Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Snow Patrol/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 promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009.

List of awards and nominations received by Snow Patrol

 * Nominator(s): Suede67 (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is satisfying all the rules to be a featured list, it is comprehensive and easy to read. Suede67 (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment, leaning oppose: I'm not sure that this needs to be a separate list. See FL criterion 3b; this list of awards could be conflated into one table and kept on the main article. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I know this is not that long of an article, but there are FLs of about the same size, like this one. Suede67 (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The criteria changed recently, and there are many current awards list FLs that can be merged; we just haven't brought them to FLRC yet. I think this list is in—as they call it at RfA—the "discretion range"; you could go either way, but I'm leaning merge. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If the article was merged into the main article... --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  02:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is acceptable. In comparison, I've seen pages about actors which included filmographies that were a lot longer than that. -- Scorpion 0422  02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that the list could be separated from the main article? --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  02:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that I like your sample merged version and I think it is perfectly acceptable. I apologize for the confusion. -- Scorpion 0422  03:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would like to see the list on a separate page. As you said, some filmographies are longer than this, that's fine, but we dont have control over a band winning awards or getting nominated. If they've been nominated 25 times, thats it. By the way, is it just the length of the article that's a problem? is there a specific word limit that must be reached? I cannot find any info on this. Suede67 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because a separate list can be created doesn't mean it needs to be. Unfortunately, although it would make it much easier if we had a firm limit on listed items, there are too many exceptions and factors to consider to set a boundary. So, we at FLC have to play it on a case-by-case basis, which is a real impediment to editors, but I'm not sure what we can do. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose —3b. After hearing the opinions from the two above and seeing the version of the main article with the merged awards table, I don't think this list needs to be on a separate page. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've struck my oppose for now, taking into consideration the new awards added. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! So is this the final verdict? No merge? Suede67 (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Fine, is there no way it can have a standalone article for itself, if not a FL? It's long enough I think. Also the merged article, as we see doesnt show what nomination was for what award, it looks incomplete.

By the way is this deserving a place on the awards list? Suede67 (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but still wondering about this - the merged article doesnt tell us what nom/win was for what award! Suede67 (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down...it was just an example. Besides, the main articles with awards just add what award it was with the award category. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh,i see, sorry for overreacting. By the way, added 2 more awards, is it good enough now to keep it? Suede67 (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding two awards in the article will IMO barely change peoples minds. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  04:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Dabomb87" did struck his oppose, though. I think he's waiting for others' opinions. Suede67 (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

