Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Discographies talk page (Discussion page).
(January 2008 - December 2008) - Please Do not edit!

What this is

As originally suggested by MusicMaker5376 and more or less formalized by Torc2 (read the main discussion thread here) this WikiProject is going to try to put together a plan for discography pages. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool man. Let's do it! Drewcifer (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This is such a good idea, especially since there are so many discography lists on Wikipedia now! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You guys helped me get the D's discog up to FA, so I'm going to try to get at least one other band to that. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's great to see a formalized plan to bring together discography pages! Good work. --Jacob Talk 01:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Importance assessment

First order of business: as I was doing random behind-the-scenes stuff to get the project up and going, I came to the conclusion that assessing the importance of discography articles wasn't really necessary, only the class/quality. It makes sense to rate discogs for importance within other projects based on the topic (like how important it is in relationto Alternative Music, or in relation to all of the other articles within the artist's/band's WikiProject). But it doesn't make sense to me to rate an article for importance based on it's type. Same reason that WikiProject Biography doesn't rate for importance on biography-type article, because you can't really say that a person is more important than another person, but you can say that this person is more important in the field of Toxicology, say, then this other person. But I didn't want to make such a big decision without getting consensus for it first. Any opinions? Drewcifer (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

For people who have assessment rating set to show under page title, it's odd that lists are being class rated as anything other than List, as they can't really be anything else. As far as importance, I would say the more well-known the band, or the more successful, the higher the importance. For example, I'd put the discog for Queen above that of Queens of the Stoneage. Epic bands/artists with world-wide fame should be of top importance. Lara❤Love 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Soundtracks

Im stuck on Dr. Dre discography because Im not sure how many soundtracks I should list. On imdb he is credited for 27 soundtracks. 50 Cent is credited for 21 different soundtracks but only 1 is listed on 50 Cent discography, which is a featured. So im just wondering is there a criteria for this? Should I only list the soundtracks where he peforms the majority of the songs? -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would include anything that is referenced by a reliable source (which isn't IMDB). Don't simply follow the 50 Cent discog all the way just because it's featured, consensus amongst the Featured article/list projects can differ, and the criteria may also differ between now and when 50 Cent's became a FL. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Formatting, Style questions

OK. So a few questions that have been raised in my current Róisín Murphy discography nomination:

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Style guidline proposal

I've done my best to write up a style-guidline of sorts over here. Take a look at let me know what you think, preferably on the proposal's talk page. I expect some of the things in there to be a bit controversial, especially since nearly every FL discog at the moment doesn't meet the guidleine for one reason or another. But I hope that's mainly because of a lack of consistency between discographies, not necessarily something wrong my proposed guidelines. Anyways, take a look and feel free to tear it apart. Drewcifer (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Unreleased albums

Should unreleased albums be added to discographies or not? My opinion is that only released albums should be in a discography, since for some articles that I'm working on we know that the artist is working on an album but it does not even have a name yet. Gary King (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My gut feeling would be to include them, since the assumption is that it eventually will be released, and that there is some concrete evidence that it's coming sometime in the near future. Granted, a citation would definitely be necessary. Drewcifer (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Information about albums being worked on should certainly be included in the artist's article (well-sourced, of course) but until the album actually exists it should not appear in a discography. Crystal ballism and all that. The way the record industry works (especially of late) there is no guarantee that an album will be released until it actually comes out. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Would like an opnion on Hoodoo Gurus discography as to what level/standard the article is up to - any suggestions on how it could be improved would be greatfully accepted. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment

Where could one place a reformed article for reassessment. I've put a particular amount of effort into reconstructing the Dir en grey discography page, and I would like some input and if it can be done, reassessment on the rating. Thanks for any help! --Jacob Talk 01:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

I have AWB and I'm trying to find out about tagging everything in Category:Discographies with the project banner. Assessment wouldn't be too much fun, but it would be a start, right? Seegoon (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"What makes these sites reliable?"

