Talk:Jerry Hahn

Discographies redux

Hello, everyone: @DISEman:; @Vmavanti:; @78.26:; @EddieHugh:. Welcome to the latest installment of problems with jazz discographies. Here we have an article where Vmavanti has removed a number of albums released by Jerry Hahn. I have restored them; Vmavanti has removed them once again. This follows a similar issue at Bruce Forman and a short and seemingly unproductive discussion on my talk page. I would like, in general, to be able to flesh out discographies of musicians with a full list of their studio albums, without it turning into a federal case. So...any help that you all can provide to move us in that direction would be nice. Chubbles (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

If you had catalog numbers next to them, then WP:V would be met. Without them, and without another source, then it fails WP:V. However, I'm not sure what you do about the self-released title, as there is probably not a catalog number. I had that problem at Organ Grinder Restaurant. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 10:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so can we all agree that, by providing catalog numbers with discographical listings, I can restore discographical entries when they are removed? Is it acceptable to revert an editor who continues removing discographical additions with catalog numbers? (Note that, in the past, I have seen a number of editors remove catalog numbers from discographies, either because it does not fit the traditional minimalist format in the discographical guidelines or because the editors viewed the information as excessively trivial.) Chubbles (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

We can debate whether catalog numbers should be added using the reference template, or listed directly after the discographical entry, but catalog numbers should not be removed because that is taking away the source and therefore disruptive editing, unless another is provided. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Vmavanti, if entries you have removed are restored with catalog numbers substantiating their existence, does this sufficiently allay your concerns, or is further discussion necessary? Chubbles (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Catalog numbers don't belong on Wikipedia. There's no need for it. It's clutter at best. If one album has its catalog number listed, then all albums on Wikipedia should have catalog numbers, to be consistent, and I don't expect that to happen. The reason catalog numbers are there is because a small number of people who are interested in jazz discographies put them there. A very small number. That's their interest. My argument has been that editors, IP or regulars, must distinguish between their interests and the interests of readers—the public interest. It's a very democratic way of looking at things. But this view seems to be shared rarely by those who work on jazz articles (I have no one in particular in mind). There seems to be a diehard group which likes adding to discographies but not contributing much else to Wikipedia. These people have their own ideas about how things should be done, and they are sometimes inconsistent with the rules of Wikipedia. I don't know these people and I can't talk to them face to face. I side with Wikipedia's rules, which are usually reasonable. This is a subject that has been made more difficult than it should be because too many IP editors don't want to follow the rules or learn them. Without the rules, we are left with graffiti, and there's already too much of that.

On sourcing, there is a conundrum here, but I haven't caused it. All material on Wikipedia must be sourced. It's not just a rule, it's common sense. It's what all of us learned in school. I ought to be able to remove unsourced material without having my edits reverted. But the status quo for jazz discographies on WP for I don't know how long has been driven by three unwritten rules: one, discographies don't need sources; two, discographical info nearly always comes from Discogs.com (an unreliable source); three, whatever you do, don't use AllMusic. I walked away from this problem last week because I believe it can not be solved given the status quo. So I reverted my own work, many hours of work mainly on jazz guitarists. But then my changes were reverted, too. So damned if I do, damned if I don't. If there are unwritten rules, I wish someone would write them so the rest of us can follow them.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The catalog number is the source. Period. Full Stop. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. By the way, Wikipedia is both a general encyclopedia and a specialized encyclopedia. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I need some proof for these claims: "Wikipedia is both a general encyclopedia and a specialized encyclopedia" and "catalog number is the source". In order for me to understand, someone has to 1) show where it exists in Wikipedia documentation and 2) explain it. It's not enough simply to claim or assert. A catalog number is just a number. It's not a citation or a source. It's not proof of anything. It's just a number on the screen. The former claim sounds like nonsense to me because it is a contradiction. Why are my points and questions never addressed? There's a debate format where, before one person begins to answer, that person summarizes their understanding of the other's position. Something like "You are saying that..." I would like to see more people on Wikipedia adopt this approach, stating the other's position to ensure that it is understood.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I have, in the past, attempted to state your position succinctly, but I have never been able to confirm I have it correct. It appears to be: "All discographical information - title of album, year, label - must be sourced to a reliable third-party citation that is independent of the work itself and independent of the artist him/herself. If such a source cannot be found, the information must be removed; anyone restoring such unsourced information is to be reverted. It is not necessary to use citations for each line or each piece of information in a discography - a single covering footnote can be used for the entire section; however, anything not in that single citation must be removed." I have argued at great length already why there are problems with several of these assertions, but maybe I am fighting a straw man. Did I miss anything that is central to your case? Chubbles (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

