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: 14 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

previous FLC

Self nomination This is a renomination, with the previous nomination taking place in August. It has been ranked A-class by the Alternative music Wikiproject. This list has undergone many changes since its last nomination and I now believe that it conforms to all of the featured list criteria. --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as a member of WikiProject Alternative music. I supported the article during its last nomination after we sorted out a few issues in the FLC. I'm confident that this list is exceptionally referenced and comprehensive. WesleyDodds 05:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks great to me. Only two small issues. First, the weird footnote format. "IIIIII" for example. Why not just use abcde...? Second, and I'm not entirely sure if this is even fixable, but the first table is really wide. So wide in fact that I need to scroll over to see any of the last column. Ideally it should fit in most monitors, especially a 1024x768 monitor such as mine. Any ideas on that? Drewcifer 10:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a precedent for naming ((ref)) tags in the style that I used from other featured discographies (see Hilary Duff discography and Goldfrapp discography). As for the width complaint, I adjusted the longest album title so that it wouldn't make the "Album" column as wide. Beyond that I don't think that anything short of removing information or chart positions can be done. --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The width thing is a little better. It still runs over, but that's about as good as it's gonna get. And I understand the whole precedence thing. But why? (At this point I'm just curious, not holding it against the Nirvana discog.) Also, I noticed a few minor things with the intro paragraph: I'd delink posthumous, since it just goes to a disambig page. "apparent suicide"? Isn't there just one crazy dude who thinks it wasn't a suicide? Either way, is that really necessary here? Also I don't think it's necessary to wikilink widow or suicide. Drewcifer 03:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not sure why the footnotes are formatted this way, but I don't want to have a format inconsistent with other discography pages. I removed the links you mentioned; as for "apparent suicide", I think that there is enough controversy surrounding his death that putting "suicide" might be read as POV. --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm satisfied with the changes made above. Another excellent discography! Drewcifer 04:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support great job, covers all with many references (the only one without notes is the Music Videos, but it's too short to complain). igordebraga ≠ 01:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing really to reference. Even with the directors credits are traditionally displayed during the beginning and end of a video when it's shown on TV. WesleyDodds 08:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]