I've been meaning to bring this up for some time now; what makes websites that we use so frequently in discography articles--everyhit, chartstats, the numerous hit parade charts--reliable per WP:RS? I remember SandyGeorgia pointing out that "everyHit.com is simply an online database of my family's record collection". As for the Hit Parade-affiliated sites (you know those Belgian, Swedish, Swiss... ones) I find them to be grossly incomplete, especially before 2000. For example, while adding Aussie chart info for the R.E.M. discography, I found that australian-charts.com lists only three R.E.M. studio albums that charted (all post-2000 releases). However, R.E.M.: Fiction: An Alternative Biography, (owned by WesleyDodds, who I am collaborating with) indicates that the band has been charting in Australia from as long as 1986! So if the book were never used, we would instead have "—"'s against eight of the band's albums. Also note that we consider "—" to mean that "the album did not chart in that territory"; we do not account for the possibility that our sources are not complete, making us awfully incorrect. What results is a gross under-evaluation of a band's performance in a territory. So can we continue using these sources, willfully knowing that they are crap often unreliable? indopug (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, it's rather shocking, and we should most certainly look at all our sources for discrepancies. I wonder how many of our Featured Lists are incorrect. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This is certainly an issue, and probably something that is long over due. After taking a look at the Everyhit.com, I'm afraid I can't find any indication that it is reliable. I'm still investigating the others though. Drewcifer (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Since I have never found (yet) incorrect chart info, only incomplete; how about changing it to "'—' indicates that the album did not chart in a particular territory or that the chart information at source may be insufficient? As for everyhit, I am more akin to believe it to be accurate. I compared the chart history of Blur at everyhit with an Official English chart books preview i found at GoogleBooks and it was completely accurate (for the Top 40). Of course that doesn't conclude anything, but it'll be interesting to check everyhit's accuracy for obscure bands in the 60s and 70s. indopug (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a mini-break through with this problem. The IFPI maintains a list of chart sites here. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that the sites in the list can be considered reliable, since a reliable 3rd party uses them as source of information. The important thing to notice is that they link to the Swiss site HitParade, which in turn operates alot of the other country chart sites that are so popular in discographies. Drewcifer (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

They delete the chart positions. Don't know why. Found it out when they deleted the chart positions for bryan adams and soundgarden on the australian version. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't follow you at all. Who deleted what when? Can you give us the url of the difference? Drewcifer (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Look at Soundgardens chart positions her [1]. Before there was chart positions her. I've seen it with my own eyes but now they are deleted. The point is that we need to get these chart positions before it's to late. You can see the chart positions on the Soundgarden discography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, Everyhit is linked to as a reference from the BBC Radio 1 Chart Show's website (at the bottom of the page there). Now, since the UK Singles Chart does not have an online database similar to the US' at Billboard.com and Billboard.biz, it's the closest and (from what i've seen) most correct chart database for the UK Top 40. However, Unlike Billboard, Everyhit does not have permanent links to its search results. Which is a bit of a problem, but otherwise, i'm confident they're a reliable source. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Awesome! That's a good one to have access to. Thanks. Drewcifer (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Discographies - and recordings?

Greetings from the Opera Project and congratulations on starting what should be a very worthwhile project.

I see you are bannering recordings (of opera anyway) as well as discographies. I removed one banner thinking it was a mistake (The Record of Singing), but then I thought I should put a note here to clarify the scope of this project. If you are thinking of extending the scope to include recordings there is a lot of useful work to be done on clarifying copyright restrictions etc. so it might be a good idea. Thank you and regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

RIAA gold and platinum singles

I'm fairly new to editing discographies and I'm a little confused on something. In the RIAA certification article, there's a section listing the artists with the most RIAA certified singles and I'm wondering what order they should be put. Should they be listed in the order of how many singles have recieved certification? For instance, Madonna is listed second behind Elvis Presley with 25 gold singles. Is that right or should they be listed in order of how many total gold, platinum, and multi-platinum certifications they have?Odin's Beard (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Silver/Gold/Platinum/Diamond is merely an indiciation of sales, I'd say they should be ordered by the cumulitive sales, as indicated by the certification awards. So, as far as the RIAA goes, if 300,000 sales equals one gold award, and 1 million eqauls a platinum, then 1 platinum is more then 3 golds. I'm making those numbers up, but that's how I would do it. At the moment, I'm working on a List of music recording sales certifications, which should (soon, I hope) indicate what each award means for purposes such as this. Drewcifer (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd be ok with listing by sales or total number of certifications. Either would work pretty well with me.Odin's Beard (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't anybody inform me?

The idea for the Discography WikiProject was mine, and I proposed it at the WikiProject Council. Since then, nobody's told me anything about it being created, and I feel sort of left out. Oh, well. I'll work on the WikiProject page's aesthetics. Happy editing! – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 19:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to the guy who edited the intro, it's not that I'm narcissistic, it's just that I think I deserve some credit for coming up with the idea, that's all. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 04:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Who cares who's idea it is? No one's claiming ownership. Besides, myself and at least one other person seemed to have come up with the idea on our own as well, so it's a pretty moot point really. Drewcifer (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess that makes you only a little narcissistic. But seriously, nobody gets credit. Wikipedia is not the place to work, if you want credit for your ideas. But we'll consider this thread your claim to have thought of the idea, and it will be forever stored in the archives. -Freekee (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Who's idea something is on Wikipedia means practically nothing. Wikipedia is something people contribute to on their spare time. If it were a job, I'd completely agree with you about credit and all that. However, since it's not, it's up to you to stay informed with what's happening regarding articles that are topics of personal interest for yourself.Odin's Beard (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Searching for Japanese album chart archives

