Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Rock Instrumental Performance/archive1

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 The Rambling Man 17:38, 18 April 2011 [1].

Grammy Award for Best Rock Instrumental Performance[edit]

Grammy Award for Best Rock Instrumental Performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 05:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related lists with FL status. There are several other Grammy-related lists at FLC currently, though only one that is nominated by me (and it has four votes offering support). Thanks, as always, to reviewers! --Another Believer (Talk) 05:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • No dab links, no dead ELs
  • A Flock of Seagulls, The Allman Brothers Band and other bands beginning with 'the' should use {{sortname}}.

Otherwise, looks pretty good! Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not true. They should be sorted alike their name; since "The" is capitalized, it is a component of the proper noun, in this case the name of the band. For example: "The Beatles" is correct, wereby "the Beatles" is incorrect, as the "the" is a piece of the substantive.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "The" is part of the name, but anything in English is sorted disregarding words such as "a" and "the". You can see that the band's (A Flock of Seagulls) article is categorised as "Flock of Seagulls, A". Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Manual of Style address this issue? Personally, I prefer for "the" to be included in sort commands for the reason GreatOrangePumpkin mentioned, but I know Adabow's reasoning is also common practice. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The closest thing I could find was WP:SORTKEY, which says "Leading articles—a, an, and the—are one of the most common reasons for using sortkeys". Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I am not mistaken, GOP, TRM and myself all prefer to leave the sort commands alone. If this is not the case, please let me know. I am willing to make changes if consensus proves otherwise. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Regarding above, not sure when "A Flock of Seagulls" ever began with a "the", but I understand what Adabow is saying. This is somewhat subjective. But I see no reason to "rename" then band "Flock of Seagulls" when all reliable source say they're called "A Flock of Seagulls".
Agreed. Will leave sort commands as is, for now at least. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something I may have missed before, not keen on the easter egg links (e.g. 1980 links to 1980 Grammy awards), so perhaps consider "in the xxxx awards" where possible. Don't wreck English because of it, but consider it as less of a hidden link if possible.
Hope that is better (removed a couple of instances). --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " as a member of the band known as The Police." why not just "as a member of "The Police""?
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "duo known as Vaughan Brothers" ditto, I see no reason for "known as"
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(which is led by Dweezil Zappa, son.." just "(led by..." is fine, and makes it suitable if this isn't the case in the future.
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some captions link award years, some don't, be consistent (and don't say that it's because the image is from a different year from their award - see "2008 award winner Bruce Springsteen performing in 2008")!!
Years associated with Grammy ceremonies are linked. Years during which the pictures were taken are not. I don't think that (using an arbitrary example) just because a picture was taken in 1997 means that it should be linked to the awards ceremony if the winner was awarded in 1993, if that makes sense. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classic question now. Nationality flags don't align with the awardee names. Confusing, potentially.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – "The award was first presented in at the 22nd Grammy Awards...". "in" should be removed from this sentence. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support – A question. I asked this on another FLC. Is Rock on the Net reliable? Take a look at this. Otherwise, everything looks okay to me. References are properly formatted, images are good, the prose and table also look good. Novice7 (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I recall being told that Rock on the Net was reliable (perhaps by Dabomb?). However, I try to use Rock on the Net as a last resort and will be on the lookout to replace ROTN sources. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: See discussion. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After a research, I could find no reliable sources for the nominees in this category. So, ROTN can be used. I support :) Novice7 (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- The list looks great just one issue for reference 24 you need to cite Hearst Corporation as the publisher. Yet other then that great work.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Designated "Hearst Corporation" as the publisher of the San Francisco Chronicle in four instances. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comments
Should be using the scope col/scope row parameters for accessibility. See the Atlanta Braves draft-picks list a little up the FLC page for an example.
