Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Garbage 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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 08:30, 17 July 2008.

Garbage discography
Been working on this one for some time now. As always, any comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sweet title. Hopefully it's not as bad as it sounds, though :|
 * Well I guess you'll be the judge of that huh? =)
 * "high #4 on" &rarr; "high number 4 on"?
 * I'm inclined to go with #4, since it's a chart. But I could be wrong.  Does MOS mention this? Drewcifer (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good otherwise.

Gary King ( talk ) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the US modern/mainstream rock charts? indopug (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Garbage's singles have charted in 14 countries, their albums in 17 countries, so I figured it was unnecessary to devote 3 columns to the US and it's component charts in a table that already stretches the entire width (and then some) of a 1024x768 monitor. Besides, the other countries have component charts too, dontchayaknow, so I guess I had to draw the line somewhere. Drewcifer (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If number of charts are the problem, then I think the charts with only one or two entries can go (Austria and Norway, I'm looking at you). I realise these may imply "bias" or "weight" issues, but the Mod and Main rock charts are an important indicator of the band's success and popularity; how they charted in Israel isn't. Besides, I remember once pointing out on the DISCOG talkpage that the HitParade brand of charts aren't entirely reliable, as opposed to Allmusic/Billboard for the US charts. indopug (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, well I guess we never did completely figure this out. Take a look at MOS:DISCOG, I've attempted to add a note relating to this problem.  Let me know what you think on the guideline's talk page.  Assuming you like it, I'll implement it here right away. Drewcifer (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a good start but I'm a bit iffy on two things. 10 seems an arbitrary number; the fact that you've added it in bold makes it seems oddly uncompromising; I think discretion on the editor's part should be allowed. Second thing is "go by the relative success of the artist on that chart" makes it seem a little POVish. Instead, indicate that charts should be included per what is important/relevant for that artist. For example: American alternative rock groups are mainly gauged by the Mod Rock chart; British groups by the UK charts and so forth.
 * So, for anybody in the world (even an Austrian) the Mod/Main rock charts is a better indicator opposed to any other chart (even the Austrian chart). indopug (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved the discussion to MOS:DISCOG talk page, since this is more of a meta-issue that I'd like to get some more opinions on. Drewcifer (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Phew, finally redid the charts. Narrowed everything down to 10 and added Modern Rock and Dance/Club Play charts.  Turns out that Garbage only charted once on the Mainstream Rock charts, so I didn't include that one.  Cool beans? Drewcifer (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Looks great. Another note, I agree with your rationale with linking to B-sides however I have decided to nominate them for deletion.


 * Cool man, thanks for the support. Already commented at the AfD. Drewcifer (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Image caption is a fragment so remove the full stop. DONE
 * "twenty-three" etc for numbers over 10, why not go with the MOS and use 23? DONE
 * "Murphy, Peter S. [2008]. Absolute Garbage biography." - does this have ISBN, page number info etc? SWAPPED OUT WITH ALLMUSIC SOURCE.
 * "an "indefinite hiatus".[6] Garbage ended their hiatus" reads a little awkwardly with hiatus used twice in quick succession. REWORDED.


 * Support Good work, But has a link on Garbage Video that is not working. Cannibaloki  19:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The one in the compilations table seems to work okay for me. Is that the one? Drewcifer (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See this NOW click on the link next to Garbage Video (The first that I wrote on top). Cannibaloki  20:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I Garbage Video is a music-video compilation, therefore it charted on the "Top Music Video" chart.
 * AAAAhh, gotcha. Guess I accidentally deleted that.  Fixed it.  Good eye! Drewcifer (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: Nice. I like to support. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: All of mine are addressed. indopug (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Late to join the party, but everything's been covered. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.