I'm being (understandably) hounded for charting information to go into the Boredoms discography, but am having a really hard time finding anything. Does anyone know where to get this information? Any help would be greatly appreciated. = ∫tc 5th Eye 13:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the information can only obtained through a paid membership to access the archives of Oricon, in Japanese. :( --hamu♥hamu (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hamuhamu, I don't suppose you have a paid membership? =) Drewcifer (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
My life would be so much easier if I did! I think it might be worthwhile to hit up some major contributors to Japanese-artist discogs that do have really complete-looking data. Maybe they'll prove me wrong! :) Ayumi Hamasaki discography, Hikaru Utada discography, B'z discography. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Supergrass discography

Hi.

This was a Featured list candidate and the archive can be found here. I am asking for help from some of you guys to bring it to featured list. I have already done a lot of work to it and would just like some extra help to finish it off.

If any of you could help that would be great.

Thanks,

--TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I began editing discography articles about a month or so ago, one of the biggest problems I've seen is finding credible sources to back up sales figure listings. Many articles list sales figures for an album that are basically estimations based on how many copies of album have been shiped based on RIAA or BPI certifications rather than have actually been sold. Much of the rest of the articles album information, chart positions, and certifications are much easier to find.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New proposal for Discography summary sections at WikiProject Musicians

Please take a look at this proposal and express your support or objections. Keep in mind we currently have no guidelines for Discography summary sections whatsoever, so this would at least be a start. Also keep in mind this would not affect discography articles themselves, only the summary sections in the musician's primary article. Kaldari (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Discography list}}

I just discovered this template ({{Discography list}}), which seems to be pretty much contradictory to most of the style guidelines that have been agreed upon so far. I've seen some discographies here and there that used this style, but I just now realized it was a template. As it stands, no FL discography is in this format, and the current style proposal goes against the style as well. I thought I'd bring it up because it seems a little problematic that a template is being used that is so contrary to "standard" discography style. The main problem being that the template is used in over 200 articles, so it's not just a matter of deleting the template. Any thoughts on this? Drewcifer (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I looked at Social Distortion discography, which uses this template, and is mentioned on the template's documentation. It is completely different to what is currently "accepted" as a discography style (by that I mean The best that Wikipedia has to offer. It might be a long, arduous task, but I think all the articles that use this template should be edited, and then take the template to WP:TfD. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I was afraid you'd say that. I think a good first step would be to make a note on the template's talk page. Before going all willy nilly, we may also want to post on the talk pages of articles that use the template, so we can try and enlist the help of the editors of those lists rather then do it all ourselves. Drewcifer (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't like how this template would show chart singles. A table would be less messy and less confusing. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Finding this wikiproject

Hey all, just a heads up. I've never been able to find this project in the Wikiproject listings. In fact, I'd previously searched for it and gave up, assuming there must not be one. I found it today, just by luck, when it was linked in a discussion at the WP Biography/Musicians project. Maybe someone more experienced than myself could figure out how to get it listed so interested parties can join us? :) --hamu♥hamu (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody else think it'll be a good idea if instead of alphabetically, we arranged the list of featured discographies in chronological order of gaining FL status (like the good ol' ALM does)? Obvious advantage: we can check for standards of the older ones and cleanup as required. Disadvantage: painful manual labour while rearranging. indopug (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The list is actually getting a little long anyways. So we could split it off into a separate page, throw it all into a table, then make it sortable by name or by promotion date. Drewcifer (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You should sort it such that the "The" in the band's name is ignored: "The Breeders discography" sorts alphabetically with "B". indopug (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of flags

What is so bad about using flags in discography tables? I don't suppose I'm going to change anybody's mind but does anybody actually agree with me that there's no real reason why they shouldn't be used? What's wrong with this for example? It doesn't look messy - it's functional and to me is much clearer than writing the country.

Year Title Chart positions
United Kingdom United States Australia France
1994 "The Rhythm of the Night" 2 11 8 3

