Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cave In discography/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by Dabomb87 14:59, 7 August 2010.

Cave In discography

 * Nominator(s): Fezmar9 (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC) and  C  anniba loki  19:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... A fellow editor recommended that I nominate my article for FLC. That, and I worked really hard on it, and it's really pretty! I honestly do not agree with the general consensus that a Wikipedia discography for a group or band needs to be a mess of charts and statistics. I don't find that style engaging as a reader. I want to read about a band's various releases! I stepped outside the guidelines at WP:DISCOGS, and this article was the result. I think it worked well for Cave In because most of their releases fail to meet the GNG anyways, so this would be the next logical place to mention them. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: Not sure how important it is, but I took the liberty of history merging the list development that took place in the user space so it now appears as part of the history for all to easily see. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was unaware such an action was even possible. Thanks! Fezmar9 (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Review
 * Do not bold what is not considered the title of the article, as most FL's of this nature do not bold any words trying to describe the title.
 * Removed bold text.
 * Merge the first and second paragraphs, no need for those two to be stand alone when they are so short.
 * Done.
 * In the second paragraph about how they merged, you can easily merge the first two sentenced into something like "Cave In formed in 1995 in Methuen, Massachusetts, where thereafter they began releasing several split singles and demos that eventually culminated in the 1998 compilation album Beyond Hypothermia."
 * Done.
 * "These early releases from the band are often considered important albums in developing "metallic hardcore" and metalcore." -- is there a difference in what youre trying to say here about metallic hardcore and metalcore? Isn't it the same (please I do apologize I'm not really aware of the genres)
 * Reworded. These early releases from the band are often considered important albums in developing the metalcore genre. According to your userpage, you like to listen to metalcore while watching professional wrestling on TV.
 * "The band lost their interest in performing metal, and took a more alternative/progressive rock approach to their music beginning in 1999 with the EP, Creative Eclipses.[4]" -- saying they lost interest is WP:POV-ish, try rewording to say that "The band gradually began to move away from metal and took a more alternative/progressive rock approach..." (also remove the comma after EP)
 * Done.
 * "Two Jupiter-related EPs were released; Moons of Jupiter featuring alternate versions, and Lost in the Air featuring B-sides. " -- 1)Use a colon, not a semicolon 2)featuring "alternate versions" of what? 3) "and Lost in the Air featuring B-sides" -- so B-sides were released alongside this EP? That should be stated more clearly
 * Removed sentence
 * "Cave In released one more EP through Hydra Head Records in 2002, Tides of Tomorrow, before signing to the major label RCA Records." -- "major label" is POVish, simply saying "signing with RCA Records" does the job.
 * Done.
 * I feel you should state earlier in the lead that when they formed and did their first EP, they signed with Hydra Records. The way you introduced Hydra Records is a bit way off, you simply said that they released an album with them. You should directly state they were signed by them earlier in the lead.
 * Cave In's first studio album, Until Your Heart Stops, was released later in 1998 through Hydra Head Records.
 * "Cave In's run with RCA Records proved to be the band's most commercially successful" --> "Cave In's signing with RCA Records proved to be the band's most commercially successful." -- One reword that part I did, but this sentence doesn't make sense. "most commercially successful (what?)"
 * The band's only album released through RCA reached the charts in the U.S. and the UK.
 * "In 2003 they released their third studio album, Antenna, which became their only album to chart on the Billboard 200. It peaked at number 169." 1)Comma after 2003 2)no need for a separate sentence for its peak, merge it into the same sentence like "on the Billboard 200, which peaked at 169."
 * Reworded.
 * "The single "Anchor" off Antenna received some minor radio success, and landed on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart at number 34" -- I didn't know singles could fly like planes? Try to avoid giving human qualities to objects, so instead you should use like "ranked"
 * Okay, sorry...
 * "Cave In began working on new demo tracks in 2004 that were more in the vein of the band's earlier and heavier albums." -- well since they are working on them, of course they are new. So no need to say "new". In addition, are you trying to state "in the vein of the band's earlier heavy metal albums"? Because simply saying "heavier albums" doesn't quite cut the chase.
 * Reworded.
 * You can add that last part about them reforming in 2009 to the last paragraph, no need for a stand alone sentence.
 * Done.
 * Is there a reason why they went on hiatus in 2006, and why/how they reformed in 2009? Not their entire story but just a simple sentence saying why?
 * This article is about the band's discography, not its history.
 * The tables need to be formatted as in other discographies, like The White Stripes discography. The studio albums, for fact, I know haven't just ranked in the United States. If research is done, they definately ranked elsewhere in the world. The compilations, EP's, and Splits can stay as they are but the width of the table should be fixed as they are in the FL is showed you. The singles need to be formatted as in the table in the FL as well, as well as the non-album tracks.
 * Formatted like Kronos Quartet discography?
 * Actually, this list [Cave In discography] is better formatted than The White Stripes discography.--  C  anniba loki  23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The music videos, their should be a footnotes as to why their is no director listed for that last entry.
 * What?--  C  anniba loki  19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Overall, a lot more work is needed before this FL can be close to FLC standards. For now I must Oppose. Next time, I recommend you take the list to Peer Review, basically which is what I did for you above. I hope this helps.-- T ru  c o   503 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for peering reviewing the article, next time I will be sure to do that before nominating. Is the table formatting similar to The White Stripes discography an absolute must in order to be listed as a FL? I specifically avoided MOS:DISCOGS (which is still only a proposed guideline and also suggests ignoring all the rules in certain situations) while creating this article for several reasons, some of which are listed in my nomination. I am fully aware of what Wikipedia thinks a discography should look like, as I have edited/created a lot of them in this style. However, I no longer believe that the currently accepted formatting of a Wikipedia discography should be called a "discography" anymore. Personally, I would rather see Comparison of charts and sales for albums by The White Stripes as its own separate article if a comparison is truly valuable to people, and a discography article that delves a little deeper into each release. Something a lot more engaging as a reader. After some quick research, the same two US charting releases also charted in the UK. I absolutely refuse to conform to some archaic and cluttered styling method just for two releases that charted in two countries. If that kind of thinking withdraws this article from FLC, then so be it. Most of this article was written as if the releases by Cave In of questionable notability for an article had been deleted and merged with a relevant article. I just bypassed that whole creation/deletion processes, and presented a lot of information here in prose. I fully acknowledge that the style I have created here goes against guidelines, but also I feel that this is a much better way to present the information for Cave In's releases. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The main issues I see is how you are using the format. In the studio albums, you can at least add notes to the ones that are blank, right? You can add more about the other places they ranked on charts. Remember, Wikipedia is not US-centric. Also, on some of the other entries like the live albums, you give a track listing. I don't see that as necessary. Another thing, why do the tables have to be so wide? IMO it makes it strenuous to the reader. I completely understand your reasoning for it, and I agree you may do that just tweak it a bit.-- T ru  c o   503 16:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose a featured list discussion is not a peer review. the article does not conform to the usual styles so a peer review would have been better suited. as truco said, i can also understand the reasons. Mister sparky (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, it seems I have gone about this the wrong way as the general consensus is opposed. I will copy and paste these points into the article's talk page, work them out one by one, perhaps submit the article for another peer review, then return here in a couple months. With my short attention span I can really only focus on a few articles at one time, and Cave In discography just isn't one of those articles right now. This was my first FLC and I kind of thought this was more of a pass/fail system. I am sorry for wasting everyone's time. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Nomination was withdrawn but I have reinstated it per a request at my talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.