Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees


 * 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 22:34, 17 January 2008.

List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees
Instead of a sports or media related FLC, this time I've got a music related one. There are a few drawbacks to it though. There is a lot of ugly whitespace in the table in the performers section, but it can't be helped. There are over 80 bands in that section so listing the performers in the way I did in the "Early influences" section isn't an option. If anyone has any good suggestions for that, I would gladly try to incorporate it. I decided to mention that the Hall of Fame has received a lot of criticism becuase much of this criticism relates to the inductees and I felt it was worth mentioning here. The final drawback is a lack of images of the inductees, but I had some good reasons. Many of the images of artists performing are not very good, plus there was no room in the performers section, and I couldn't find any free ones for those in any of the other sections. -- Scorpion0422 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, as I think it looks very good and seems very well sourced; I did find an obvious typo in the lead, so please give it a thorough copyedit. I don't think individually citing the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's website for each performer is really necessary. They could all link to the same footnote. Regarding the white space, I'd suggest using a conditional template parameter like I did at list of Caribbean drums for the empty columns for the "see other entry" rows, so that the empty row is a little off-color and has a dash in it or something like that. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * About the citations, they are only used for bands because citations are needed for which members were inducted. As for the list of Caribbean drums, that looks really good, but I don't know if it would work here. -- Scorpion0422 03:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment In general, looks pretty good. I do have a few suggestions though.
 * The year column is a little off-kilter: center aligning everything would make it look much better.
 * Any direct quotations (mostly quotes describing what each type of induction is) should be cited. ✅
 * Since there's 100 in-line citations, I'd recommend putting it all into two or maybe three columns. ✅
 * There's alot of cases of more than one citation for the same source. i.e. multiple instances for The Doors, Lynard Skynard, etc. ✅
 * "List" in the first sentence shouldn't be capitalized. ✅
 * "Starting in 1986" is redundant since we already know the HOF was started in 1986. ✅
 * "a lot of criticism" is POV. Who's to say it's alot?  I'd say just take out the word. ✅
 * The multiple inductees table might benefit from a "Number of inductions" column or something like that.Drewcifer (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure about that, because only Eric Clapton has been inducted more than twice, and this is mentioned in the opening paragraph of that section. -- Scorpion0422 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, ignore that last bullet point. Drewcifer (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Well organized, well cited, well done. I have only two questions: For the inductees not in the main list (i.e. non-performers), would it be possible to put those lists into multiple columns to eliminate white space? If this isn't possible for dynamic lists, then ignore this idea, but I'd like to see the article be a bit shorter top-to-bottom and not have so much blank space. Second, would it be possible to get a couple more free use images? As Clapton is the only three-time inductee (one of my favorite music trivia facts), how about a picture of him somewhere? Or do we have any images of the actual walls that list / have the signatures of the inductees? In any case, this is definitely of featured quality. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to add a few images, but like I said, there aren't many free images of the non-performers, and it doesn't make sense to include images of performers in other sections, but I'll add one of Clapton to the multiple inductee section. -- Scorpion0422 22:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Clapton one is not just appropriate, but definitely makes, at the very least, that section look a lot better. -- Mike (Kicking222) 05:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but do you think I should add images of performer inductees into the non-performer sections? -- Scorpion0422 20:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * COMMENT Can you link the text a little more.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Any examples or suggestions? -- Scorpion0422 04:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems a phrase like this: "influential artists, producers, and others that have in some major way influenced the music industry" should have some links for example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentIs this being addressed?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OBJECT Lack of responsiveness to issues raised.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see how well you checked to see if your concerns have been addressed. Several links were been added to the lead since you brought up your concern, with the most recent being five days ago. Pardon me if I didn't provide an up to the minute update on this page. -- Scorpion0422 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously objecting because this page has not been constantly updated? Oh, and capital letters denotes shouting Tony. Woody (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My objection remains for lack of linking of important terms. Words like "Music", "record" and "Genre" should be linked in an article like this.  The word "museum" would be well placed in the first sentence and linked.  Also, given the procedural controversies terms like "criteria", "committee", "candidate", "induction", "vote", etc. might be linked.  I only object because this was not addressed in response to a mere comment.  I fail to understand the need for Scorpions sarcasm to this request as if it is a request made out of some sort of idolatry of bluelinks.  This article is not properly wikified to represent the best of WP and fails as a FL until these types of issues are addressed. I should not have to run through an article this short and name every word that should be linked.  It should be obvious that for an article like this certain words must be linked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is short Tony, then it should be no bother to see if your objections have been fixed. We are not wikitionary Tony, and wikilink vote would be as much worth as wikilinking "the". As wikipedia does not provide dictionary definitions, it would have to be interwiki bluelinks anyway. Woody (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against interwiki links in articles, but do not know the preferred policy. "Voting" clearly has an article.  The second list above was for the editors discretion.  The first list with "music" and such needed definite action.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just think it's a silly thing to oppose over, because I linked to everything you had previously suggested and figured your concern was addressed. If you had noticed any other words that need linking, you could have done it yourself. I've linked to some of the words, but I think adding links to "criteria" doesn't apply here because linking to that article would not provide any more information that would necessarily relate to this article. Same with committee, candidate, induction and vote. However, I have added links to music and record. -- Scorpion0422 23:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point you have linked the important previously unlinked terms ("music", "record" and "genre") and given thought to others. This is what I had hoped for with my original comment.  I have now withdrawn my objection.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In the Year column could you mention each year only once and thicken the horizontal border between different years? I think it'll be better then because it'll compartmentalise the inductees of different years. indopug (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But then the table would be unsortable. -- Scorpion0422 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... But does it need to be sortable? I find the sorting of the inducted members column to completely pointless; it depends on which order those names are written for a particular entry and as such cannot be useful in any way. As for sorting of the bands, is that really necessary? What purpose could it achieve? If the reader is looking for an entry, he could use the search function in his browser. indopug (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not everyone knows how to search a page though, you have to remember that. Just becausse it seems pointless to you, it doesn't mean that others won't find it useful. -- Scorpion0422 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Whilst I would have liked more images, I understand and accept your reasoning. The images that are supplied do add to the list. Other than that, seems good. Woody (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I could add images of Performers to the other sections. Would you like me to try that? -- Scorpion0422 20:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say add one to each performer section, as long as they are of fairly good quality, like the Clapton one. As I said, it is not a disqualifier for me. I think excessive images can ruin the flow of the page, it is about balance. Woody (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added some images of various inductees to the appropriate sections. The Sidemen and lifetime achievement sections still have none. -- Scorpion0422 00:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No more needed, it is perfectly adequate. I wouldn't have expected any in the other sections. Looks good. Woody (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks great. Although, as I mentioned above, center aligning the Year column would make it look much better. Everything else looks good though. Drewcifer (talk) 08:34, 16 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.