Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Leaflet For Wikiproject Discographies At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Format issue

Hi, due to the Style page being dormant I decided to come here for guidance on this topic. I am trying to edit the Babymetal article to meet the standards and style given by the style article but I'm having a problem, one of the songs has multiple !'s and is effecting the format (see below). Can anyone help me fix this? I have no idea how to solve this at all, thank you. SilentDan (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Extended content
Title Year Charts Album JPN "Doki Doki Morning" (DVD single) 2011 — Babymetal "Babymetal × Kiba of Akiba" (with Kiba of Akiba) 2012 46 "[[Headbangeeeeerrrrr !]]" 20 "Ijime, Dame, Zettai" 2013 6 "Megitsune" 7

@SilentDan297: You can use unicode characters to get around this issue. To make a long story short, ! will display as an exclamation mark, but will not be interpreted as part of the table layout, so use that character string instead of an exclamation mark. In other words:

• Headbangeeeeerrrrr!!!!! displays as Headbangeeeeerrrrr!!!!! but breaks the table formatting
• Headbangeeeeerrrrr!!!!! also displays as Headbangeeeeerrrrr!!!!! but does not break the table formatting.

Extended content
Title Year Charts Album JPN "Doki Doki Morning" (DVD single) 2011 — Babymetal "Babymetal × Kiba of Akiba" (with Kiba of Akiba) 2012 46 "Headbangeeeeerrrrr!!!!!" 20 "Ijime, Dame, Zettai" 2013 6 "Megitsune" 7

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated Eminem discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG comments subpages cleanup

Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Discographies articles that would be affected by this action are these:

• Music of Final Fantasy IV

If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Discographies' use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Discographies articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Track listing question

Hello, looks like I posted my question on a dormant page but I would appreciate clarification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Track listings. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Tracklisting

Can I know the rules for listing out the track-listing if an album does not have its own article? K-pop articles have been plagued with so many unnecessary details. I look at articles like this Humming Urban Stereo, and it looks nothing more than a directory of songlists to me. This article looks a bit better Brown Eyes (band), but the full songlist is still there. Common sense tells me to go ahead and delete it, but I want to understand more about the rules for this. Thanks.--TerryAlex (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Late to the party to say, I want to know too. Often times many of the albums such as those you mention are notable and could have articles (Brown Eyes, certainly), but most kpop editors only care about the brand new idol stuff so only the latter albums get articles, even though they're no more notable and, when you come down to it, their articles have very little content beyond track listings and a few release dates & chart listings. Older Korean albums are really hard to find good info for, though, so it's hard to imagine creating articles for each of them, notable or not. I wanted to cry trying to flesh out album articles for the very, very notable S.E.S. So what I'm saying is that the track listing info is no less notable for albums by someone like Brown Eyes than it is for many of these new idol groups, the only difference is whether someone has taken the time to make an article. The info is just as valid for inclusion on Wikipedia, it's just a case of how are we supposed to include it properly on discographies, be they stand-alone articles or part of an artist's article. I urge you not to wipe out what you've run across (it's a month later, I can see you didn't, ha ha). There's huge temporal bias in kpop articles. :( Would really love some feedback from someone in this wikiproject. From my own archive-digging here, it seems there is no definitive answer, but some discussion would be nice. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Because I found several discussions about rowspan in this talk page's archives similar to the archives for WP:filmography, I thought it would be appropriate to publicize here the RfC for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#RfC: to amend the table layout consensus to allow rowspan in year column of filmographies. Thank you. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Question on CD singles

If a promotional single was released, but it has two tracks on the CD, how would you display that in the promotional singles section of a discography page? I was thinking there would be a / in between tracks, such as Found a Way (Acoustic)/Found a Way. And actually, should it be counted as a promo single or single? Here is the link to the single. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Mac DeMarco discography FL nomination

