Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Harry and the Potters 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 01:12, 30 December 2007.

Harry and the Potters discography
Support as nominator, as I believe it meets all requirements of Featured list criteria. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2007

 Oppose  There are a number of problem I see with the list: ✅ Replaced old format with tables. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC) ✅ Track listing removed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC) ✅ True. They have been removed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC) ✅ Have removed producers field in for all releases. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC) ✅ I have expanded the article with general biographical information. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC) ✅ I have changed it to a one column - looks much better. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC) ✅ Referenced each song. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC) ✅ No references found, only general indications from label's website. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC) ✅ Removed links from multi-used links. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC) ✅ Indeed, it's an encyclopedia.
 * Definately not a fan of this discography format. I'd recommend taking a cue from virtually every other FL discography and putting everything into tables.  They're easier to read, take up less space, and would be consistent with the other discogs.
 * Track listings for every release is completely unnecessary and a waste of space.
 * Listing every producer in the compilations sections is also unnecessary.
 * In fact, why even mention the producers? They've produced all their own albums.  Pretty redundant.
 * The lead is pretty short. Some basic biographical information would be a great improvement.  A thorough copyedit would also be nice, since there's some weird punctuation in there.
 * Considering there's 7 in-line citations, the 3-column format for the reflist template is a bit excessive. Even 2 columns would be overdoing it, I think.
 * The "Unreleased songs" section needs some references.
 * The Sales figures also need references.
 * Overwikilinked. Only wikilink something the first time it's mentioned.  ie. "Harry and the Potters", "CD", "Vinyl 7"", etc.
 * Definitely take out the Amazon.com link. We're not trying to sell records here. Drewcifer (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for spending you time reviewing this article, I have made the appropriate edits, could you please change you vote to support the article or find further requirements, before allowing it to receive your positive vote. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work! That was alot of work done very quickly.  The article is looking much better now.  There's still a few things though.  I made a few edits myself, basically things that were easier to do myself than explain.
 * The Sales figures were fine, you didn't have to remove them completely, just give a source of the information that's all.
 * ✅ I have included two references, for two releases, the only two for which I believe are able to be referenced.
 * The expanded lead is good, but it still needs a good copyedit. For example "one complication album", "extended play" should be wikilinked, "adheres to a novel conceit" is confusing, "Harry Potter" (when speaking of the books) should be italicized, "quite simply" is unnecessary, "simple basic" is redundant, "raison d’être" comes out of nowhere, etc.  Also, it would be nice to know when the band formed.
 * ✅ Completed these tasks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Amazon link was still up so I took it down. That said, a few more External link would be nice.  Any online interviews?  Any articles about Wizard rock in general in which they are mentioned?
 * ✅ Sorry, I must have got overwhelmed by editing other factor, I forgot to address this. I have included a further three references.