I still don't fully understand this scope/accessibility stuff. Also, my understanding is that this is not required for FL status. Of course, I want lists to be the best they can be. If this is now required, is there a link describing what needs to be done to meet requirements (or preferences) regarding accessibility? --Another Believer (Talk) 04:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a very good tutorial, but FLC has been moving towards looking for things described in the "overview of basics" section at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial to be implemented. Courcelles 04:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This still needs doing. Courcelles 09:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has this concern been resolved? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I sincerely apologize for the delayed response. I tried formatting the table back in March without success (using the preview feature, no saved edits), but I admit and regret that I have neglected further attempts as I have been very busy in "real life" and much of my time at WP has been spent establishing the Grammy Awards task force for WikiProject Awards and prizes. I will try to tackle this again when I have the time--or, if someone is more familiar with this scope/accessibility stuff, feel free to provide instructions or an example that I can follow. Once established, I'd be happy to post the example on the Grammy Awards task force page so that the same table format can be used on other lists. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS (talk · contribs) is very good with accessibility issues; you may want to ask him for help. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Doing... --22:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. Was it just the col/row headers that need doing, or are there other WP:ACCESS issues? Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rexx and Adabow took a stab at it. Thanks so much for your assistance. (I think I was trying to do more than was necessary during my previous attempts.) --Another Believer (Talk) 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TRM about the 'easter egg' links on the years. I'd rather see another column for the Grammy Award number explicitly from 22nd to 53rd, but it's not a deal-breaker, just that I think it would be an improvement. The table is as accessible as I can make it, as a caption would be clearly redundant - many thanks to Adabow for pitching in (I'll be able to quit this job now we've found a replacement ;). All the images have 'alt' text, so it seems to meet all we could wish for in complying with MOS:ACCESS. One small point: per MOS:FLAG, as the winners weren't actually representing the country, shouldn't we do without flags? --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are against linking years to ceremony articles in the lead, I have no problem with that. I think adding an additional column to the table to display the Year in addition to the Ceremony would be too crowded. At least on this computer, the Nominees column already looks a little cramped. This list is more crowded than other Grammy lists, mostly because songwriter credits are also included, but I think the "easter egg" feature in the Year column certainly serves its purpose. As for the flags, this issue has been debated on multiple Grammy FLCs with the preference to keep the flags. My personal preference is to keep the flags, but I would respect if consensus preferred otherwise. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I don't think it's optimal to have any links that go to an article that isn't indicated by the linked text. There's a principle of 'least surprise' in designing links that should be applied wherever possible – I know you've placed an explanatory note at the bottom, but that's mitigation, not solution. However, my principal concern is that 1980 was the year of the 22nd Grammy Awards, but I have to make an effort to retrieve that piece of information. If I wanted to know what artist received the 50th Grammy Award for example, I can find that information, but it involves searching and reading tool-tips (assuming I have a user agent that displays tooltips). I understand your concern for the table "squashing" on low-res displays, but you have enough vertical space in each cell to place something the size of "22nd Award" below the year, if you decided to make that design choice. Alternatively, you could gather together all of the images that float along the right side of the table and make a gallery above or below the table which would free up some width. I'm not saying that's an improvement, because I like seeing the images near to the Award that they relate to; but if you view the current layout in 800x600 resolution (the minimum Wikipedia still supports), the table starts below the last image and there's loads of white space. As for the flags, I'm still not sure what the Nationality column is for, or if it's actually accurate. My passport says my nationality is a "British citizen", and I have no doubt that Sir Paul's does as well – he's even used as an example of when not to use a flag in MOS:FLAG. Anyway, I'm not asking you to make any changes, I just want reassurance that you've actually considered the other options and have made conscious design choices that have led to the present layout. Your view on what's best is at least as valid as mine, as we are often balancing against each other several competing considerations, such as accessibility, visual appeal, or usability. --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Although the article is not presented in the way that I might have chosen, it is still of high quality, meeting what we consider to be the standard for promotion as FL in my opinion. Any small improvements that might be implementable are well below the threshold for opposition. --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 09:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:I pay little attention to music notability, but is a Grammy nominated artist or Grammy-winning song really non-notable?
Sorry, but I don't follow. What are you asking? Or, what is your concern? --Another Believer (Talk) 04:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles 21:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, why aren't people like Neil Larsen and the all the winning works redlinked? Seems like they would be notable, but, again, music isn't my area. Courcelles 04:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. First of all, I went ahead and linked other award-winning songs to articles corresponding to the album the tracks appear on. I don't believe that being nominated for a Grammy establishes notability. Even many Grammy-winning songs re-direct to album articles. I image the same applies to nominated artists. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:57, 28 March 2011 (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/Grammy_Award_for_Best_Rock_Instrumental_Performance/archive1&oldid=1089081214"