Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Led Zeppelin discography/archive2


 * 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 Giants2008 18:14, 17 May 2011.

Led Zeppelin discography

 * Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫  T 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I improved some things after the first nomination, including some peak chart positions, which were wrong. Also reassessed small things like spaced em-dashes, newspapers not in italicface, references missing and organisations not wikilinked. I hope it passes this time. Happy reviewing. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – All the issues I pointed out were taken care of. Also, the discography has improved a lot too. Novice7 (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album, often called Led Zeppelin IV, is their most commercially successful album. It received a 23&times; Platinum certification from RIAA, the third-highest of all albums." &mdash; Can you mention that "Stairway to Heaven" came from this album? I think we can safely say that it's one of the all-time classics of rock'n'roll. Jimknut (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is really that important to add this. It is already mentioned in the third paragraph.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are the album tracks "Darlene", "Ozobe Baby" and "Poor Tom" listed in the singles discography? None of those songs were released as singles. Piriczki (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I reworded the section, infobox and lead beginning.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How does the reader know which titles in the singles discography were singles and which titles weren't singles? Piriczki (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ok done.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Some might think this as being a bit pointy since I recently got into a discussion about it at Featured list candidates/Backstreet Boys discography/archive1, but, that's for the closing director to decide. I was told there that this is common practice at discography pages recently, and I think it has to stop:

"GER" has no meaning. I could accept it in an Olympic- or football-related article, but that isn't the case here. We should use international standards for abbreviating country names when a differing standard hasn't been approved (such as in the two cases already mentioned). GER is not an acceptable abbreviation in regular usage, and a list that "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work" shouldn't be using it. So, while the article continues to uses abbreviations pulled out of our arses, I will have to oppose. Matthewedwards : Chat  06:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid reason to oppose, only because you don't like the abbreviation. "Oppose" simply means, that you think this list is against the criteria. "GER" is simply and understandable, whereby "DE" not. This is just a disco and not a list about some sport competition, like you said. You can put any abbreviation you want, but it must be understandable for readers.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Piffle. Of course it's a valid reason to oppose. Not just because I don't like it but because it is wrong. It is against the criteria. Criterion 1 requires "professional standards of writing." GER isn't a valid abbreviation for Germany except when writing about the Olympics or football. Outside of those it has no meaning. DE and DEU do. They are accepted standards. Where did you come up with using whatever you like as long as it's understandable. Again, it has no meaning in general usage, and so I don't understand it. It's usage is incorrect and not professional. This may be just a discog, but it's also being asked to be identified as a page that exemplifies our very best work, and whether it's a discog, sport list, tallest building list or list of species, they are all held to the same standard. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I changed it.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, thanks Matthewedwards : Chat  21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose The merging of singles, promotional singles, and other charted songs is not good. It doesn't let the reader know which is which. Separate. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there are notes below (C and D).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that, but since there are so many of each, it is best to just have each separate sections. That's my main concern. Other than that, I think the page is missing very little to become an FL. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok done.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, but now there are needed columns that are not needed. For example, in the "Singles" section, no song charted on "US Digital", but the chart is still there. Please remove it from that particular table. Same thing goes for "Charted songs" and "Music downloads". -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * is it ok so? In the "Charted songs" column, if I'll remove the columns, only one column remains. So I decided not to delete it.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One one column should remain. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that if it only charted on one chart. -- ipodnano05 * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ok done-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Specially with the new expansion in the lead. Congratulations! A job well done. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You should strike your initial oppose so the closer doesn't count it ;) Matthewedwards : Chat  21:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


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