 * Lastly, wherever possible the cite web templates should give the publisher. Drewcifer (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Given publisher for all references. Hpfan9374 (talk)
 * Thank you very much again, for re-reviewing this article. I have now made further appropriate edits and hope you could please change you vote to support the article or find further requirements, before allowing it to receive your positive vote. Thank you very much for also taking the time to make some edit yourself. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking better all the time! I made a few more minor edits, again because they were just easier to do myself than explain.  Everything else looks fine, though the second paragraph of the lead is a little worrisome.  Mainly, I would strongly suggest avoiding saying what a band "sounds like" since this is a POV issue.  If you have a souce describing the band's sound, that's one thing, but what is there right now is strictly opinion.  I'm not sure if this makes sense, but hopefully it does a little bit.  For a good example of what I mean, check out the Musical Characteristics section of FA article Nine Inch Nails.  It either describes the band's sound in terms of what others have said, or mentions straight-forward musical facts (such as NIN's use of odd time signatures).  So saying the Harry and the Potters "sound much like other indie rock music" is POV, as is "simple guitar-synth-and-drums indie pop style and they sing in the semi-deadpan way."  In fact, even though I've gone on and on about it, it might just be better to take out the sentences describing the band's sound altogether, since that doesn't have much to do with their discography.  Whatever you think is best. Drewcifer (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your suggestion. I have removed the paragraph. Hpfan9374 (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed to Support Looking much better! Excellent work. Drewcifer (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The page is too short and simply doesn't have enough content to be a Featured list. -- Scorpion0422 19:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is no fixed length for an FA article or list. The central criterion is completeness and comprehensiveness: i.e. does the article or list say all that can be said about the subject with appropriate sources given. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but there is still a length you like to see in FLs, and this one isn't quite long enough. You wouldn't expect an article that is only two or three times as long as a stub to become an FA. -- Scorpion0422 02:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Scorpion this is up for featured list status not feature article status, I am aware that the article is to be of 'appropriate length' for FA, according to Featured article criteria, however there is no required or fixed length for FL, according to Featured list criteria. If you wish to oppose the article you will need to oppose it for a different reason. Hpfan9374 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Smaller articles such as Pilot (House) have reached FA status, where 'appropriate length' is required. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Scorpion, can consensus be made with your vote? Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Colin°Talk 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. The list is adequately sourced and is complete. This is a good discography. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed Wassupwestcoast, I posted the following on to Scorpion's user talk page:


 * You cannot oppose feature list status to a list merely because it "doesn't have enough content". Please see, Featured list criteria it is not a requirement. The closest requirement is "comprehensive" which the article is, as it lists all releases from Harry and the Potters. If you can find a release, unreleased song or complication appearance, e.t.c. by Harry and the Potters, then that is reason enough to fail it, however if you believe it is "doesn't have enough content" that is not a valid reason. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For future reference, you shouldn't outright ask people to support a list. -- Scorpion0422 02:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are opposing it for an invalid reason, then it is reason enough to ask them to support a list, or find requirements before you will support it as Drewcifer did. Hpfan9374 (talk)
 * Scorpion, in your opinion do you think this article meets the featured list criteria requirements, or not, and if not please state suggestions as to how it can be edited in order to recieve your support. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Scorpion, regarding the (lack of) length. Although they are not official criteria, the top of the main WP:FL page reads "The featured lists are what we believe to be the best lists in Wikipedia" and the WP:FLC page reads "A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". Personally I fail to see how a short list can fulfill these statements. • 97198   talk  11:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This list fulfills these statements, as it is Wikipedia's best work, in terms of it being useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed - Wikipedia's official criteria. Not length, you can have a great article in many ways, without length.  