No, except I would replace "ought" with "can". Information can be removed, edits can be reverted. I have trouble believing "I have argued at great length already why there are problems with several of these assertions". Not with me you haven't. I wouldn't call them assertions. My methods are applications of the Wikipedia documentation, unless someone can show otherwise. They are rooted in ethical, legal, and literary standards and conventions. Information comes from somewhere. In practice, when information in jazz discogs comes from somewhere other than Discogs.com, it gets reverted. That is an unwritten rule that I had to learn the hard way. No one has addressed the status quo necessity of using Discogs.com when it is an unreliable source—how to get around using an unreliable source. No one has made a compelling argument that Discogs.com ought to be treated as gospel or how one can know with certainty that it is always correct and always complete. I have addressed the shortcomings of Discogs.com. Many times I have addressed the ambiguities of jazz discographies. You have asserted, not argued, at various times that discographies don't have to be sourced and that they source themselves. Do you have other claims? You have also used as a defense "I own the album". I have said several times that you can use a cite AV tag if you want to use the physical album or liner notes as a source. But I hope you remember that albums in the UK can have different information than albums released elsewhere.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Discogs is being roundly used informally as a source of information (to differentiate it from a source being cited in a footnote, which I never do and actively discourage other editors from doing) because it frequently includes a photograph of the album in question - it provides direct support through an image of the item itself.

Here are my claims: Discographical information - at core minimum, a simple chronological list of a musician's studio albums - is inherently encyclopedic, and we do a disservice to readers whenever we fail to provide reliable discographical information. Discographical information must be verifiable. (This is policy.) Discographical information should be traceable to a reliable source. (This is guideline with broad, near-universal support across the project.) As a practical matter, a great deal of discographical information - in particular, the titles of studio albums and the principal record label of release - are rarely disputed or controversial pieces of information, and so to manage the limited human capital of the site, it is advisable to restrict our suspicions about discographical information to specific instances where there appears to be uncertainty or a lack of clarity in available sources. (I have been convinced by EddieHugh's investigations that years of release may merit somewhat more scrutiny, though there is probably a limit to the level of exactness we can guarantee about pinpointing discographical dates.) Routine discographical information (i.e., information for which there is no good-faith reason for dispute) may be taken directly from the recording's descriptive metadata; commercial recordings are published works and are rather obviously de facto the best place to find information about themselves, analogous to the publication data in a book. (Our definition of "published work" on Wikipedia is deliberately broad and includes audiovisual media that are commercially distributed in manners similar to print media.) Exhaustively citing every line of a discography with citation tags for each item clutters the discographies and is very time-consuming, and so is probably more trouble than it is worth; there is no need for discographies to be held to the same standards of footnoting as articles about medicine, crime, or the Kardashians. (I've never gotten any sense that anyone actually wanted that level of scrutiny on discographies until these conversations started.) A single covering cite, however, makes it difficult for future editors to make any changes from other sources, and so is also undesirable.