--I'm back online, just so you know. Suede67 (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose  - per 3b - after reading the entire discussion, I still don't see why this can't be merged with the main article. As far as I can see, this only has a few more item than List of awards and nominations received by No Doubt, which is currently at FLRC. What I am wondering is why we should make an exception for this particular list?— Chris!  c t 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Abstain - I think per 3b and the FLRC precedents, this list shouldn't be promoted. But the list itself appears to be long enough to stand on its own. Since I don't know what to think, I prefer to stay out and not !vote. But this is not an oppose.— Chris!  c t 18:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Chris, as per 3b, it's not long enough to be featured, thats fine, but is it not long enough to have an article of its own? Suede67 (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you are trying to say that you're going to withdraw this nomination... --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  03:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's what left to do, isn't it? They dont have any more awards to my knowledge that I can add so that it becomes long enough. Suede67 (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit: On wait, i found info about 2 more BMIs, here. Let me add them. Suede67 (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done and added another IFPI (sorry), never found about these beforeSuede67 (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - I am going to coin a new term - let's call it 3b creep. ''Def. 3b Creep, n., 1. A process whereby FL reviewers begin to reject more and more lists based on criterion 3b under the justification that the list under review is only slightly longer than a previously rejected or de-listed article. Over time, this results in longer and longer lists being rejected, due to the inherent ambiguity in criterion 3b. The illogical extreme of 3b creep will result in lists of any length being rejected.'' All joking aside, I believe that this is an extensive and detailed list. In my opinion, it easily qualifies under 3b. And this becomes yet another example of how 3b is currently overly ambiguous and a problem for editors seeking to submit content to FLC. Geraldk (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment:Thank you, Gerald! Suede67 (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To Geraldk: Well, List of awards and nominations received by No Doubt, which has a few items less than this one, is currently at FLRC and received several delist votes per the 3b criteria. My oppose is based mainly on those FLRC precedents. Though I kind of agree with you that the criteria is currently unclear and can be subjected to different interpretations. I think you should take it to the talk page if you really disagree with the current criteria. Cheer— Chris!  c t 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sorry, but I'm an incorrigible mergist. I feel that SREKAL's example of a merge looks just fine. I think it's excessive to have every different type of award having its own section and intro with info that can be found elsewhere. Reywas92 Talk  02:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to note, the article now has two more awards than my merge example. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  02:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Five, actually, 2 BMI's and three IFPI's. Suede67 (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think it could be reasonably merged, but I will support this list. Reywas92 Talk  18:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: Meets all the criteria at WP:WIAFL. Regarding 3b, I feel that adding this list (even as one table) into the existing Snow Patrol article will make it too list heavy towards the end. I also think Geraldk makes a valid slippery slope argument above - it may be one or two now but in a few months it could easily be a lot more than now. --JD554 (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JD! Yes, I am hoping the band would get nominated for some award for their latest album, so it may very well get expanded. And added 2 more IFPI, Eyes open went 3x in 2009 and final straw 2x in 2008 and a BMI. Suede67 (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Thanks Reywas92 and Chris! Can we finally have a final verdict on this one? Suede67 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment to FL directors Please hold off on promotion or archiving; I intend to do a full review here later. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I am a huge 3b supporter! That being said, I believe this list length-wise, at the current version, can and should be a stand-alone list; thus, passing the 3b criterion. At the same time, the problem I have with all these awards pages is the visual appeal (5a criterion). Out of 12 awards, six have only one nomination and, of course, a table with one row, which look very dull. If someone could come up with an idea how to avoid those one-row tables, that would be great! -- Crzycheetah 00:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The one thing I really like about these awards lists is their ability to go into more detail about the awards. For that reason, I find the award descriptions that precede the tables useful. Of course, if the list is too small, the content-fork concerns outweigh the usefulness of having separate awards lists. However, that doesn't seem to be a problem here. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you really like these descriptions that are on this page? In most of them, there are two sentences only. The first one usually states something obvious about the awards and the second one states the fact that is already listed in the table. Do you call that "into more detail"? Is it really useful to state that the BMI awards are awards by BMI? or the MTV Japan awards are organized by MTV Japan? Are there really some people who would think that the MTV Japan awards are organized by an organization other than MTV Japan?-- Crzycheetah 02:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of them are blatantly obvious, but others aren't so self-explanatory, e.g. Choice Music Prize and Meteor Awards. I think it's important to know why some of the awards are worth mentioning, especially the less well-known ones. I'm biased, I know; having seen (and allowed) dozens of these awards lists to pass through FLC, I've grown used to the format. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC) are mostly good, but I'd like more opinion on the sources that aren't struck.


 * I found new sources, one is Contactmusic, which was already being used for ref on the same page, and the other is "winter music conference" which is the homepage for the "international dance music awards". I think this will do. Suede67 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! So this means the review is over? It gets featured?!Suede67 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A featured list director (either or ) decides if there is consensus to promote or archive and closes the nomination accordingly. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Should I notify one of them? Or they'll know? Anyway, thanks for your help. Suede67 (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they read FLC around 0:00 UTC Sundays and Wednesdays. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks again. Suede67 (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Spell out publisher abbreviations such as IFPI and BMI.
 * What makes the following sites reliable:
 * http://www.businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=8054
 * http://dancemusic.about.com/od/conference/a/IDMA2k7Vote.htm
 * http://www.jeepster.co.uk/site/jeeep.php?pg=http://www.jeepster.co.uk/site/newsarchive.php?id=82&currentsection=snowpatrol
 * Ref 22, is Metro a magazine? A link would be useful.
 * Ref 24, add  to the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good except the sources. Jeepster should be fine, but we need to know the fact-checking methods of the other two. To determine the reliability of the sites, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw your message. The "Businessofcinema" site seems reliable, as per here (First link in the "about us" part. As you said, backed by a company). And "About.com" the other site referenced, if you scroll all the way down here, on the bottom right, its written "a part of The New York Times Company". Will this work? Suede67 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment for Dabomb87: Just in case you missed my message on your talk page. The "Businessofcinema" site seems reliable, as per here (First link in the "about us" part. As you said, backed by a company). And "About.com" the other site referenced, if you scroll all the way down here, on the bottom right, its written "a part of The New York Times Company". Will this work? Suede67 (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Businessofcinema should be fine, as long as it's not used for negative BLP material. For about.com, see this discussion. In a nutshell, the author of the cited article from about.com must be proven to be an expert on the subject per WP:SPS. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. You still haven't spelled out IFPI and BMI in the sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, my bad. Sources mean the ref template, right? I did that now. About "about.com", here is the link to the article. If we click the link to the author, thats' here, i think thats a reason enough we need. He has experience and is a regular writer, for others as well, apart from the stated website. Suede67 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