I mean if you don't know the flags of the world's major territories then frankly you're an idiot anyway! By the way, before anyone rushes to go and change the article someone's already done it. AcerBen (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that using flags in this manner violates the manual of style for flags. According to the manual, all flag icons should be accompanied by the name of the country. The manual also states that the use of too many flags should be avoided because they clutter the page and become redundant. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I imagine it does violate that silly manual but that doesn't mean it's right. I don't think it does clutter the page! Oh well. *over it* AcerBen (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
How will it work for artists who have chart appearances on Genre-specific charts such as the UK Indie Chart or one of Billboard's several, like Modern Rock Tracks? Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Besides that, it's policy. Policies don't get changed because an editor doesn't personally like or agree with them.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Its not a policy, the MoS a guideline. But yes, using flags is unneccessary, increases page-load time and is awkward to use when there are multiple charts from the country. indopug (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It is very ugly, you prefer to write only the names of Countrys properly curtailed, you have a cleaner layout and a page less "cumbersome". Cannibaloki 15:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and for my previous point, let's say you have a band like Arctic Monkeys - who have singles on the Billboard Hot 100 (well Bubbling under anyway) and Modern Rock Tracks chart, the UK Singles chart and the UK Indie Chart. What flag would we use? And what of bands like Bloc Party, who only have songs charted on the Modern Rock Tracks chart? If we did flags, then it would seem that these songs hit the Billboard Hot 100 instead. So it's a bad idea to use flags. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are videos in a discography

Why are videos in a discography. They don't belong their. They belong in a videography page but insted they are in a discography. Please help me understand this. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Most recording artists that put out video collections or videos of live performances don't do it very often and most don't put out very many to begin with. I don't see videos as being notable enough to really require being placed in a seperate articles from the music recordings. They're little more than further extensions of the recording artists' music anyway.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Top Selling Artists

In the RIAA certification article, there's a list of recording artists with the greatest tally, in millions, that's linked to the same list on RIAA.com. The tally included on the lists, however, for some of the artists don't seem to match for the number they actually have according to the RIAA database. For instance, I just picked out Kenny Rogers at random and went to his discography and checked the certification listed in the database and all the certs are accurate and total 51.5 million but the list on RIAA.com lists 51 million units. I double checked the figures again in the database and they still come to 51.5 million units. I think there are some discrepencies with other artists included in the list as well. My question is what figure should go in the article? The list itself comes from RIAA.com but the figure in the list doesn't match up with what's in the database. So I'm a little confused. Odin's Beard (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The numbers have been corrected and updated. Cannibaloki 23:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Referencing album/single release dates

Hello project. On a current FLC (Mark Lanegan discography) User:Indopug has said that the release dates for various works does not require citation. WP:CITE suggests: "When a source is needed: Material that is actually challenged by another editor requires a source or it may be removed; and anything likely to incur a reasonable challenge should be sourced to avoid disputes and to aid readers (See policy WP:BURDEN). In practice, this means most such statements are backed by a citation. In case of multiple possible references for a statement, the "best reliable sources" should be used." I'd like to know if WP:DISCOG agree with this viewpoint and, if so, how it can be justified. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The release is a primary source. You might as well ask for references on cites for books that give the date of publication. 86.44.27.87 (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, given that releases seem to be dependent on format and country, I think it's useful to have a defined standard for your discographies. Oh, and User:Indopug has now suggested that discogs.com is not a WP:RS. In which case it should be removed wholesale from all discographies. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I think he's right, discogs.com allows anyone to register and upload information. That information only seems to get cursory checking by the site. But besides that, should we be linking to a website that allows members to upload album/single artwork that would fail Wikipedia's fair use policy? The artwork is often at a resolution which could be used for piracy. And if that's the case then it also fails WP:EL#Restrictions on linking. --JD554 (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Discogs.com has always been considered unreliable, and I have always brought it up as a reason to oppose at FLC. If you can find an FL discography that uses the site (at least a recent promotion) I would be very surprised. That said, it's commonplace to find it used in External links sections, which I don't have a problem with. But that's a whole nother can of worms. Drewcifer (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Why should it matter if another site has a less strict fair-use policy than here? If we banned every site with that, WP would probably lose half its refs, if not much much more. As for "often at a resolution which could be used for piracy", well that's like banning a knife from being sold at Walmart because you can shove it into someone's chest and kill them. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Why should it matter? I don't know, hence the question. I think we would need to know whether such images are copyright violation or not. Because if it is it fails Wikipedia policy at WP:EL#Restrictions on linking and can't be used as stated "without exception". --JD554 (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes we're not supposed to link to sites with copy vios, but just because a site has less strict fair-use policies doesn't mean they are such a site. WP's policies are much stricter than is legal. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear. What I'm trying to ask is: Is discogs.com's fair use policy (if that counts as one) legal? --JD554 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"Copyrighted or illegal images will be deleted on sight, and the user held accountable for their inclusion." Isn't any scan or photo of an album cover copyrighted, or is it just that the picture shows copyrighted artwork, and that's okay? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Finnishcharts.com

During the peer review for Morrissey discography, User:Ealdgyth asked what makes Finnishcharts.com a reliable source. Now that seems to be a good question and the reason I've used it is because it is recommended on the proposed style guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style. But apparently the other Countrycharts.com sites stated the source of their information at the bottom of the main page: for example Danishcharts.com has "© Copyright Nielsen Music Control for IFPI Danmark" on it. Can we use the ones that don't have a source for their data as reliable sources? --JD554 (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow

I just wanted to say that I've been keeping an eye on you (since I'm interested in your project but haven't had time to participate), and you guys are doing a *fabulous* job. If there were an "effective group" barnstar (that I knew about), I'd be dropping one on you now. :) Go, your team! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that this praise was not for me but nobody had the capacity to meet you, so just thank you very much, I am happy to know that readers in general are enjoying our work. ;) Regards, Cannibaloki 23:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello WP:DISCOGS! Just popped round to ask for some volunteers for reviewing some of the 20 discography, award, and other music-based WP:FLCs! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

RIAA certs

One thing that I find myself doing in a lot of discography articles is reverting false certs that some editors, particularly anonymous ones, like to put in for just plain vandalism or because they're fans. Anyhow, it got me to wondering about how some should be listed. For instance, I've seen some articles where a double platinum album is listed as 2x Multi-Platinum and I've seen others that don't use the multi prefix. I was wondering if there was a consensus on this minor point. As the RIAA database is the primary source used for album certifications in the U.S., and since the multi prefix is used in the database, should that not be the way it reads in the articles?Odin's Beard (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say that "multi" is tautologous; the 2× etc. already shows that it's multiple. --JD554 (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

List of albums/singles for Anime, etc?

Are all "discographies" supposed to follow this format? It seems geared more towards artists. There is talk in the Madlax article of merging the sound tracks listing in with the main article. Right now List of Madlax albums doesn't fit your style, but it seems excessive to create a page for each album and singles release. Are these within the scope of this project since the focus is more on special songs (opening and ending credits and inserts) and the soundtracks than the artists involved? Marketing does not help either -- e.g. one of insert songs used in several important scenes in Madlax is "I'm Here" which is not on either of the soundtracks but instead is only available as a B track on the "Inside Your Heart" single. Anyway, I'd appreciate some feedback/guidance. Argel1200 (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know this as well... Kariteh (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1480 articles are assigned to this project, of which 202, or 13.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bone Thugs-n-Harmony discography

I was wondering if everyone here wouldn't mind keepying an eye on this particular discography or if we should possibly consider protecting it. It seems as though it's been getting nothing but vandalism edits over the past several days, usually from anonymous editors that keep changing RIAA info.Odin's Beard (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles discography

How can that discography be a B? Please tell me cause it doesn't have any sources. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

BBHS, have you read the definitions of the various assessment classes? Stub: "Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition" vs B-class: "No reader should be left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher." There is no way The Beatles discography can be considered a stub. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay not stub. But its sais if a discography is goin to be a B its gote to have sources which this doesn't, or am i wrong again? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you point me to that requirement? And, by the way, although not many in-line references are present, there are also a bibliography and a number of external links which can be considered useful for sourcing. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I give up. You know much about this so i'll stop. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)The requirement is here: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. I agree with BBHS, it looks more like a C-class article to me. --JD554 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, which part of that criteria does this discography fail? It's referenced. It's comprehensive. It has a structure (it may not be the SAME structure as other discograpies but there's a strucure), it's well written, has supporting tables, and is appropriately accessible. I'm not seeing why this isn't a B. Or even an A. There is a LOT of information presented, and it's presented well. BBHS, if you unmark this a B again, without a clear consensus on the talk page, I will consider your action to be edit warring and act accordingly. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It fails criteria #1: It has references but I can see a number of citation needed tags and I could place a few more myself. What is the source of the UK charts positions, the Billboard charts positions, the RIAA awards, the Soundscan sales figures, the United World Chart figures, etc.? I think the referencing and inline citations need to be substantially improved for a B-class article. --JD554 (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, B/C... - the main issue is to stop people categorising articles as stubs when they clearly are not. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
And one further point, instead of people whinging about lack of citations, let's get on and add them. Spend time in the mainspace instead of here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Discogs at WP:FLC

Please ensure any lists you submit at WP:FLC have had each of their references checked. Time after time I'm checking references which lead to search engine pages, or general pages with nothing specific. I'm then left to guess what to do next to get the information I require to reference the detail in the article. This is not good enough. Specific references need to be just that, specific. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Differentiation between 'live albums' and 'official bootlegs'?