Vmavanti's position and mine are, as I have noted before, incompatible, and our conversations have ground to a repetitive stasis. I'm interested in coming to some sort of consensus that one or both of us is obliged to abide by in this matter. I know that everyone involved in this discussion is tired of it, but I don't know how else to proceed here other than to ask once again for them to weigh in on how to adjudicate between these disparate positions - they are leading to slow-motion edit wars across many pages. Chubbles (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There will be conflict, contradiction, and inconsistency until there is some kind of guideline. A new editor might use a source for discography information but then find the edits reverted without sufficient cause or explanation. This behavior is arbitrary and inconsistent and leads to conflict. I might have been the first person to point this out (an admin accused me of creating drama. Hardly.) Editors with whom I disagreed have sometimes put the matter in binary terms: deletionist versus inclusionist, Discogs.com versus AllMusic, open minded v. close minded, us versus them. I reject these false dichotomies and imaginary teams. In fact I agree with some of the points in the above paragraph: Discographies should be cited with independent, reliable sources, like all other information on Wikipedia. I'm glad to see that point has been conceded. As far as I know, I was the first person to raise that subject in jazz.

For many reasons, there are ambiguities in jazz discographies, unlike other genres. These ambiguities lead to discrepancies in release dates and labels, particularly with albums released in different countries. A person may write "This is the third album by John Coltrane" on an album page, but that may be wrong depending on where the person lives or bought the album. The album cover doesn't always solve the problem. The only way to resolve discrepancies is with reliable sources and agreed upon guidelines followed by everyone. If there were a copyright database (a free one) that we had access to, that might solve the problem, but I know of no such resource. The important matter here is accurate, sourced information, and the habits people develop when adding information to Wikipedia. Attempts to minimize these matters are essentially attempts to create wiggle room and free play for one's arbitrary preferences, habits, and sources. They also leave the door open to endless conflict, as when two people argue which Coltrane album was his third. How will that be resolved? It may seem like nitpicking. But there are so many examples on Wikipedia where molehills became mountains that the accusation of nitpicking is hardly worth mentioning.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The binary discrepancy here is, at heart, probably WP:BLUE versus WP:NOTBLUE. But it appears we can agree on just one principal thing: The need for resolution through consensus. Other folks - what next? Chubbles (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The guidelines are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style. You can not create project-wide consensus at local pages such as this one. If you wish to modify the discography guidelines (which, I may note, include catalog numbers), then you'll need to gain consensus by an WP:RFC at Wikiproject Discographies, and a notification to WikiProject Music. In the meantime there is no consensus to remove catalog numbers. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Self-evident truths like "the sky is blue" don't get changed. Discographies do. So the analogy doesn't hold. Nor does the analogy to a bibliography of printed books, because those books don't have the ambiguities (or purposes) of jazz discographies. That's mixing apples and oranges. To say "they are both published works" is nearly as useless as saying "they are both things on Earth". So what? Citations aren't needed to prove the existence of the albums anymore than citations are needed to prove the existence of a book used as a source. It's the content of the book that matters, not the existence of the book. A reader follows a WP citation to check the content, to see whether the information in the WP article corresponds to the information in the source. A reader might be interested in reading that source or using it. It's proof. It's attribution. It's giving credit where credit is due.

No one would change something obvious like "the sky is blue". But my edits to discographies have been changed from the beginning of my time here. I'm still trying to figure out why, still trying to find out what the rules are. That may be the gist of it. If an editor changes my edit on a discography, that editor must have reasons. I'm still trying to figure out what they are. As far as I can tell, the reason is it must conform to Discogs.com. But no one has volunteered that information or bothered to put it into a guideline. If that had been done, a lot of conflict would have been prevented. Those of you who believe discographies don't need sources, and are self-sourcing, maybe you can refer me to some books or web sites which discuss that subject. I've looked but haven't found much yet. Where did you get your information? I found one book on the history of jazz discographies called More Important Than the Music: A History of Jazz Discography, but used copies are expensive. Maybe my local library can get it from interlibrary loan. Where did you get your information?
Vmavanti (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Frankly everyone is sick of arguing with you, Vmavanti. The reasons people have changed your discography editing has been explained to you. You continue to make the same arguments. Discogs has nothing to do with this. You do not have consensus to remove albums from discography listings at an artists page when the information if verifiable. Individual albums in an artists do not need to meet notability requirements, it is fine if they are listed as self-evident. If you want to change this, do as I suggest and change the requirements at the Music and Discography wikiprojects. It is pointless to continue this discussion here. Until that happens, consider this a formal warning that removal of such information is considered disruptive editing. I will leave a formal warning on your talk page, so that there can be no ambiguity. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you speak for "everyone"? My edits have been deleted, too, you know. If anyone is "sick of arguing" let that person say so honestly. Talk pages are for debate. No one has addressed the points I have just made. Why not? A request for books and information is met with threats and insults? Does anyone regard this as acceptable behavior? I hope others received the same warning I received on my Talk page, otherwise the impression is that I'm the one causing trouble or breaking rules. Obviously that's a false impression.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

