Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Depeche Mode 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 04:22, 23 February 2008.

Depeche Mode discography[edit]

It would appear that this is a complete, accurate list of all records released by this influential and long-standing pop-group. Sunil060902 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
Oppose For the following reasons:
  • The lead is way too short.
>Check! (I think!) Sunil060902 (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tables could be organized much better. The majority of my complaints stem from the list looking unlike the majority of other FL discographies. Also note that I realize much of this list is designed to look exactly like Dave Gahan discography, which is featured. However, I opposed its nomination then, so I would obviously oppose this nomination as well. So, some examples of what I mean:
  • "Charts" is too vague, as is "Chart positions" in the singles table. It's the peak position on a given chart, so "Peak chart positions" of "Chart peak positions" is more accurate.
>Check! Sunil060902 (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Switzerland abbreviated as SUI? I'm sure there's a logical reason, but most FL discogs use SWI, and that is the most logical English-language abbreviation.
>Check! Sunil060902 (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charts should come before Certifications.
>Check! Sunil060902 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The charts column could be organized better: instead of saying "BPI certification"/"RIAA certification"/"CRIA certification" in every single row, just divide the Certifications column into three separate columns, one for BPI, one for RIAA, one for CRIA. Then at the top, wikilink Certifications to be more clear. At the top of each column, wikilink as such: UK, US, CAN. Also, any column-wide references (RIAA and CRIA all share the same sources), one citation at the top would suffice for the whole column.
>Check! Sunil060902 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
>BPI dealt with, will have to reformat the AMG. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
>AMG now dealt with! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely looking better! Here's a few more things: the lead's looking better, but it introduces the topic a little odd. First, the bolding in two paragraphy is really strange. Second, the first paragraph should mention first and foremost what the article is about: their discography. The band's history is second to stating that it is a discography and expounding upon that. The very last citation is from Discogs, which isn't a reliable source. And I think that about does it. Drewcifer (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
>Lead improved (I think!), Discogs replaced with IMDB. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is looking better, though IMDB isn't a reliable source either... and I don't think Yahoo music is either. Drewcifer (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would you define as 'reliable sources'? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that complies to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. And my mistake, NSR77 is correct, Yahoo! Music is reliable. So that just leaves IMDB. Drewcifer (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo! Music is definitely a reliable source. NSR77 TC 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've reinstated the Yahoo link for the box sets. Modern Girls is a bit problematic, so deleted the link and left the Wiki through to the film article on here, best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All of my suggestions have been taken into account. Great list! Drewcifer (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just realized something else. What's with all the blank spaces in the chart cells? I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable reason (ie their downloadable songs, limited release, etc, etc), but the dashes are meant to cover those kinds of things too. Drewcifer (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't start the discography article off, but I presume the Dashes indicate release without charting, and Spaces are for "no release" in that country. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that does make sense. But what about the German cell for the greatest hits album? Drewcifer (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this was released in the old East Germany - I wouldn't think chart info was/is that freely available for that regime! Though it must exist somewhere. I presume 81-85 was the release in the old West Germany. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm reasonably sure that the original version of "Strangelove" did not chart on the Modern Rock Charts (the chart did not exist until the following year; if anything it was probably "Strangelove '88"). "World in My Eyes" was a single from Violator but is not indicated as such. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
> "World In My Eyes" sorted! Sunil060902 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
> "Strangelove" (1987) sorted for US Mod Rock, definitely not in list of #1s, definitely started in second half of 1988. Need more info for the '88 mix, so left it blank for now. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I recall "Strangelove '88" was an American-only remix single, released because they thought the song should've done better in America (and the remix did indeed chart higher). WesleyDodds (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case probably wasn't in US Mod Rock - it's in Dance, where I would have thought it would have been best suited, agree? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to do everything??? (Kidding!) Sunil060902 (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone's gone and done it :) Sunil060902 (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments sorry I'm late but some bits to think about...
    • "comprehensive" in the opening sentence is unnecessary - this is an encyclopaedic article heading for FL so it's self-evident it should be comprehensive!
> removed!
    • "Depeche Mode are one of the longest-lived, most successful and influential bands to have emerged from the New Romantic and New Wave era." in the lead - needs citation really otherwise it's WP:OR.
? I think the discography speaks for itself, no?
No - I can't tell the band were influential from bare statistics. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
> OK, I have excised the statement from the lead. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may have missed it but why not have one of those neat little infoboxes which summarises all the releases?
X OK considering it
> Check! (inserted info box) Sunil060902 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "(giving them more charting singles without a number one hit than any other artist)" - needs citation.
X will have to dig this one out
> Reluctantly, I will remove this for now, as I can't find a direct link to the statement, though I'm sure if someone has the time a search of the UK singles archive will provide an answer! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other discographies have US as U.S. and I'm curious why you have AUT but not SUI.
> User:Drewcifer3000 suggested SWI not SUI (see above) (and I've told you about US!)
    • I'd keep Platinum capitalised, even when dealing with multi-plat.
> Check!
    • Big set of blanks in the compilation tables - the em-dash signifies didn't chart, what does blank mean?
> Blanks removed
    • "Other appearances" table is mis-shaped to me (I'm using Safari under Mac OS 10.5).
> seems OK in Mozilla/Firefox and IE!
    • "Track contributed: "Photographic", a version different from that on Speak & Spell. This track also makes an appearance on the re-released CD version of The Singles 81-85" missing full stop.
> Check!
    • "Track contributed: "Dirt" (a cover of an original song by Iggy Pop). This track appeared as the B-side to "I Feel Loved" released in 2001" ditto.
> Check!
    • "not released as standard singles" - what does this really mean?
> Changed to "singles"
    • "November 28 1991" comma missing.
> Was there this morning!
> Sorry missed the other one, now corrected. Sunil060902 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • March 30 2004 ditto.
> Check!
    • Check punctuation (particularly full-stops) in the B-sides section.
> Check!
    • Odd bits of bold in the B-sides section. Why?
> Removed!
Best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments A little way to go:
  • How come none of the chart positions are cited? Each column header (the name of the chart) should be cited to be corresponding chart's website. Check Nirvana discography to see what i mean (you need to do this for all album tables).
> References section at the end contains all the relevant weblinks
> Chart positions now linked straight through to websites. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another column solely for the year would be nice for a brief look at when it was released (for all the album tables).
> Check!
  • "CD, Vinyl, Cassette, Digital download" - why so many capitalisations?
> Check!
  • platinum should always be Platinum.
> Check!
  • Compilation albums - why no "—"es? Why is (North America) written smaller than (East Germany)?
> Check!
  • Live albums - again no "—"es.
> Check!
  • The "Other appearances" section would be much clearer if it was modelled after the "Miscellaneous" section of Nirvana discography; this way the primary part of the table would be the band's songs.
> Check!
  • For uniformity, ""—" denotes singles that were released but did not chart." should be in small letters.
> Check!
indopug (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the lead; right now its 6 small paragraphs, while I think it would work better as three big ones. "Depeche Mode have also released..." that information can be included above itself when you are counting studio albums, singles etc. The detailed info about the band's music video collaborators seems unnecessary in this context. Maybe also include an overview of the band's career? I don't understand the merit of that last paragraph; why are only those two releases mentioned by name but no other from the band's career? indopug (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, no more than three paragraphs needed here really. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better now? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 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/Depeche_Mode_discography&oldid=1138479489"