, but that's just the way things work.
- As well, you said that I "must provide specific rationale everytime you "Oppose" any FLC" And I am providing a specific rationale, I am opposing based on criteria 1a3. -- Scorpion0422 05:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for continuing to reply to me, however I require a rationale that can be addressed, not simply the reason for your objection. For example, if a list is does not warrant your "Support", then you should provide a specific rationale, such as:
- Reformat studio albums section, look at other discographies and follow their formatting.
- Reference single charts, from Billboard, UK Charts and Australian Charts websites.
- Use Template:Infobox Artist Discography.
- Once these errors are rectified, I will support the list.
- If you, NSR77 and Colin could please provide me with something like this, I would be very happy to edit the list accordingly. I would thank you all greatly for this. A specific rationale is a requirement. "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." - WP:FLC. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scorpion0422, I believe I have addressed your concerns by using sixteen third-party sources in the list. If not, could you please provide me with a specific rationale of how I can recieve your "Support." Thankyou! Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for continuing to reply to me, however I require a rationale that can be addressed, not simply the reason for your objection. For example, if a list is does not warrant your "Support", then you should provide a specific rationale, such as:
- Scorpion, what evidence do you have to support your argument that is does not refer to criteria based opposition? I understand the "Opposes" are based on the FL criteria and yes you must provide a specific rationale, it states that in quote you found at WP:FLC: "If you oppose a nomination, write "Oppose" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." Each wikipedian, that opposes the list, must provide a specific rationale, not as you say, "it should?" where did you find that out, do you have any evidence to support this? And also, where does it say "all oppose votes 'don't have to be' fixable", I am not misinterpreting it, you must provide specific rationale everytime you "Oppose" any FLC whether this be for reasons regarding to the featured list criteria or not. I await your evidence. Hpfan9374 (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not refer to criteria based opposition. It mainly refers to opposes with comments like "Oppose because it is about Harry Potter", but in this case all three oppose votes are based on the FL criteria. By the way, the WP:FLC page says "If you oppose a nomination, write "Oppose" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." That just says that concerns should be addressable, you are misinterpreting it as saying that all oppose votes MUST be fixable, which is not true. -- Scorpion0422 02:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Very few independent reliable sources. References to self-published sources, Myspace and unreliable sources are abound in this article. I conclude that, if there is a lack of third-party sources, it doesn't qualify as a "significant topic of study" (so I oppose per criteria 1a3 and 1c).
The way to address this objection to either find or wait for third-party sources to become available; unfortunately, not every objection to a candidacy can be addressed within the timeframe given. CloudNine (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much CloudNine, you have provided me with a rationale as to how I can address your "Oppose" and how I can rectify the others problems also. I will research into their discography more, to find third-party sources and then implement them into this list, it will however 'due to time restrictions' probably have to be when it is nominated again. Thankyou very much. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would appreciate any further comments or suggestions regarding to edit this article. Whether this be formatting, lead, references, etc. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now edited the references, with sixteen reliable sources. If there are any problems with a reference specifically or in general could you please reply. CloudNine, I believe I have adressed yours and everyone elses concerns, if not, could you please reply with a specific rationale. Thankyou! Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wizrockopedia.com, blogspot.com are both not reliable sources. CommonDreams.org is a press release. The Leaky Cauldron is a fansite. WizardRock.org is a blog. Also, a lot of the information isn't cited; for example, the date of Power of Love's release isn't cited in ref 9. CloudNine (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I think I will have to do further research and wait until reliable sources become available. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wizrockopedia.com, blogspot.com are both not reliable sources. CommonDreams.org is a press release. The Leaky Cauldron is a fansite. WizardRock.org is a blog. Also, a lot of the information isn't cited; for example, the date of Power of Love's release isn't cited in ref 9. CloudNine (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now edited the references, with sixteen reliable sources. If there are any problems with a reference specifically or in general could you please reply. CloudNine, I believe I have adressed yours and everyone elses concerns, if not, could you please reply with a specific rationale. Thankyou! Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would appreciate any further comments or suggestions regarding to edit this article. Whether this be formatting, lead, references, etc. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.