My two cents worth: Discographies should be as comprehensive as possible reflecting the artists available output - this probably should include self produced commercially available releases BUT excluding unofficial/bootleg releases not sanctioned by the artist (although sometimes bootlegs can be notable); I don't think that every album in a discography needs to be referenced if there is a general discographical reference or if the individual album article is referenced but catalog numbers is a useful indicator of publication and I will persist in including the first release catalog number in album articles; Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style is the arbiter of style not any individual - Play Nice; I support 78:26's assertions DISEman (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Just a note - I was not the IP who just reverted the discography edit on the article page here. I'd like to hear if Eddie has any thoughts - not sure if he's interested in weighing in again, but I know he has been a stronger advocate of exhaustive sourcing and may offer a different interpretation. @EddieHugh: - pinging once more just in case. Chubbles (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not just me, it's policy and procedure. Personally, I don't mind if a discography is poorly sourced (although I'd prefer good sourcing) – getting good sources for a discography is unlikely to be a priority. But if someone places a sourcing tag, removes something or otherwise queries any part of a discography, then we're immediately at WP:BURDEN: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." That's policy (is there something more local/specific that counters/modifies this? MOS:DISCOGRAPHY doesn't, but does state "The exact format chosen will depend on the discography and the amount of verifiable information available"... emphasis added). Is a cat. number enough? I've seen editors state that one is, but not explain why one is. Is the argument that a cat. number is analogous to a book's ISBN? That's not a bad argument, but the drawback is that the connection between a book and an ISBN can be checked (verified) online with ease, but that might not be true for an album. I've looked at WikiProject Discographies/style before, but unfortunately it's both unfinished and dormant, so can't be used to support anything. Perhaps revitalising that is the way to go. EddieHugh (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no ISBN for records. But in a biblography, books are not removed because they pre-date the use of ISBN numbers. Catalog numbers are what we're left with, and so unless there is reason to believe the addition is a hoax (doesn't happen in jazz much, but I've seen it happen in current whatever-the-latest-pop-craze-is). If someone has gone online and really tried to verify the existence of an album, there is no catalog number or any other way to verify the information, then I have no problem with removing the album. If there is, say, a Beatles album listed on Dot Records with a catalog number, then that should be removed as a hoax because the Beatles never released material on Dot Records. However, this conversation needs a broader audience, as I have suggested above, and not here on a notable but completely-unknown-to-most-editors topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. let me be explicit: the addition of a good quality, independent source is to be much preferred. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

So, Eddie, what you're asking me to do - what policy compels us to do, you are saying - is that, whenever Vmavanti removes anything in a discography, if I wish to restore it, I must provide an inline citation to a reliable source? I am claiming that catalog numbers are sufficient in the way ISBNs are (I am also claiming that, in general, any commercially released album meets verifiability for its own existence and catalog data on its cover per WP:SELFPUB). Am I therefore obliged to format discographies in this way:

Discography

• Album One (Generic Records, 2000)
• Album Two (Generic Records, 2002)
• Album Three (Generic Records, 2005)

