Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Maroon 5 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:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [1].

Maroon 5 discography

[edit]

Previous FLC

This is a self-nomination. All comments from previous FLC have been addressed, and that's why I'm re-submitting the list for FL. After working for the past few days, I feel that it now meets the FL criteria. I would appreciate some suggestions for improvement. RaNdOm26 (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The third paragraph of the lead does not have a reference.
  • It seems the reviewers in the previous nom had problems with the different colors. I see there's only a rainbow in the infobox, so I'm OK with that.
  • You link to RIAA certification, but you don't say what it means. Also, what does "Platinum" mean? I would like to see that explanation, in the lead.
  • Instead of saying "Label: J Records, Octone Records" and so on, maybe you could change to Record Company? Label doesn't seem very clear.
  • Your little note at the bottom of the table "—" indicates albums that did not chart." "Chart" is definitely not a verb. Change it.

That's all, I think. Noble Story (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick little note. This discog is built based on other discogs, specifically featured ones. Simply linking to RIAA is standard. "Label" is the standard field, and the dash and note about charting is used in all discographies as well. Chart in this case is a verb. To chart is to appear on the charts. Hope that clears up any confusion. Lara❤Love 13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support After a fresh look, I'd say the discography is looking pretty nice. I'm still not a fan of the points column, and would still recommend taking it out, but that won't stop me from supporting. Good work! Drewcifer (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Oppose for now:

  • Kara's Flowers should be wikilinked
  • In the sentence with all the band member's names, I'd recommend trying to get rid of the stuff in parenthesis by saying "on drums" or "playing drums" or something like that. 4 parenthesis in the same sentence is a little distracting. Same thing with the slash in "lead vocals/guitar". There's also an extra "lead".
  • "which failed to sell well commercially" is somewhat POV. Could you reword it to "which failed to chart." or something like that?
  • "The band left their record label in order to explore other musical styles." Kind if a sentence fragment.
  • "Their debut single "Harder to Breathe", released in 2003, slowly gained airplay, which helped propel the album into the top 20 of the Billboard 200." Somewhat awkward, mainly because of all the commas.
  • "a short live album" "short" is unnecessary here, as well as being relative.
  • In the lead and Other albums table "Live – Friday the 13th" uses the wrong dash.
  • Is it really important to the topic that their live album was of a performance in Santa Barbara? Consider the broader topic at hand (their overall body of work, not necessarily the details of this single release).
  • Not really sure why the Notes columns have small font.
  • Similar notes should probably be kept together (ie the sale should probably be mentioned one after the other, then certifications.
  • If data isn't available, don't bother putting "n/a".
  • Multi platinum multipliers should be "×" not an "x".
  • What the heck is a "Point"?
  • The dashes aren't necessary in the certification column (and maybe the point column?)
  • The upcoming single shouldn't have "TBA" for the charts. Since the single hasn't been released yet, just leave it blank.
  • Allmusic should be wikilinked in citation #1. Drewcifer (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • B-Sides are generally discorouged in discogs. This is a discography, not a songography.
  • MVDBase isn't a reliable source. It's usually ok to leave directors columns unreferenced, since the video itself acts as its own reference.
  • Discogs is also not a reliable source.
  • I've adressed your comments and fixed them in the list, but I have questions for some.
  • The points are directly sourced from the United World Chart. There's an explanation about what it is and how its calculated over here: United World Chart#Track Chart. Should I make a link to it or something? IMO, the points are quite useful.
  • Has there been a consensus about B-Sides? I notice a number of FL discos have B-Sides, so I'm not sure if they should be deleted. Is there a guideline? I notice Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style but it's not yet a guideline.
  • I don't really agree that the video itself acts as its own source. I'll try to find other news sources to compensate for the MVDbase source. RaNdOm26 (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. To repond to your comments above:

  • The B-sides thing is not official yet, but I think there's a growing consensus against them. The FL discogs that do have them are fairly old, and will probably need to be cleaned up when and if the guidline becomes official. So, at the moment I'm just suggesting it based on what seems to be an ongoing trend.
  • The points thing still confuses me. A wikilink would be nice, but the UWC page doesn't really help much. Do you think you could redo that section a little bit to make it clearer? I know that's not actually part of this list, but it would be helpful.
  • The music videos sourcing themselves is mainly because most music videos have the credits on them. Much like we don't need to source who performed on an album or who acted in a movie. But hey, it never hurts to add sources, so if you can find something reliable go ahead and add it.

Also, I have a few more suggestions:

  • U.S. or US. Stay consistent.
  • "and attended college to explore many musical styles." seems somewhat irrelevant (at leas the many musical styles part).
  • Citatrion #20 has an errant=. Drewcifer (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've addressed your new concerns, although the first seems to have already been taken care of. Lara❤Love 13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. I've gone and removed the MVDbase source, and add many reliable sources for the music video directors. Apparently, all the discogs sources and B-sides are now gone. I've made a little adjustment at the UWC page regarding points, hopefully making it a little clearer. So far, everything's done. :) RaNdOm26 (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely looking better. Few more things I've noticed:

  • The charts should be in the following order: home country, other countries by alphabetical order, world-wide. see WP:CHARTS.
  • There's some pretty random italicizations in the citations. MAgazines should be ital, but not website names.
  • I think "Points" should be wikilinked in the column, in the same way certifications is linked.
  • Certifications shouldn't have a dash, just leave them blank. ("Sunday Morning")
  • Numbers like "8 million" should have an   between 8 and million.
    • Actually, so should things like "5x platinum".
  • The date in the infobox should be American style. Drewcifer (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this. A point though: the website names are italicised is because they are in the "Work" parameter in {{cite web}} as opposed to the "Publisher" parameter, but I'll change them to "Publisher" to remove the italics. RaNdOm26 (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Few more minor things I noticed:

  • All Music Guide is now Allmusic. And citation #7 should be fixed to be consistent with the other cases of the same website.
  • I have to agree with indopug, the points thing just isn't doing it for me. Like indopug pointed out, it applies to only one chart, and I still find it confusing. I still have no idea what it means, to be honest, and the wikilink was only a little helpful. Drewcifer (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support As much as I hate this band, I must say that this is looking rather excellent, what with the sales figures and all. Any, what is the "Points" in the Singles table? It seems specific to one chart (UWC) and since that chart already has a column, I'd say this Points column is unnecessary and would suggest its removal. Two columns for a single chart seems to give undue importance to the UWC. Combine the two adjacent Sophie Mullers into one row. One word of advice, if you've moved around the chart columns (top alphabetize), error might have crept in. Just check it briefly with the original sources. indopug (talk) 09:04, 21 May 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/Maroon_5_discography&oldid=1126721830"