Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/U2 discography/archive2

U2 discography[edit]

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: 10 days, 1 support, 3 oppose. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article lately, and feel that it has improved greatly, enough so that it meets the Featured List criteria. It is easily read and well-referenced. This is a self-nomination. Thank you for your time and scrutiny. Regards, Neranei (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. The first section has no explanation of the UK/US/etc. columns (I think it is the same purpose as explained farther down the page. The lead has no mention of the videos (should they be here at all?) Whyt aren't Music videos in a table like the other sections? Why is Singles a sortable table but others like Albums aren't? Not some much about this page but why does the infobox use what looks like an anchor instead of a down arrow? Rmhermen 17:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have explained the music charts for each section. I have also tabled the videos and mentioned them in the lead. However, I don't understand what you mean by an anchor instead of a down arrow; whatever it is is in the template. I have made each section sortable as well. Thank you for your comments. Regards, Neranei (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Oppose: A couple things need to be fixed, IMHO:

Some dates are wikilinked, some aren't (in "Singles", specifically).

Done --Neranei (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some dates are full, some aren't (eg: "November, 1983"). That causes the sorting to be off when sorted by date.

Would you recommend removing all full dates, or what? Regards, Neranei (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some tables have the columns in the order "Title" - "Release date" and some have those reversed. Columns should be in the same order for all the tables.

I did it for the musical ones, like albums, should I do it for the music videos? I also don't think it's a good idea to do that to the filmography; it would require moving the DVD and VHS release dates, should I do that? Neranei (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unwikilink years where appropriate (like the lede)

Done --Neranei (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not convinced that the Canadian single chart listings are accurate as I have never heard "Window in the Skies" and "The Saints are Coming" was not a hit. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is of course the possibility that the information is inaccurate, if you can find a reliable source that disputes what is written, please feel free to change it. As for Window in the Skies, it is kind of a "fringe" single, if you will, it is available on iTunes. As for "Saints" being a hit or not, I don't think most people hear about things that aren't in the top ten, again, please change it if it's wrong; this is a wiki, you know! Best regards, Neranei (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know what to change it to. If I were to change it, I would probably remove that column. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Canadian single charts are relevant, but if you can find different, verifiable numbers, please change it. Regards, Neranei (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until Billboard launched their chart, Canada did not really have a good singles chart. It just had two mediocre ones: one based on radio airplay, and another based on single sales (not digital downloads). –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 19:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, so they're not really reliable until a certain date? Do you know when Billboard started in Canada? Regards, Neranei (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 7. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you dear, do you have any idea if there was a standard place that those other numbers came from? Should the Canada column be removed? Regards, Neranei (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical single sales and radio airplay. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
- While I'm fond of the bullet-point format, I'm not opposing over it, but am pointing out it would be a welcome addition
  - How do you think that that would work in the article? Neranei (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I made a mock up for Boy and October: /example. The catalog numbers and "chart position" cell are my interpretation only, but you get the point (although there is disagreement over the bolding...). You might want to look at the source: I eliminate almost all the "valign" by putting them on the row instead of the cells.
- Please use m-dashes, not hyphens, and multiplication signs, not x letters
- Years not in full dates aren't usually linked, and certainly neither should months+years.
- Material not given a full release (here fan-club and The Complete U2 exclusives) are usually listed separately from those given with the chart table.
  - The The Complete U2-only release would probably warrant an extra section to tie them together.
- Really don't like the singles table
  - "IRE" and "CAN" are used pretty consistently across our discogs for Ireland and Canada. Also, consider using the established format for the 2 U.S. charts instead of making up a new one that fails to connect them to a specific country.
  - I'm not sure the detailed dates are necessary for the singles (I think we list only years to make those huge tables more convenient). Different years, though, would be okay for notes. Besides, you forgot to adjust the header.
  - Could the albums be moved at the end?
  - Please widen the album and title columns to reduce the multi-line spread.
- Circeus 03:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Several issues:

Lead is insufficient; a two paragraph lead should suffice. A summary of the band's (major) releases with landmarks (such as compilations or hit albums) and information about record companies (for example, what is Island Records? An independent record label?)
Several WP:MOSNUM fixes needed. 12 -> twelve etc.
Which U.S. chart? Mention the Billboard 200 in the lead perhaps, and wikilink U.S. in the table headers to it. (Take a look at how other featured discograpies handle it).
You may want to add rowspan to some table entries; it makes it clearer to read.

Let me know when you've addressed these issues! It's a good start. CloudNine 18:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- We usually link a chart or association article if it exists, otherwise, just the country, as far as I know. Circeus 19:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify, this is the way most featured discographies handle country chart links (rather than spelling out the chart name in the header). "All albums' chart positions are shown in the British, American, Irish, and Swedish charts, respectively, along with their RIAA certification." is redundant (as well as the rest); such information can be gleaned from the tables themselves (esp. if they're wikilinked). CloudNine 00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]