References

We can't seriously be requiring this sort of pointless make-work because of hidebound devotion to the letter of the law, right? I look at this and say to myself, this is pedantic beyond Wikipedia's wildest dreams. Chubbles (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it's covered by SELFPUB, which is about the publisher and author being the same. I feel that I should agree with your main thrust – that a physical object can be a source for itself – but how would the discussion go if it's challenged? Ed 1: what's your source? Ed 2: I've seen the object. Ed 1: I haven't; I don't think it exists. What happens next? What if Ed 1 assumes good faith and lets the matter go but then Ed 3 makes the same challenge? The only options I see are: a) follow existing policy, which requires RS; or b) follow separate, specific guidelines/rules. I don't mind which it is, but we don't have b at the moment. Aren't Wikipedia:Featured lists#Artist discographies required to be fully sourced? EddieHugh (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

And I'm open to persuasion on catalog numbers being sufficient, but what's the argument in support? EddieHugh (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

On the first matter, the problem you identify is as true of any paper book source as it is of an album. - What's your source for this piece of information? -- I read it in a book. - Prove it. -- I saw the book in a library. (Or: Here is a picture of the book from Bookogs.com.) That issue is a fundamental one about empiricism, not something unique to discography; we can always deny what is not immediately in front of our eyes. The very first featured discography I opened from the list you gave - Kronos Quartet discography - does not have inline citations for each piece of catalog information it lists (the "Album details" column), nor do I think it needs to. The idea of the catalog number is that it uniquely identifies the item in the same way an ISBN or a full citation does; it spares us from having to format discographies as I did above. It also spares us from doing what 78.26 just did, which is spend a great deal of time trawling Google and libraries for sources to meticulously verify, with a barrage of secondary sources, trivially verifiable and uncontroversial information that was removed, as far as I can tell, for no other reason than just to make a point. Chubbles (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The Kronos Quartet one became a featured list 10 years ago; I'd guess that standards have moved on; and even then, almost all of it is sourced inline. Does a catalog number really uniquely identify an item? Lots of minor labels use just a number – 001; CD001 or whatever – so there are duplications, unlike with ISBN (as I understand it), and my objection to the ISBN comparison, above, can't go away. At least now, thanks to the efforts of 78.26, the 'Ed 1: what's your source?' discussion isn't going to happen for those albums here again. EddieHugh (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Just some general notes: Very few labels, only one that I know of, re-use catalog numbers again within the same decade. The one I know of uses "003" on every release, just to spite discographers. Those who may use "001" on more than their first issue are probably no different than self-published. For 99.8% of the companies, a catalog will tell a researcher knowledgeable about them one or several of the following: release date, country, type of music, type of people marketed to, format, whether it is a reissue or original release, and probably some things I'm forgetting right now. It isn't random, useless information, truly it isn't.

It really didn't take me very long (about 30 minutes) to find that information, it did take me a bit longer to fill out the citation templates. I am going to my local library (which has an unusually extensive music department (books, not CDs/records) to try to substantiate some of the latter releases of Hahn. I have not checked archive.org, did Hahn have a personal website from where he marketed that self-released CD? I'm actually having trouble substantiating that one, but I'm hoping it is in Lord. If it will help avoid fights in the future between editors who should be on the same side through common interest in great music (my POV is showing) I will gladly accept requests to try to find sources for any particular release that comes into contention. This offer is for everyone, for those who are concerned an issue is not verified, and for those who want support for releases they have added. I'm pretty proficient at finding discographical information (said in all modesty, of course....) but I'm much better at phonograph records, probably decent at CDs, and may not be of much help for digital (mp3) or streaming-only releases. You'll have to directly ping me though, please. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

(editconflict: Reply to EddieHugh) The next two I opened - Pussycat Dolls discography and Opeth discography - also do not inline-cite basic catalog information, including date of release (which is not actually listed on the releases in most cases). I don't want it to seem as if I'm arguing that what is is what should be, though; I think that, regardless of current practice, adding third-party referencing for that information would be unproductive overkill. The catalog number works in tandem with the label name - the number of duplicates there is small enough that I think we can handle them on a case-by-case basis rather than assuming from the start they're unworkable.

