Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Breeders discography
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 14:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another discography from Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music. I've spent the last few days working on this, and I reckon it meets the featured list criteria. Note that information concerning The Breeders' first two music videos is unavailable, and the source for UK singles that placed below 40 on the charts is now unavailable. (There's a new site being built at uk-charts.com, and UK positions will be added ASAP). Support. CloudNine 11:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The US chart placings for the single seem be referring to the Modern Rock Tracks charts. Make this clearer. Also, include all American chart placings ("Cannonball" made it onto the Top 50 of the singles charts, for one) WesleyDodds 23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've addressed your comments. CloudNine 09:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you got some of the numbers mixed up (according to Billboard "Cannonball" peaked at number 44, not number 8). I would fix it, but dealing with chart scripts scares me. WesleyDodds 10:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Turns out I entered the chart positions in the wrong place in the table. CloudNine 10:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you got some of the numbers mixed up (according to Billboard "Cannonball" peaked at number 44, not number 8). I would fix it, but dealing with chart scripts scares me. WesleyDodds 10:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've addressed your comments. CloudNine 09:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The opening sentence seems self referencing. Other than that, its a good write. Ceoil 15:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All featured discographies (and most featured lists) have a few self-references. I rewrote the first sentence to exclude the self-ref, and it actually reads better. CloudNine 16:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Ceoil 19:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no rationale for fair use image. --Brandt Luke Zorn 02:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Thanks for pointing that out! CloudNine 09:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Especially seeing as my one point was rendered irrelevant below anyway. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speaking of the image, I think it's generally a no-no to have fair-use images in discographies. I know it's a fine line between using a fair-use image in the article introduction vs in the list of albums/releases and what not, but I don't think it's allowed. I brought this exact quesion up at WP:FUC and got this response. Drewcifer 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed it for now. However, there's nothing on Flickr that illustrates the band sufficiently, so I guess there's no image for now. CloudNine 18:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great. Only (minor) issue is the first External link is strangely named. Is that their official site? What the hell is 4AD? Just say official site or something. Drewcifer 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 4AD is their record label. WesleyDodds 08:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've made various edits to make it closer to our existing lists and I think it lives up to the standard. Do we have any image for the lead? (apparently now, damn. An image of the collected discography, i.e. on a shelf, would be cool, though.) Circeus 01:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]