Self nomination I am nominating this list for FLC because I have been worning on it in the last couple of days and it meets all criteria. I don't care for the band's music very much but they are certainly interesting. I retrieved sources for chart positions from 12 different coutries. All comments are welcome. —Burningclean[Speak the truth!] 00:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
Comments Looks pretty good overall. I have a few suggestions:
"Chart positions" is too vague, it should be "Peak chart positions" or "Chart peak positions" or something like that.
It would be nice to see the "Album details" columns in the all of the appropriate tables to be the same width.
I tried. Everything is set to a width of 300 except the studio albums, that is at 10000 but I tried 20000 but it was exactly the same. They are a bit bigger but it seems they aren't getting any bigger than this. —Burningclean[Speak the truth!] 02:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2000px might be a little overkill. I switched everything to 275px. How does that look to you? Drewcifer (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The publisher values of the in-line ciations should avoid .com/.net whatever at the end if it has a proper name w/o the .com, and should also be wikilinked wherever appropriate. For instance "Allmusicguide.com" should be "All Music Guide", "Blabbermouth.net" should be Blabbermouth.net, etc.
One last suggestion: the 2nd paragraph of the lead is ginormous. I'd recommend splitting it up into two paragraphs. Also, the lead does not currently summarize the article very well: it ommits even a mention of music videos, video releases, and B-sides. Drewcifer (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Looking good! Drewcifer (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Slayer's singles didn't chart anywhere. Maybe you can put that somewhere above the table? Looking at the article the way it is now, I suspected the information was simply missing.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I could do that.
Does the tribute album really need a separate category? According to the Undisputed Attitude article, there are also three original songs on it, so in my opinion it fits in the Studio Album category.
It is still a cover album, so no.
A cover album recorded in a Studio, so yes. Please give more arguments than this... --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Studio album implies the major release by the band; into which a lot of marketing etc is put into. Another consideration is that the itself probably doesn't consider this album as a major release; hence its under tribute album. indopug (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are the b-sides listed seperately? Don't they fit nicely as a column in the singles list?
You know, this has always bothered me too with other discographes. Why all the emphasis on B-sides? It's basically stating the track-listing of the single. We tend to discourage putting an entire album's track listing on a discog, so why do the same for a single but in a different table? I guess the notes are somewhat interesting, ie "B-Side X was re-released on Album Y", but I'm not really sure if that's all that informative. Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Some do it, some don't. In the second category, some mention all songs on a b-side, some mention only b-sides that were not on any album. Personally, I would choose between A. putting the b-sides next to the corresponding a-sides in the single table, or B. remove the b-sides table and add a "miscelaneous" table where you put the b-sides that were not on any album (together with other "rare" songs). It's time for some wikipedia standards! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you make that certification column into three sub-columns; for RIAA, BPI and CRIA? If the width of that table spills wide, then you can actually reduce all the album details columns' widths a little bit more; or even remove that Norway chart (there is only one album that charted there).
This article is looking very good; I'll do a ce of the lead myself within a couple of days and support. (So much better when we aren't on opposing sides of an FAC, don't you think? :)) indopug (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I got most of it done. The column widths are a real pain. For some reason they just aren't spilling wide. I can't figure it out. Thanks for the ce. I think by now you know grammer is my weak spot. You are 100% right, discogs are so much easier than articles. :P —Burningclean[Speak the truth!] 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What on earth os up with the live albums' Year column?!indopug (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The Year column of the Live Albums table is really wide.
"The band started to play locally, attracting the attention of Brian Slagel, who signed the band to Metal Blade Records." - is this sentence necessary at all? It adds nothing really important but just complicates matters by adding an additional name. That the band was signed will be evident from the next sentence any way. I've removed it.
Not sure about what's been done to the B-sides; I'd recommend not doing it for AiC discog too because consensus was reached there.
Did a CE; due to the large number of albums, I thought it would be best if it were all in ALBUM (YEAR) format in the lead. What do you think?
aaaaand.... Supportindopug (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
OMG-No-B-Sides-Support - some minor things; in the lead, fix things like "and Hell Awaits(1985)" (needs space). Also, the singles haven't charted anywhere? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Somebody fixed that. Nope, no charted singles. They are the biggest underground band in the world. If that makes sense. Thanks to everyone who participated. —Burningclean[Speak the truth!] 18:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)