Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs in Rock Band 3/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 Dabomb87 14:39, 21 July 2011.

List of songs in Rock Band 3

 * Nominator(s): –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... erm... I think it meets the criteria. :) It has a well-defined scope (the songs on the Rock Band 3 disc), good prose (in my opinion), a lead which explains what the list is, and it looks nice. I recently added in the images which are next to the list as a way of making the article look more appealing than just a list... although the images are just of the artist, and not necessarily related to thee in-game song beyond that. If people in the discussion feel that they should be removed, I don't really mind. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we need to borrow from the RB3 reception to talk about the critical response to the setlist, since that can be discussed in depth. Also, it may be worthwhile in talking about the DLC that HMX has considered Rock Band (and RB3 itself) to be a game platform that they can support indefinitely with songs, and while they are't pushing an RB4 out this year. --M ASEM  (t) 22:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding reception would make sense, sure. I'll try and add something later today or tomorrow. The way that HMX considers the series to be a "platform" seems like it belongs more in the Rock Band 3 and Rock Band (series) articles to me, though. I wanted to make the DLC section in this article focus specifically on what can be used in RB3 and what RB3-specific DLC is like, rather than discussing DLC for the platform as a whole, since that is (or should be) discussed in the series article and Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added in a short section for reception. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The formatting of the Track_listing section should be fixed. The long vertical list of images doesn't make sense in context and ruins layout. Maybe a gallery would be better? Diego Moya (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input! I think as a gallery it wouldn't look very good; how nice it looks probably depends on monitor size. As I said above, I'd be happy to remove them... do you think that that is the best course of action? I can't think of a better place to put them, and they're really just decoration with some "fun facts" in the captions so removing them doesn't really detract from the article. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm against deleting content for no good reason. No, it just needs to be put in a different format. The problem is that at standard resolution (I'm at 1024x768), at anything other than with a maximized window they don't align with the table so they look like a "long right-aligned list of photos with whitespace on the left". Maybe they could be scattered around the article so they aren't together, or their text could be extracted and the images placed in a gallery. Something that don't force HTML text reflow to mess up with the list structure. Diego Moya (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh... that is problematic on 1024x768 displays (my monitor is much wider than that, so the end of the images actually lines up perfectly with the end of the table). I'll look into it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, in order for the table to look good on both 1024x768 and *whatever-my-15.6-inch-display-is*, all but like one or two images need to be removed. The remaining images, then, seem kind of out of place. I'd happily put them in a gallery, but I don't think a gallery here would pass WP:IG. I've removed the images for now (and since the captions are really kind of trivia-ish, the info isn't really needed in the article). I'd just added them before the FLC so the article looked nicer, but they do really make it look ugly on some displays. If you have any ideas as to how they, or the information in the captions, can be kept, I'd be happy to add it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That same guideline suggests moving them to commons, and there's a template to link to them.i wouldn't like the pictures lost because of my feedback.Diego Moya (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the pictures are on Commons, but not in a single category. I mean, what would it be? "Pictures of artists featured in the Rock Band series"? It seems kind of arbitrary. They aren't screenshots or anything, and IIRC most of them are already in the article about the pictured artist. Begins to regret having put them in in the first place. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, from past discussions, we don't classify songs as being part of Rock Band or GH through categories, it would make no sense for the artists (or even photos of articles) to be categorized in the same manner. --M ASEM (t) 13:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Question from nominator: Would it make sense to add in the "band difficulty" for each song? It could be a useful sort, I just don't know whether or not it would be encyclopedic enough. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From experience, as soon as you try to add this in, readers will want to see all the ratings. Since these are all available via the RB website, we don't need to include them. Unlike other music games where there is tiering based on difficulty, it doesn't really happen in RB, so I don't think you'd want to include them. --M ASEM  (t) 13:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. That makes sense, thanks! (And what is up with the tiering not being based on difficulty? There are songs which are devil-tiered for the full band when none of the individual songs are devil tiered!) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 *  Conditional support that the nominator corrects the italicization of the online and printed sources in the references. I found some of the website names as italicized, which should not be, and vice-versa. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 16:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I think I've fixed the issue you mentioned; let me know if I missed any. I really don't know why cite web italicizes the "work" by default, since it it almost always going to be a website. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "The Power of Love" does not sort properly.
 * I will support besides that.-- T ru  c o  503  14:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch, thanks. Fixed with this edit. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- meets WP:WIAFL.-- T ru  c o  503  14:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Here are the issues that stood out to me. I also made a few tweaks to trivial things I noticed. Other than that, the list is in good shape. I'll check back in later. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC))
 * The sentence in the lead about the number of players and the types of peripherals seem awkward to me. Not sure, but I think too much info is in there for the sentence to flow smoothly. Maybe break it up?
 * "Pro" keeps popping up, but no description of it is made on the page. Some basic description should be made for the layman, otherwise the content about it makes little sense.
 * Thanks for the review! I think I fixed those couple issues in this edit. –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: My concerns have been addressed and the list looks to meet the FL criteria. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC))


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