Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Godsmack 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 23:37, 21 January 2008.

Godsmack discography
I am nominating this discography because I feel it meets the correct criteria. The list may look small, but there are no demos, b-sides, or anything else worth mentioning in the list.

Thank you,

Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 01:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Not a fan of this format of discography. Every FL discog uses a table format, and in my own opinion for good reason. I'd recommend taking a cue from any of those lists, and converting the info into tables. Some other less pressing issues I see:

Support, all of my concerns have been addressed. Great job! Drewcifer (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Hopefully the above seems doable. If so, I'd be happy to support. Drewcifer (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about stating the producers of each album: I'm just not sure how relevant it is to a discography. I'm not sure if any other FL discogs supply that information though, so I could be wrong.
 * With only 7 in-line citations, I'm not sure if the 2-column reflist template is neccessary.
 * Surely Godsmack releases have charted in more charts/countries? Citing only the Billboard 200 seems somewhat incomplete.
 * The release dates should be spelled out rather than numerical.
 * I'd like to see a little bit of historical info about the band in the lead. Nothing major, but some very basic facts (who what where when, etc) would help contextualize the discography below.
 * The Miscellany section seems odd. Although there's only one demo, ep, and compilation respectively, I'd recommend giving each there own section.  "Miscellany" is just too vague.
 * The notes at the end of the singles section shouldn't be bullet-pointed.
 * I don't think music videos and DVD releases should be lumped together in the same section.
 * Billboard should be linked in citation #4. And don't 4 and 6 come from the same source?  But the publisher value is different.
 * Looking a million times better! There's just a few more, fairly minor things I notice:
 * Each major release (except singles of course) should give information such as the label, as well as any note-worthy facts like debut album, greatest hits compilation, etc.
 * The certification stats should use "×" not an x.
 * The video section should also be in a table. And is "Video albums" really the correct term?
 * For consistency sake, the abbreviations of countries should follow the ones already used in other discographies. ie U.S. rather than USA, SWI rather than Swi, etc.  Not only does that make things more consistent, but it also means you don't need the explanation of the abbreviations, as you do in the beggining of the studio albums section.
 * For tables where certifications and/or charts don't apply, a column isn't neccessary. ie. the certifications column of compilations and demos and the charts column for demos.
 * You should take out citations #8. Not only is MVDbase not a WP:reliable source, but you don't really need to reference music videos.
 * Also, for the compliations table, since there's only one chart, you don't really need the Chart Peak Positions/U.S. double row thingie. Just have one that says "Billboard 200 peak" or something like that.Drewcifer (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

✅ Burningclean  &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking better. A few more very minor things:
 * The certifications columns are all very inconsistent. Under studio albums it says "Certifications" then "US", both linked.  Then in Extended plays it says "Certifications" then "USA", neither linked.  Then in DVD releases it just says RIAA Certification.  What I would recommend is this: since albums and eps only have RIAA certifications, the dual row thing isn't necessary.  Then I would have them all say RIAA cert., with only the first (Studio albums) wiki-linked.
 * Only the first instance of publisher values need to be wikilinked. So, #7, #8, #9, and #10 shouldn't have Billboard.com linked, only #4.
 * For smack this, the em-dash in the cert column isn't necessary. Just leave it blank.
 * I still don't think the explanation of the abbreviations of countries in studio albums is neccessary, since all the abbreviations are wikilinked.
 * The country abbreviations in the Extended plays are inconsistent with the others.
 * Lastly, all the dashes in the titles of the sources should be changed to em-dashes.Drewcifer (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

✅ Thank you for the review, this is my first FL. I have FAs but no FLs. Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks great. There's just one last thing, which I really should have noticed earlier.  All the dashes you use in the chart columns, reference titles, etc, are —, when they should be –.  At the bottom of the edit page, in the big box with all the symbols, right after "Insert:" there are two dashes.  Both are different than the standard "-" you get from your keyboard, however, – looks exactly like - in the editing window.  So everything should be the middle dash, –, not the long dash — or the short dash -.  I know this sounds minor, but every other discog uses the middle dash.  If you can take care of that, then I'll be happy to (finally) give my support. Drewcifer (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

✅ Burningclean  &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment About the infobox, "Extended plays" directs to "singles" and "singles" directs to "music video's". It looks nice but it doesn't work properly. Baldrick90 (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Burningclean  &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 02:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: hard link to the previous format, at the time of nomination. --kingboyk (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: "To date Godsmack has sold over 12 million albums in the United States, and an additional 1 million worldwide, bringing their total sales to 13 million copies sold worldwide." Where the hell is this stated in this interview you added as reference? Gocsa (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no clue, but it was removed. Burningclean  &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Tending toward a support, but: indopug (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what Drewcifer said about the dashes, but Nine Inch Nails discography, Nirvana discography, Powderfinger discography etc have longer dashes (em-dashes) so I think you should go with those.
 * I think the history section can be increased in line with the examples i gave you.
 * Include a tab of the no of different releases like those discogs. (The template thingy under the main picture)
 * I really don't like "RIAA cert." ... U.S. certifications or Certifications with U.S. under it should be better. (Again I see Drew's comment but I'm not a fan of abbreviations)
 * "US" should really be "U.S." everywhere.
 * Delink RIAA and billboard in the DVD section.
 * As opposed to the current format, could you make it like Nirvana where for every album, the label info, catalogue no and formats are given?
 * How come no b-sides? All singles have b-sides that need to be listed in a table.
 * How are "sold over 12 millions albums" backed by the cites?
 * Alright, I am going to reply to evert one of those in order:


 * Now I don't know what to do with the dashes, because I have two different ways to do them. Please make up my mind, I don't know which dash to use.
 * I'll work on that for you.
 * Dido ↑
 * I have two different users commenting on that one too, I don't know what to do with the certifiactions
 * I'll take care of that.
 * Dido ↑
 * How do I know the catalouge number? Once I know wht to do with the dashes and certifications I will do this one.
 * They have no b-sides, I checked a million times. If they did, I would buy the singles.
 * I have no clue what is up with the sales thing, but I'll fix it.
 * As soon as you reply you can consider it done. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 07:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Frustrating getting a million different opinions, huh? =) Indopug is right, I was mistaken about the dashes thing.  They should be the long ones after all: my mistake.  The other suggestions he made also seem fine, even the one's that partly contradict my previous suggestions.  They're fairly minor things anyways, so I'm willing to chalk that up to a difference in opinion.  Anyways, good luck with getting it featured.  Sorry if I've made it more difficult then it should be. Drewcifer (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll get to work on all of it in just a little bit. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 19:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything is ✅, but I don't know how to get the cataloage number. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 21:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Performed at copy-edit and removed the unreliable Sing365 ref. "Godsmack is the only band ever to have 14 singles debuting in the top ten on the Billboard charts." - where did you get that from? They have only 4 #1 singles in all! How was stewart replaced twice (once by d'arco and once by larkin)? Are you sure they didn't chart in the UK? So their singles contained just one song (no b-sides)? just check on AMG to confirm. Great job, by the way, these minor glitches (which I know you'll fix) won't be enough to stop me from giving my full support :) indopug (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just check AMG or your CDs if the catalogue no is on them, else, forget about it. indopug (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ce, I suck at those, lol. I just removed the 14 singles sentance, I cant' find a reliable source for it. I got rid of the D'Arco mention, because he is not notable for the discography, he played live with the a couple of times. Sorry, no B-sides, just album cuts. :P I got cat numbers though. All done. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good. -- Crzycheetah 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: There are four supports, and zero objections after over ten days. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.