-- Crzycheetah 03:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * There's no reference to check whether Final Straw was nominated at the BRITS awards.
 * The Choice Music Prize is a music award given annually to the best full-length Irish album based on artistic merit, regardless of genre, sales, or record label - Very specific description, where's the reference? In that ref #8, there's no such description.
 * Here I read that the Choice Music Prize is the Irish equivalent of the Mercury Prize. Yet on this page, there's that specific description for the Choice prize, but not for the Mercury. Why not?
 * Meteor Ireland Music Awards or Meteor Awards? or Meteor Music Awards?
 * The current ref#18 does not state what album was nominated or the year it was nominated.
 * The "title" field in the cite web should state the title of the article and not a useful description.


 * Comment: (For Chetah)
 * Final Straw was indeed nominated for a BRIT, ref 3 does say it - "The band were nominated for 'Best British Group', 'Best British Album' and 'Best British Rock Act' at the launch party..." (Album).
 * How do I know which album? MAybe it's When It's All Over We Still Have to Clear Up?-- Crzycheetah 03:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 8 doesnt have that description, yes, I took it from Choice Music Prize, as I was unaware at the time what the award is for.
 * Per, WP:SELF, do not use other Wikipedia articles as a source.-- Crzycheetah 03:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "I read that the Choice Music Prize is the Irish equivalent of the Mercury Prize. Yet on this page, there's that specific description for the Choice prize, but not for the Mercury. Why not?" - I didnt quite get what you're trying to say
 * Why isn't it mentioned that Choice Music Prize is the Irish equivalent of the Mercury Prize? Why the Mercury Prize;s description doesn't state the same description that Choice Music Prize' does.-- Crzycheetah 03:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Meteor Awards problem - Done.
 * Fixed ref for mercury


 * I will change the titles of all refs later, within a day. Dont have that time right now. Please go through the article again andleave your comments. I will address these when I get back. Thanks Suede67 (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: CrzyCheetah, addressed your concerns. Suede67 (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak support I still can't fully support theses awards lists, but I am trying...-- Crzycheetah 01:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Review by 
 * General
 * I feel that this list passes 3b and should not fail due to that, I've seen way shorter lists than these in this type of genre.
 * Lead
 * 'Snow Patrol is a Northern Irish alternative rock band formed in 1994 in Dundee, Scotland as Shrug, and consists of vocalist and rhythm guitarist Gary Lightbody, lead guitarist Nathan Connolly, bassist Paul Wilson, drummer Jonny Quinn and keyboardist Tom Simpson.' -- 1)What does 'as Shrug' mean? 2)I feel that this sentence could use a split before mentioning the members. 3)No need to link Scotland, per WP:OVERLINK.
 * 'Snow Patrol has received one "Ivor Novello Album Award" (in 2005) for their album Final Straw and four "BMI Awards", two for the song "Run" (in 2005), one for being the "College Song of the Year" and "BMI Pop Award", and one for the songs Chasing Cars and Hands Open being performed a combined times in the US (in 2007).' -- 1)Why are the titles of the awards in parenthesis? No need for it. 2)This sentence is just a run on, it needs to be better worded/formatted. I recommend splitting it.-- T ru  c o   503 18:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Truco: I have addressed your concerns. I removed the "Shrug" part, ultimately. I feel the lead can do without it. Suede67 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support -- Issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.-- T ru  c o   503 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wooo! Thanks Truco! Suede67 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.