I've been working on the Tori Amos discography for a while and another editor and I have been wondering about the difference between live albums and official bootlegs. What is the difference exactly and should these releases be lumped together into one category or be listed separately in different categories?
In the case of Tori Amos, there has been only 1 (soon will be 2) live album releases, but there are 6 official bootlegs (CD and digital release) from her 2005 tour and 27 (!) official bootlegs (digital release only) from her 2007 tour; therein lies the vagueness between the two sections and how to handle them. Any advice/insight would be appreciated. --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Collaboration

I have a suggestion to create a collaboration drive every month (or fortnight) similiar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration were a discography will be selected as the collaboration, and everyone will work to improve it as much as possible (or featured list status). I do not have a candidate, but I would be more than happy to participate. If you support or oppose this idea, feel free to comment below. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Peak chart positions

If there are more than 10 (I've been told that's the limit for FL status), then how do you decide which ones to drop when you have too many? I have come up with a few possibilities and would like to know which is right:

  1. First come, first served – the first ten countries the artist charts in stay. If on one album new countries overrun 10, the highest of those stay.
  2. Latest – the ten countries in which the newest album has charted highest stay.
  3. Average – the 10 countries in which the artist has charted highest on average stay.

Help me? Andre666 (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually countries like the United States' Billboard Hot 100, United Kingdom's UK Singles Chart and whatever Australia uses are in a discography. As are Billboard Genre Charts like Modern Rock Tracks and the chart of the performer's home country (if not among those) is usually a mainstay as well. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 22:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
It may depend upon, at least to some degree, where the subject of the discography is from and what type of musical genre he/she/they belongs to. Some country, rock, rap, pop, etc. might be a big deal in the U.S. for instance but be a relative unknown on the international scale.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it's all rather subjective. Always include the country the artist is from. Never include the United World Chart per this, this, and this, or component charts. From then on, I'd say you're given free reign on which charts you want to include. However, I'd question including a country's chart when only one out of seven releases has charted or been released there, simply because it doesn't really do anything to show the reader how the artist's work has been received worldwide. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
For a good example of "too much" in my opinion, take a look at the Bruce Springsteen discography. Chart info representing about twenty different countries are included, much of which is nothing more than blank space.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jazz Discographies - Different criteria?

I recently noticed that John Coltrane discography was rated stub class. This is a very complete discography, it is fully-cited, has enough text to explain the essentials of Coltrane's recording career. I was wondering why it was not rated at least a start-class article. It definitely has clean-up issues, but that's all I can really see wrong with it. Some items required for more popular music, such as sales and chart position, really don't apply to jazz, while other items, such as label information, which is often crucial in jazz, are less so in popular music. I was wondering if the criteria makes it difficult if not impossible for a jazz discography to be a good article, unless the jazz musician has big sale, like Kenny G? Should there be a different criteria for jazz (and for that matter, also classical) discographies? THanks Editor437 (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There probably should be, but this project is still in its infancy. MOS:DISCOG is still only a proposal so far and only covers mainstream music. If you want to propose a style guide for specialist genres such jazz, classical or anything else, feel free! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Three Dog Night

Last night, I created a discography for the band Three Dog Night using www.allmusic.com as the source for the album and singles chart information. There's already a little trouble brewing as User:Don1962 continues to go to the article and add songs that aren't shown under the group's list of singles at allmusic.com. He says the singles are listed at the band's website so I'm uncertain as what to do in this situation. I've been to the sites of group's and artists where some of the material shown on their site contradicts some info that's listed at allmusic. I'd appreciate some opinions. Thanks.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

On allmusic's Three Dog Night biography page say that: "Three Dog Night scored a succession of 21 hit singles, including eleven Top Tens, and twelve consecutive gold albums from 1969 to 1975..."—In the official website listing 22 singles, making both sites as correct, because excluding the single "Nobody" (1968) which peak at number 116 in the Billboard can not be considered a "hit" on relation with others songs by this band.

I used these sources:

Canniba loki 02:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say use allmusic instead of the official website. Gary King (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class Korn?

I believe that it's time that Korn's Discography be promoted to A-Class. It still needs revision on the EP section, but overall, it's A-class material. Thanks! Wii Wiki (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this project have A-class assessment? Perhaps it's worth taking the article to WP:FLC once it's ready :) Gary King (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ingebrigt Håker Flaten discography

I've made an Ingebrigt Håker Flaten discography. It's my first discography, so I would really appreciate some feedback. I was particularly unsure how to arrange the different ensembles. I didn't sort out the live albums etc, since it would've been quite confusing with all those sections. Any comments? --Ole Eivind (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Canniba loki 14:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Other appearances/contributions, etc.