Hpfan9374 (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of the official FL criteria. I am aware that this list meets the criteria (I have read the preceding comments). I am aware that is a good list. I never said that it wasn't a good list. I wish to point out to you my use of the word "personally", as I personally believe that a short list cannot exemplify Wikipedia's best work or be highlighted as one of Wikipedia's finest. We are allowed opinions around here, are we not? • 97198   talk  05:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Although I'm not part of the list's nomination, I thought I'd interject. This sounds slightly similarly to a similer problem that I had with the FLC of Nation of Ulysses discography, namely that it was too short. The point I made, which seems to apply here too, is that a list's amount of content comes down to a matter of taste, and matters of taste don't really have a whole lot to do with the FL criteria. Or in other words, personal opinion and preferences don't really have a place in a FLC: does it meet the criteria or not? Anyways, discuss as you will, I just wanted to make that comment. Drewcifer (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a taste in long lists? I could say the same for you and short lists, but that would be wrong as I know that is not the case, neither is it the case with me (and Scorpion?) with long lists. And I'm unsure as to how you could mistake there being no place for opinion here. If there were no matter of opinion, surely there would never be any contradicting support or oppose !votes in any FLCs or FACs? It is someone's opinion that it meets the criteria, and someone else's opinion that it doesn't. The question is not so simple as "Does it meet the criteria or not?" because that itself asks for opinionated answers. If personal opinion has no place in FLCs, should every candidate page should be left blank? Every !vote is an opinion, and since everyone is entitled to a !vote, everyone is therefore entitled to an opinion. • 97198   talk  08:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Drewcifer, that's exactly the point and example I was trying to find. In regards, to Redl@nds597198, no Featured list candidates is not the place for 'personal opinions' it is a place to judge whether the candidate, in this case Harry and the Potters discography meets the featured list criteria, nothing more. Also, a vote is not an opinion, it is one's judgment on whether or not it meets the criteria. Furthermore, could I oppose a list you where nominating for it being to 'long' in my opinion? Some people might find this list to long, while others might find it too small, opinion is not a requirement, and one should not be able to oppose a list of featured status, because of it - this is why requirements and criteria are made. Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is a judgment not an opinion? (I judge that it meets the criteria; I therefore believe that it meets the criteria; it is therefore my opinion that it meets the criteria.) I'm not sure what you're getting at or whether you yourself know what you're getting at because you seem to be contradicting yourself. Anyhow, it is my opinion (sorry, I had to say that) that we're getting off the topic, because I do personally believe (my opinion, in fact, LOL) that the list meets the criteria. My issue is not with the criteria. My issue is whether the list can fulfill two specific statements that I mentioned initially. • 97198   talk  09:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This article meets the criteria. Agreed. However, I believe it does meet the statements, as it is the 'best' in terms of it being useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. There is no mention of length, therefore you are saying you do not think its the best, because of length. You cannot oppose a list for length, if you find any requirement, regarding length, then please correct me. Hpfan9374 (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought we'd been over this? For the millionth time To repeat myself, there is no criterion regarding length (we both figured that out on our own, pat on the back) - it is simply my personal opinion (or judgment, as they're essentially the same, to cover old territory) that this list cannot be what an FL aims to be. • 97198   talk  07:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, this whole discussion seems to be academic (not that it was ever going anywhere) because the nomination is due to "expire" tomorrow and I don't think this candidacy will stay open as the objections are not being addressed which I think is the only reason not to promote/fail a list after ten days (unless it just hasn't got enough supports yet). • 97198   talk  07:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Redl@nds597198, I am trying to address the objections, however they are unobjectionable, as I stated to Colin, "It is not due to a band success or number of releases, which makes their discography a featured list, but the referenced well-written, well-formatted article itself." And because of this, this list exemplifies Wikipedia's best work, it uses notable sources and all possible information to complete a list of comprehensive releases by Harry and the Potters. Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Outdent) The objections are unobjectionable or unjustified? I think that's the word you're going for. And I wasn't specifically talking about Colin's reason you mentioned; I was more talking about the objection (sort of-)consensus - that the list isn't long enough. And I'm calling it a (sort of-)consensus because it appears in all (3!) opposes !votes. Not much of a consensus, but still, out of only 5 votes... • 97198   talk  08:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand you were referring to the lists short length. Yet, I cannot expand the article in any further way. If I created a third paragraph lead, would you it be long enough for your support? Apart from that, I cannot see another way that this list can become longer. I would greatly appreciate examples of how I can make this list longer, apart from wait until more releases. I have also included an additional column, "Other" with album-specific information. Hpfan9374 (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there's not really anything to do (for me, personally) to change my oppose to a support - it's really the list-ness that needs expansion IMO and that can't happen unless the band releases more songs, albums, etc. Sorry. • 97198   talk  12:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, found a reference of a future studio album and have added it to the article.. If there is nothing that I can do, part wait until further releases, then isn't this list the 'best' using information available and the current releases, at this present time. I will maintain this list, it is one of the four, I edit on a regular basis. You are opposing it, as in your opinion it does not fulfill the above statements. It is of 'appropriate length', however I will also expand the lead for your support and am open to any further paragraphs, e.t.c. Hpfan9374 (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I'd just like to point out that short lists have passed the featured candidate process, such as Nation of Ulysses discography, therefore is it a matter of luck which taste the Wikipedians who review the article have? Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely. • 97198   talk  14:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To close your vote Redl@nds597198, you have stated that the article meets the criteria, which is what the featured list candidate process is and by meeting the criteria, the list is the best. As when you used the above quote, you forgot the ending "A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, as mentioned in the criteria." Therefore, in your opinion the list is both matches the criteria and exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. If there is a problem you have with this article not matching the criteria, continue your oppose vote and I shall edit and rectify the issue. However, if not you really don't have much of an argument, part your taste which is not what candidacy is about, unless you can find this written anyway and I will therefore ask if your vote and be changed to a Support, as above, you've stated it meets the criteria. Hpfan9374 (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the criteria is to create something similar to a marking scheme or rubric a teacher might use when marking work, to try and identify Wikipedia's best lists. It is not implied that being a piece of "Wikipedia's very best work" is limited to fulfillment of the criteria. I do feel anyone taking part in these discussions has a right to their own opinion and can interpret the requirements for an FL as subjectively as they feel is necessary. (So no, I will not strike my oppose as you have tried to enforce asked both here and below.) You may consider this "closing my [!]vote" although the term "finishing this discussion" - as my !vote was closed at the end of my initial oppose reasoning, because as you can see my opinion has not changed and I have more or less just repeated and reiterated everything I said initially. Again, sorry. If the list is promoted, congrats, but I'm sticking by my reasons. • 97198   talk  12:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad consensus was reached with your vote. I understand your argument, yet in general, I would like to see a length requirement 'set-in stone' for FLCs, whether that be long or short. Good luck with future editing, Redl@nds. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No idea what you mean by "glad consensus was reached with your vote". This isn't a vote and 97198 hasn't struck his original oppose; indeed he has further explained why he feels that the requirement that an FL is "Wikipedia's very best work" is not limited to fulfilment of just the numbered criteria. Those are an agreed minimum. Colin°Talk 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Like Scorpion, I don't believe a short discography of a barely notable band can be an example of "our very best work". The lead of the "Featured List Criteria" is not "unofficial", and allows a subjective opinion to be made. The articles linked-to are nearly all stubs. This band simply hasn't done enough or been written-about enough to generate enough encyclopaedic content for featured status. Colin°Talk 10:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Colin, I am submitting this article for featured list status and not featured topic status, and thus the band's article and their albums, take no part in this candidate. It is not due to a band success or number of releases, which makes their discography a featured list, but the referenced well-written, well-formatted article itself. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Featured topic requires the group of articles are at GA or FA standard. This is at the opposite extreme. I would argue that a list is not particularly useful (an FL criterion) if it only links to stubs. An encyclopaedia should provide more information than a online record shop (track listing, label, date, brief description), for example. Underwhelmed is the feeling I get looking at this, and I shouldn't feel that way about Featured material. Colin°Talk 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Colin, the list, just one single article is up for featured status, not several. I understand you thoughts, however there is no requirement of this in the featured list criteria. Also, do you believe it meets the criteria? Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Colin, can consensus be made with your vote? Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Colin°Talk 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. I feel length is an issue that should be addressed for featured lists, yet however no such requirements do exist, I am therefore willing to support this list for featured status. This issue was addressed for featured article however, and I hope it is addressed and implemented in the feature list criteria in the near future. However as there are no requirements, then I am fine to support this as long as the list is maintained then, then it should expand as time progresses and the band releases further material. Noobiemacnoss1 (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you for you support Noobiemacnoss1, I believe the article can now be closed and given featured list status, as it has four "support" votes, as stated at Featured_list_candidates. However, if for some reason it does not warrant FL status, could this consensus please continue for further votes. Hpfan9374 (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the requirement is for consensus plus a minimum of four supports.
