Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Metallica concert tours/archive4

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 23:08, 23 November 2010 [1].

List of Metallica concert tours[edit]

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating this for featured list because I believe this is a fine list worthy of the featured status (the previous nom was closed without any votes). Nergaal (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links; dead external links to http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/12/arts/music/1996lolla.html?pagewanted=1 and http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12054238 . Ucucha 22:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the first one minutes you posted here, and the second works fine (it redirects). Nergaal (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Kirk Hammett replaced Mustaine in 1983, while the bassist role was taken by Cliff Burton (1982–1986), Jason Newsted (1986–2001), and Robert Trujillo (from 2003). i would write since 2003-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Nergaal (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Than you very much! Nergaal (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The link in ref 8 is totally wrong as it links to their 1982 schedule, I don't see how this references 1983 onwards. I once again raise the question of how Ref 64 can reference the whole column since its a link to the 2008 European Vacation. Ref 44 has a small typing error with the code. Afro (Talk) 19:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 4 is split by years: selecting the year and then tour will show all the shows in that year. I am not looking forward at splitting it into almost 30 links. Should I just add a note to it? Nergaal (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add #64 so I don't know what to do with it other than remove it. Nergaal (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Ref 8 I did check and it does only show 1982 on the dropbox. I think adding a note like Note 1 in List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand), would be the best option. Afro (Talk) 20:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.metallica.com/timeline.asp Just looking over the link again this would probably be the better link to add since it doesn't lead to the 1982 section. Afro (Talk) 01:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've changed the format to a summary note for each decade with yearly links, and a general reference in the Refs section. Is it ok now? Nergaal (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can the image galleries for Ref 8, 15, 40, 50, 60, constitute as Realiable? also I think per MOS:TEXT "Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities" so I think adding the small html tag is against the MOS. Afro (Talk) 21:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the images are hosted by Metallica.com, the official website. The first image for example has the caption Advertisement for the show on April 23rd, 1982 at The Concert Factory in Costa Mesa, CA: since all the other links of the Metallica.com are considered reliable, I don't see a reason to consider images hosted by them with such descriptive captions to be unreliable (if the captions would say something like "original advertisement of a show that had different supporting bands" then yes, but the captions imply that the ticket description is accurate). Nergaal (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Font sizes: are you referring to the locations? If yes, then all the FLs like this employ similar format, and I see no reason to have this different. Nergaal (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I ask on the images because you seem to be referencing the supporting acts and not the entire gigs, since 8 only has Metallica listed, 15 is unreadable, 40 is a picture of Metallica, 50 doesn't have any supporting acts listed, 60 I can't find any specific references of bands, maybe WP:RS was incorrect maybe WP:VERIFY would be more correct along the lines I'm thinking of. On the font sizes I don't think just because all other FLs employ it should be means for inclusion, whether it meets FL criteria should be the means. Afro (Talk) 00:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not added the images myself so I don't know for sure what happened. But seeing that the accessdate was Feb 2009, I am tempted to think that the image IDs were changed since then, so the link shows a diff image. I went through each of them and fixed them: Changed 8, 15, 40, and 50 (doubled it to 50 and 51), and removed 60 since is superfluous. Nergaal (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The font size still hasn't been taken care of which I've listed the appropriate reason above.

Copy-pasting from above: Font sizes: are you referring to the locations? Nergaal (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 14 I'm slightly confused as to what its referencing, my best guess is that the content of the link has changed since January 2009, same goes with Ref 19, 28.

Ref 14 contains drop-down menus that are not linkable directly. For example, if you click on 1985, you will get the lineup that corresponds to the first instance of the use of ref 14. I have merged 19 into 14. I am confused to what is the problem with ref 28 (now 27). Nergaal (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 44 I'm pretty sure constitutes as WP:OR and definitely violates WP:CIRCULAR.

current #43: are you saying Metallica.com uses wikipedia to reference its own playset? As for OR, I am not convinced it is: [2] & [3]. Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on the WP:VERIFIABILITY of Songkick.com, whiplash.net, and musicmight.com.

On Songkick after signing up I can edit the artists listed, which means the information can change on a daily basis.

Switched. Nergaal (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the About of MusicMight its all user submitted.

By Whiplash.net About page section (more specifically here) "Actually the whole site content is written by volunteer contributors." (requires translation obviously) so its all user submitted.

Question - Would it be more useful to separate the one off shows and the concerts into a new section, what prompts me to ask is "Several shows outside tours" from "2000-2003", it seems logical to separate material like this. Afro (Talk) 10:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list is meant to be chronological, with only three occasions where they played outside official tours. Splitting the list further would not help achieve anything extra. Nergaal (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-and-pasting from above "per MOS:TEXT "Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities"

I have no idea what are you specifically referring to! What TEXT you think uses the wrong size, and what automated facilities are you referring to? Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must've mistaken 28 for something else.

On Ref 44 (now 43) at the time it consisted of internal links obviously has been changed since, however I still do not see any information regarding the debut of 2 new songs all I see is a setlist maybe the songs are within this setlist the average reader cannot verify this, changing the information you're citing might be appropriate.

I changed the verb from debuted to played. Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the structure of the lead, it does violate WP:LEAD#Length as short as the 2nd is.

You are saying the lead is too long? Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the splitting I only ask because this article is about concert tours, would it not be useful to the reader to split dates which are essentially just concerts and not tours themselves. Afro (Talk) 13:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you would want to drop the "tour" part from the title? Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: could you strike out the issues that have been fixed? Another reviewer passing through here might think that there are plenty of issues to be solved to bother dropping by to make another review. Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was obvious the text I was referring to was the location, what other text are you using the small html tags for? I wasn't suggesting dropping the tour part from the title all I am suggesting is it might be better to separate the "tours" which are just concerts, it doesn't make too much sense to me that the one-off concerts are grouped with the tours. Afro (Talk) 13:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at List of concert tours by Michael Jackson and The Jackson 5, List of Madonna tours, List of Kylie Minogue concert tours, and List of concert tours by Michael Jackson and The Jackson 5 and go ahead and nominate them for FLR with your concern that you have here. I don't understand why it is acceptable to have this in current FLs but it is not in FLCs. Nergaal (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the non-tours entries to a separate section. Is the oppose still standing? Nergaal (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had I been apart of those FLCs I assure you I would've brought up the very same concerns regarding MOS:TEXT, for reference the Kylie Tour probably needs bringing to the FLRC for the Lead alone. Fact is the Criteria specifically states 5. "Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." unless I'm mistaken the table does not comply with MOS:TEXT, and yes as of right now I am Opposed. Afro (Talk) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but it doesn't seem to be very broad in its coverage. There is little to no info on many tours. It would be helpful to add more info and insight.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even remotely aware of what do the current FLs on tours look like? There are four of them: NIN one does not cover any details other than band setup; Kyle Minogue has 16 entries with one or two short sentences for each; the Jackson one has 15 entries with one or two lines for all except the last 4 ones; Madonna has 12 entries, all with details. This has over 30 entries! Also, and only a small part of these have separate articles, have you thought that there are no separate articles because reliable, independent sources with more information on those tours are simply not available? Nergaal (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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