I have noticed that when discographies contain and "other appearances" or "compilation contributions" section, or something to that effect, they only list unique songs, i.e. those which have not appeared on a previous album. Why is this? Don't get me wrong, I agree with it, but it should be differentiated from soundtrack/compilation appearances with songs already on albums... if you get me. Andre666 (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Because if songs that had appeared already on studio albums appeared, the list would be unnecessarily gigantic. If a track appeared on a soundtrack album first, I think that would be okay to include, however, when a ten year old song appears on many album soundtracks, is it comprehensive to include them, or just fancruft? We're not attempting to be a buyer's guide (as in, "here's every album which has a song by Britney" - can you image, with all the Now! and similar albums?). Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Source for French charts

Does anybody else think this website should be added as a source for the French charts? It's already listed here as a source for certification, but they also have chart position and archives going back to the year 2000. according to the website about SNEP it is their responsibility for compiling the music charts so they seem the best source to use. --JD554 (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to access the site I got this message: Service Temporarily Unavailable The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. (?) Canniba loki 19:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems to work for me. Although when I check the album charts archives AVG blocks the page as a potential threat! --JD554 (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but already exists this lescharts.com Canniba loki 19:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Lescharts gets it's information from SNEP. I just thought it should be added as another possible source in the way that the UK charts have more than one. --JD554 (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion is that you start by his own account to use this source, and according to the effect, that is, if accepted by WP:FLC, surely others users will also use. (I think...) Canniba loki 20:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Have you asked the folks at WP:RS? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
It already is considered a reliable source (it is after all the the French equivalent of the BPI or the RIAA and is given a useful resource for French certifications). I'm simply asking if it can be added as a useful resource for French charts in addition to Lescharts.com (who get their information from SNEP anyway). --JD554 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I've noticed a lot of the articles have infoboxes that lists how many studio, live, compilations music videos, and blab blah. Are they really necessary? They strike me as pretty redundant seeing as how that a reader can learn the same information by reading over the article itself. Also, a lot of them just plain look awful. For a couple of good examples, see the Cher discography and Ozzy Osbourne discography. The infoboxes in those two, and in others I've seen, overlaps and blurs right into sections of the articles, making some of the info difficult to make out. Odin's Beard (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you suggest that all infoboxes are redundant in that a reader can learn the same info by reading the article itself? I asked the creator of a similar template yesterday if he could make it collapsible, without being aware of this thread. I will let him know about it, though and see what he can do. For examples where the template does work well, see WP:FL#Music, in the discography section. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Infoboxes are useful summaries; I don't work on discographies, but I work on musician award lists. It's useful to compare at a glance how many of one type of award a musician has received compared to another. Also, the examples you gave us are not featured quality; if you have a look at a featured discography (preferably one that was recently promoted, since standards continuously improve), then I'm sure those will be better. For one thing, in your examples, if the leads were longer and the images were smaller, then the infobox wouldn't merge into the next section. Gary King (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Granted the examples I posted aren't the best examples, they were mostly just two I'd browsed very recently. Yes, however, I do find them to be redundant. I just looked over the discographies of Pearl Jam, 50 Cent, and Nine Inch Nails and their infobox just shows how many studio or compilation or live albums they've made along with singles and music videos and the like. In other words, not a thing that couldn't be learned from reading the articles themselves. The general laziness of a reader or readers not to read the article for nothing else than to learn even the most basic information shouldn't be reason to add redundant material. Odin's Beard (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The information is certainly not redundant. In most cases, nowhere on a discography page does it list the total number of each item (studio albums, etc.); it's sometimes useful when there are dozens of something. For example, if you wanted to know how many singles Pearl Jam had, then the table in Pearl Jam discography would be useful. Gary King (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wants to know how many singles Pearl Jam's released, all they have to do is read over the article and count as they do it. That's what I did, and the number's 28. Out of curiosity, I checked the infobox and it lists 28 singles. The infobox contains nothing that a reader can't discover by reading the article. It's hardly an inconvenience to count how many singles the band has if someone wanted to know that. It might take all of 30 seconds to do.Odin's Beard (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
How can you seriously make this argument? Infoboxes provide summaries which are useful, none of us want to spend time reading through an article to find this information! All infoboxes do the same thing so if you're saying discography ones are redundant, then all are. I would like to see you happily browse WP without the presence of infoboxes! Andre666 (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
First off, you need to calm down a little. I said infoboxes for discography articles are redundant, I didn't ask somebody to donate a kidney. Also, don't put words in my mouth. You're taking what I've said and have applied it to Wikipedia as a whole, which wasn't my point at all. All the infoboxes do in the discography articles are, primarily, to list how many albums, singles, and music videos a recording artist or group has. Those are basic, dumb as dirt facts that can be found out by anybody that takes a minute to count them out in the articles if that's what they want to know. Anybody too lazy to take minute or so to look at the 50 cent discography to find out how many albums, singles, or music videos he has is just plain sad. When I look over a discography article, I browse them just fine and dandy without infoboxes. I've got to read the articles to find out release dates/years, peak charting positions for albums and singles, certifications for albums and singles, the actual titles of the albums and singles and possible collaborations. So I fail to see any inconvenience in looking at the article for such basic stuff as how many albums or singles or whatever an artist has released over their career.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Odin, do you propose removing the infobox from discographies, or rewriting it so it provides "better" information? If it's the former, you could take Template:Infobox Artist Discography to WP:TfD, but I honestly doubt it would be deleted. If it's the latter, by all means, {{sofixit}}. I wouldn't suggest editing Template:Infobox Artist Discography because it appears on many pages, but you could do something at Template:Infobox Artist Discography/Sandbox, and notify people here and on the template talk page when it's done. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Discography