 * Furthermore, I'm rather suspicious about, his contribution history and relationship with . I meant to post a query on Noobiemacnoss1's talkpage regarding FA and FL criteria, of which he seems to be familiar, only to discover this account has made zero mainspace edits. On the 14 January 2007, Hpfan9374 sent Noobiemacnoss1 a couple of barnstars and awards, despite this account having made no edits on Wikipedia at that time. Noobiemacnoss1 reciprocated on the 15 January 2007 with three awards including one that said "you have persuaded me to sign up". Noobiemacnoss1 made some edits to his userpage and disappeared on the 16 January 2007, only to turn up again today to offer his support. Colin°Talk 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In regards to Colin, I do know Noobiemacnoss1 in real life, he hasn't be on for a while, so I recently ask him if he could review my article (in person). I believe he is going to be editing Xbox and Halo related articles. With regards to the rewards, I was unaware of the system at the time, however I believe they were given out fairly. I perhaps, should not however have given Noobiemacnoss1, The Exceptional Newcomer Award however, the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar was given as he gave me them and has been interested in editing Wikipedia in the real world. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, asking people to come and vote in an FLC (especially if you know them in real life) isn't a good thing. You should avoid doing that in the future, or else you could get in trouble. -- Scorpion0422 01:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you, Scorpion. I understand meatpuppet now, I am very sorry for any trouble or wrong this caused or causes to the candidacy or to any Wikipedian. Noobiemacnoss1's vote can be taken from the candidacy if necessary. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hpfan9374, I don't think you realise how serious WP takes meatpuppetry. Wrt awards and barnstars, you can do what you like with them. I mentioned them merely as evidence that you guys were clearly chums. Asking a friend, especially one who isn't experienced on WP, to "review" is hardly likely to result in a critical appraisal. Like Scorpion, I'm going to assume you were naive rather than corrupt. At least you have been honest in admitting it. As for removing Noobiemacnoss1's "vote" "if necessary", it most certainly will be disregarded and has tainted the whole candidacy. To quote from WP:MEAT: "Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Newcomers are unlikely to understand Wikipedia policies and practices". Colin°Talk 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - There is not a minimum length for FLs. This list is actually longer than List of counties in Rhode Island, which is a featured list. This list is well-referenced, and is certainly as "featurable" as other discographies. Good job! But I do have one question: why is "comprehensive listing of official releases by Harry and the Potters" all in bold, rather than simply "discography of Harry and the Potters", which is the format used in Nine Inch Nails discography? Cheers, Rai - me  02:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you, and I have rectified that issue, by emboldening the appropriate text. Furthermore, the current status is 5 "Support" and 3 "Oppose", all opposes due to the lists 'small' length - not part of the criteria - and therefore all invalid opposes. I ask the opposing reviewers to strikethrough their votes, as they nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection. Hpfan9374 (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hpfan9374, I suggest you read up on WP's views on voting and consensus, since you don't seem to understand them. The overriding requirement of a featured list is that a consensus of editors believe it "exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation". In addition it must meet the content policies and the various numbered points that have been agreed over the years as a minimum objective test. The shortness of this list, the lack of serious notability of the subject, and the fact that its usefulness is limited by linking merely to stubs all make one distinctly underwhelmed. You seem to be trying to get this through on a technicality, which is not a way to achieve a bronze star by a community. If just one lone editor had expressed a negative subjective opinion, then the closing editor might choose to disregard that in the face of strong support. However, it only has four supports that count which is the bare minimum, and in itself not enough if there is not consensus. Three editors stubbornly insist that in their opinion, this is not "Wikipedia's very best work". You will have to deal with that, even if you disagree. I see little point in prolonging this candidacy. Colin°Talk 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree that this candidacy should be closed as "Fail" soon; while I stand by my opinion that this list is just as "featurable" as List of counties in Rhode Island, only 3 legitimate supports and 3 opposes shows a pretty clear lack of consensus. Cheers, Rai - me  01:12, 30 December 2007 (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.