Can we take a minute to talk over the last sentence of your previous comment? The discussion here is primarily focused on resolving two questions - whether a commercially-released album is a reliable source for basic information about itself, and if it is, how we present the link between the information and the source. But that last comment lays bare a third issue that has been motivating much of my ardor over moving toward a resolution here: we are presuming that 'Ed 1: what's your source?' is a priori a question we must always answer under any circumstances, without examination. Someone has questioned information on Wikipedia, and so the burden falls on us to substantiate it, full stop. Why did we remove several albums from the Jerry Hahn discography? I can't answer this question - not even as a thought experiment. If there were a good, substantial reason for it, I would agree with the removal! But there's no rationale for it whatsoever; Vmavanti has never coherently explained why we would have any reason to think someone put a nonexistent album into this discography (and then also created a fake Discogs page with a Photoshopped album cover, and a fake Amazon listing, and a fake Allmusic entry, and on and on). It's not as if there is any sort of general reliability issue about the titles of studio albums; at worst, there might be an honest mistake (in which case the album cover is a better source of information than a possibly-misprinted secondary source!). Yet according to the argument I'm seeing here, WP:BURDEN demands we treat it in exactly the same manner we would (justifiably) treat a contentious claim about, say, human sexuality or the private life of a celebrity. It's like a sourcing arms race - always more and more extreme requirements; more work, less information (and distorted information - when we present an incomplete discography to users, we are misinforming them with the omissions). Why would we encourage a native distrust of this information? What are we trying to prove? Chubbles (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

