Nine Inch Nails discography

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 20 days, 3 support, 1 oppose. Been a candidate for 20 days, no consensus to promote. Fail. Scorpion0422 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am self-nominating this article based on its thoroughness and adherence to MoS and standard discography style. Any comments and suggestions are welcome. Drewcifer 04:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done? I reworded both slightly, though you may have been expecting something more drastic. If it still needs more work let me know. Drewcifer 19:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Best of luck Drew!  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a brief history of the band in the lead.
For most discogs I would agree, but since NIN is a one-man band, there really isn't much to say, is there? If you take a look at the main NIN page, the vast majority of the band's history is just one release after another. It mentions some reviews and a few semi-trivial facts, but everything is based around a particular release. All of that wouldn't really be conducive to a discog article, in my opinion. But if you have any biographical facts in particular you'd like to see, let me know. Drewcifer 02:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a few things that would be relevant to the lead of this list would be a mention of the relatively long time NIN spends between releases, that Reznor initially expected NIN to get one single on an obscure European label, that Pretty Hate Machine was among the first independent platinum albums... This is a fairly substantial amount of information for a summary and I've only read down to the PHM section. I definitely think that a summary of the band's history in the lead would be a plus, just model the presentation after other Featured discographies. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RIAA certifications don't necessarily equate to U.S. sales; that is, 3x platinum doesn't mean that 3,000,000 copies of the album have been sold, just that 3,000,000 copies have been shipped.
Good points. Unfortunately, I've only been able to find a source directly citing recent US sales for TDS. What would be ideal is to get into Soundscan.com and confirm everything, but I don't subscribe. Any ideas? Drewcifer 03:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I filled out sales for The Fragile. Both Billboard and MTV.com are good resources for album sales. Occasionally album reviews will mention sales for previous albums. Nine Inch Nails is a pretty big band so I'm sure every release has some Soundscan numbers floating around somewhere. --Brandt Luke Zorn 02:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I think this is a dead end. I emailed Leviathant from the NIN Hotline, and not even he knows how to get that info (and no one I've talked to has access to Soundscan). Looking at other discogs, though, very few of them have it - they just have the more available RIAA certifications listed. So I think it would be best if I just deleted the column(s). Drewcifer 01:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Not the ideal solution, but I just deleted the columns. I'll keep trying to find some way to get the info, and if successful I'll add it back in later. Drewcifer 05:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help find some sales figures and post them on the talk page. Also, I'd check to see if NIN ever had any sales certifications in the UK (pages like Goldfrapp discography for how to find and cite this info). --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Drewcifer 02:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All chart positions should be centered, and shouldn't have # in front of the number.
 Done Drewcifer 02:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Live albums and compilations" contains mostly videos. Basically, this section needs to be split into "Live albums" and "Videos".
I renamed the section to the move general"Live releases" since the only album is And All that Could Have Been, and that's just one format of the release. Simply renaming the section seems like a better solution to having the same release in two different sections (Live albums and videos). Let me know if you disagree or think I should do something different. Drewcifer 00:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine, consider it done. --Brandt Luke Zorn 13:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""—" denotes releases that did not chart." should be placed where appropriate.
Which entries in specific are you referring to? I don't see any that don't have the dash. Drewcifer 02:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any section of the discography that has chart positions should have it underneath the table for that section. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Ooooh, I was totally confused. Gotcha now. Drewcifer 06:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miscellaneous should be organized in a table and have a reference for each song mentioned.
I put everything into a table, but are you sure about citations? All of that stuff is covered by the General references (ie the discogs, Rolling Stone, nin.net discogs). Drewcifer 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, even if Miscellaneous entries are cited by another external discography, there are references to the All Music Guide page for that compilation. It's back to that meta-wiki question you asked about references for the sake of references, but it's really about convenience I suppose. --Brandt Luke Zorn 13:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Citations added. Drewcifer 05:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Discogs is not a reliable source, as it is a community built website. --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Ok, I'm working on it. Drewcifer 04:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to mention this earlier but usually there isn't a separate reference column: Just sick the footnote after the song title. Btw, if you haven't seen them yet I put some sales references for the studio albums and Broken on the talk page. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if Landmark bootlegs should be kept, seeing as they aren't official releases.
Well, they're not official releases, but they are official material, I suppose. And two of them have articles of their own (linked), so they are notable. I could go either way on this one though. Drewcifer 21:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this again, I'd say that the bootlegs are notable, but not enough for a discography for official releases. However, I suppose bootlegs with their own articles could be put in the "See also" section. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Sounds like a good compromise. Drewcifer 06:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music videos should be its own section.
 Done Drewcifer 21:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The color should be removed from the Music videos table per WP:WAI#Color.
 Done Crazy, didn't even noticed that. Drewcifer 20:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Drewcifer 20:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Brandt Luke Zorn 20:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily say a discography has to be a certain way. What applies for writing articles applies for lists: there's room for leeway and variation in writing a page. If there's an actual guideline that would be something different, but even then each article is different. I concur with Drewcifer who said "we've yet to establish a single style for these discographies (nor should we in my opinion)." Some aspects of formatting are merely the preference of the editor(s). WesleyDodds 08:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the current FL discog candidates (Red Hot Chili Peppers discography, Fall Out Boy discography, Powderfinger discography, and Maroon 5 discography) I don't think there is any consensus on this issue at all (judging by the large amount of Support votes for those FLCs). I think this is a larger issue than just this single FLC, and since there is no consensus I see no reason why it should be held against this particular article. Drewcifer 04:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneDrewcifer 06:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Well done. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More