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection before December 2008, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 16:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions for discographies

A discussion has begun at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Naming conventions for lists regarding the many different variations of titles that lists have. It is relevant to this project because many (not all) lists which are titled "[List of] y's xes" should be "[List of] xes of y". Are discographies one of them? Does "Discography of Nirvana" sound more correct or more encyclopedic than the current "Nirvana discography", or is that better? Please comment and give your thoughts either way.

Regardless of the outcome, it is likely that both "Discography of Nirvana" and "Nirvana discography" will exist, it's just a question of which format will redirect to which.

Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the following Featured lists current have clean up tags

It would be great if a member of this project could take care of the issue, otherwise it may be nominated for removal. Once the issue is resolved, please indicate so here. Thank you, Scorpion0422 15:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani discography

The featured list Gwen Stefani discography, which is within the scope of WP:DISCOG, has been nominated for removal. You can comment at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Gwen Stefani discography. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Broken references

See Talk:A Perfect Circle discography#Broken references. That discography was built off of Tool's and uses a lot of the same references that it and many other discogs use. It appears these sites have gone down. This is something that will probably affect a lot of music articles. لenna vecia 06:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It must have been a temporary problem as they all appear to work for me. --JD554 (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Christian Radio singles

In the article Relient K discography, it has been tagged for 5 months with notability, it is referenced (with one source) but i fail to see the notability of it. It seems the religious sector of editors keep re-adding it (it has been removed a few times, once or twice by myself) claiming that it is notable. I'm really not too sure, if anyone can clarify this for me and/or provide an efficient way of dealing with the issue, that would be much appreciated. kiac (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Discographies should be for official releases only. If they are official releases then they should be integrated into the singles table, assuming the chart is a valid chart that can be confirmed as reliable. I've been WP:BOLD and removed it from the article and left a message on the talk page. --JD554 (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the reply. I will continue to monitor it, i'm predicting it will be readded, but anyway all we can do is try. kiac (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Chart positions for "special releases"

Imagine the following:
Album X reaches number 47 on a given chart. Later on, the same album is re-released as a special edition and this time peaks at number 6, for example, on the same chart. Which number should we enter in the chart's table: the chart position original release or the highest one overall, since it's a list of peak positions? Thanks — Do U(knome)? yes...or no 08:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Original release. Charts about re-releases should be in the album page. See WP:CHARTS, to make the table in this case. Canniba loki 18:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything saying about original and special releases on there. Anyway, would it be a good idea if I added a note to the discography saying that the given album also reached certain positions as a special release? — Do U(knome)? yes...or no 21:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I would say no. Discography charts are only for newly released albums. Rereleases go into the album info. If you include any reference to the later chart position, perhaps add a citation note and that may do the trick, I would think. Unless someone has a better idea? =)
CycloneGU (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

←If you don't put the highest chart position, it wouldn't be the "peak chart position". If a re-release charts higher, I put that chart position with a note to what the original chart position was: see the "People are Strange" entry in the Singles tables of Echo & the Bunnymen discography as an example. --JD554 (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

How to Have Discography Article Quality Grading Reviewed?

I have been singlehandedly tackling the Kenny Rogers discography, which has been labelled as a "Start" class. While I am not done yet and am not asking for this now, can somebody help me figure out how to get its status checked when I am? I've burned through 1976-1986 already and have a few more studio albums to locate (which should be MUCH easier to find than the older ones have been), as well as some compilation albums. After finishing 2008, I expect to submit the discography for review again immediately.

As a side note, I'm motivated slightly by my finding out today that my father owns the CD version of Duets, a 1984 release by his truly. I will soon be enjoying the leadoff duet from that album on my laptop. =D

NEwho, on topic, anyone may reply here or on my talk page. If you reply here (to also help benefit others), please contact me on my own talk page and let me know. =)

CycloneGU (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Modified from "Start" to "C". Canniba loki 15:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Cheers! I'll be in touch further when I finish, I'll need to edit the discography a little more in the process and add more albums. =)
CycloneGU (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Cure discography

I've recently expanded the above article and have submitted it for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Cure discography/archive1 with a view to taking it to WP:FLC. Any constructive criticism gratefully received. --JD554 (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Eminem discography

Hey guys! Eminem discography is up at peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Eminem discography/archive1. Any comments, suggestions and ideas are welcome! — Do U(knome)? yes...or no 03:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discographies/Archive_1&oldid=1238744597"