78, if you're serious, you're going to be very busy. Vmavanti has been hard at work culling albums from dozens of discography pages. Just as before, solving the problem on this page doesn't fix the larger issue. Chubbles (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Not since I told him to stop, he hasn't. Although I do not watch his edits, near as I can tell he also isn't personalizing his arguments, at least not nearly to the same extent. Let's return the favor. Agreed, the larger discussion about proper presentation of and inclusion in discographies belongs on one of the pages I list above. I've finished sourcing the discography on this page, anything without a citation has its own article page. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, the trouble with depersonalizing the argument is...no one else has ever asked this of us, and the reasoning for why we've been asked it is hard to parse. It is tough for me not to see this as merely humoring the predilections of a single editor with a highly idiosyncratic understanding of Wikipedia's rules and culture. That is why the conversation with Eddie is so important, and so illuminating - if we're serious about this, and we're really going to require every line of every discography to be inline-cited, and we're going to support and encourage editors who slice out unsourced discography lines, then we should be clear about the overarching rationale for why we think this makes a better encyclopedia. (I am convinced it will actively make for a worse encyclopedia, at this point.) Furthermore, you are right that the discography MOSes should be updated to reflect this if so: the examples should be fitted (saddled...) with rigorous and well-formatted citations, and the text should make clear that unsourced discography lines are unacceptable. Chubbles (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Various replies: Opeth is from 11 years ago and the sourcing is terrible. Pussycat Dolls is from 9 years ago, but almost everything is sourced; I count 24 for the first entry! (As an aside, it's a good example of why typical discography presentation on here is poorly suited to jazz; we're supposed to list charting information, but almost no jazz gets on charts, which would give us tables of blank space.) 78.26: could you give an example of how a catalog number gives all that information ("release date, country, type of music, type of people marketed to, format, whether it is a reissue or original release")? It's not encoded in a number such as CD LR 358; is it in something like 0777 7 46402 2 0? Or do you just mean that having the number helps more than having just artist and title in a search for that information? Chubbles, I think you're exaggerating my position: I haven't said that every line is required to be inline sourced. But the evidence of FL (despite it not being 100%, as you've demonstrated) is that substantial inline sourcing is the norm at that level. It doesn't need to be enforced at the level of a regular article, but – unless that catalog number system really is like an ISBN – if information is challenged, no viable alternative to BURDEN has been suggested. Was 78.26's half hour of searching a wasted half hour? I'd guess that Chubbles believes it was, that 78.26 enjoyed it, and that I think of the outcome as another problem dealt with. EddieHugh (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, Tove Lo discography is from 2017, and the exact day-month-year of release is inline-cited (which would require external sourcing to verify), but the title, label, and format of release are not. Same with Selena Gomez discography (2016). The most basic of back-of-the-disc discographical information - which is the rub here - is not sourced in the way this discussion implies is necessary. Yes, you've said removal isn't required; however, the conversation is a result of a very prolific editor who is removing a lot of things, and the answer I'm hearing here is, it is my BURDEN to restore any and all of it. I have to make sure the answers we come to here square with what I have to do as an editor in actual practice. Eddie, are there any circumstances under which you think it would be appropriate to use a commercially-released recording as a SELFPUB, and if so, how would you format it for verification purposes? (If simply including a catalog number isn't going to convince editors in general that V is met, what would be the minimum sourcing/formatting requirement for the entry?) Chubbles (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There are sources for release date, certification, 10 charts, and there's a separate article for the album, so an additional source for the existence of the album would be redundant. One could be requested for label or format, but it would be very likely to be one of the multitude of sources already listed, so people think it superfluous, I suppose. What we're discussing is whether having no (R)S at all is ok. I've used album liner notes (probably for personnel, recording dates, label, track listing, etc) and cited them using "Cite AV media notes", but not as the sole source for the existence of an album. Still on your first question: again, the problem is what to do if info is challenged; surely the solution to a sourcing challenge isn't adding more unsourced info (be it catalog number, label, release date, or something else). So, for your second question: as close to an RS as possible. EddieHugh (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Release date (year-month-day) requires external sourcing; it's not catalog data available on the release. Certifications and charts are determined after it hits the shelves; they're also not catalog data. I expect and demand external sources for this kind of information. I am asking about name of release, label, format. Is the release itself "as close to an RS" enough to be suitable for use? If the answer is "no", then Vmavanti is totally in the right in this matter, and there is no need to continue the discussion. If the answer is "yes" or "sometimes", I need a sense of when it is permissible to use it (and when it is not), and what that sourcing needs to look like to be acceptable (i.e., what I can revert and restore if it is removed). If I add a catalog number, and the entry is removed, may I revert and restore as removal of sourced information? If I add a citation with the catalog data (thus essentially duplicating the line-item discography entry), and the entry is removed, may I revert and restore? (If I use the AV Media template, does that make a difference?) If I add a citation to a commercial link (such as a Bandcamp or CDBaby page - things I typically took as unacceptable in the past), and the entry is removed, may I revert and restore? (The Jerry Hahn sources that 78 just added include a couple of ads and personal commercial sites, but they do establish mere existence externally.) If I add a link to Discogs page with a photo of the album (again, something I typically discouraged when discographical sourcing was not required at this most basic level), and the entry is removed, may I revert and restore? If I can't answer these questions, it's likely to result in more editing conflicts. Chubbles (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like there is a strong desire to evaluate these matters on a case-by-case basis, and I will abide by that. I'm thankful for a respite, in any case, and I imagine that feeling is shared all around. Chubbles (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

But why here...?

Greetings! I have recently launched a topic concerning similar issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies. After seeing all the lengthy conversation you've had here, I can't help but wonder why it has taken place just here, and not some project / policy Talk Page? I mean, even if you achieved some sort of local consensus, it wouldn't be automatically applicable to the rest of the articles.

So far, I am not sure if there should be a generalized rule on including sources to the discographics. WP:BURDEN still lies on the person who adds material, but bloating the article and adding a source for every single entry might not be necessary. Should an entry be contested, though, a reasonable source should be provided (be it a review article, publisher's website etc.) If no such source was found, the entry is free for deletion.

If we're dealing with a notable artist, finding information to back-up the existence of one's albums should not be a problem. But if an artist is claimed to have published a new recording — even though no sources can be found to support that claim — then this places a big question mark over the a) credibility of the claim, or the b) notability of the artist. The latter should not be included in the encyclopedia; the former should not be included in the article. Summa summarum, not to be able to find sources that support the contested recordings of an artist, perhaps that means that those really don't exist, or that the artist just doesn't meet the WP:NOTABILITY criteria (which is a miracle that the article has passed to its existence in the first place). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayaguru-Shishya (talk • contribs) 03:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)