Hello, I nominated Mac DeMarco discography for featured list status a month ago but haven't received any comments/reviews. I would really appreciate it if some of you could take a look at the article and leave your comments here. Thank you :) Littlecarmen (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Australian Chart Book 1993–2005

If an editor who has the book Australian Chart Book 1993–2005 could add the year, peak and reference to Metallica's Kill 'Em All#Charts, it would be greatly appreciated. Piriczki (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll fix it up soon, but for your information, the David Kent books are based on the Kent Music Report chart, which was only Australia's official chart from May 1974 to 19 June 1988 inclusive. It was then superseded by the ARIA Chart, although the Kent Report chart continued to be published until the late 1990's. "Kill 'Em All" did not enter the top 100 chart in Australia until April 1998 (and did not peak until re-entering in September 2008), so none of David Kent's books would be an appropriate reference. Furthermore, the peak currently listed on the page is wrong (it peaked at #56, not #55).Nqr9 (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected, it did actually peak at #55 in Australia (I missed the 1993 albums chart entry listing in Gavin Ryan's book). I've fixed up the reference now.Nqr9 (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

FL removal

I have nominated Birdman discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Azealia911 _talk 23:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits contrary to style guidelines

There is a discussion at Talk:Pink Floyd discography#Recent edits contrary to style guidelines regarding this issue. Project members are invited to comment. Piriczki (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox artist discography

A rewrite of {{Infobox artist discography}} is being proposed. Your comments are invited at Template_talk:Infobox_artist_discography#Style_violations. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Those look like valid suggestions. I wonder, though, if there a need for an infobox in a list article? A count of the number of different types of releases doesn't provide much of a summary and isn't particularly informative anyway. The counts are often inaccurate too. Piriczki (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

True. A good example is the David Bowie discography. When this infox was added in 2010 (see this version), the number of video albums was listed as 4; now it's 13. That's not because Bowie released new video albums - the most recent is dated 2004. As it is currently used, the infobox seems to be a count of entries in each section (rather than the actual output of the artist), and even that is rarely up to date. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Include upcoming albums?

There is a discussion at WT:ALBUM#Upcoming_albums_and_discographies on whether upcoming albums should be included in a discography or not. Please feel free to comment. -- 46.254.186.36 (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

National albums/music charts

Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music charts articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Copied from here to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Record_Charts and replied. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What kind of album do I call this?

I found something that could be added to Cody Simpson discography, a live collection of songs (called Cody Simpson Live From Sydney) that seems to be exclusive to Spotify, like the Spotify Sessions EPs done by multiple artists like Echosmith. But the thing is, the "album" had 6 songs on it. So would I consider it a live album, an EP, or something different entirely? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Should singles and featured singles be merged together?

Considering the discussion on my talk page, people think singles should be merged in the lead and in the columns listing how many singles. So should they be merged in the charts as well? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bowie discography

There's a disagreement at Talk:David_Bowie_discography#Singles_Table_is_confusing. Could do with some thoughts from this project. Thanks, Bob Dawson 1966 (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Also raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Multiple chart peaks. The discussion needs to be in one place, but I'm open to suggestions as to where is best. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding terminology of singles

I have started a discussion regarding how Wikipedia should define singles. Please go here to discuss.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Michael Jackson & The Jacksons – Month To Month Recording Session Guide

Anyone interested in helping with Draft:Michael Jackson & The Jacksons – Month To Month Recording Session Guide? It was recently created by a very, very new editor (The Doctor 1170) and he could definitely use some help with this. It's written like a personal blog, is unsourced, and I'm worried that it might be considered too indiscriminate for Wikipedia, but I could maybe see the potential merit in having a recording guide to an artist's work. I'm going to post this in a few places looking for help. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not really see the merit of this work. As he notes, a lot of information comes from Wiki sources. That is problematic to start with. Other sources would inevitably be all WP:PRIMARY. Another issue is precedent. I looked at, for instance, the Beatles and Elvis Presley pages and neither have a sessions page, despite the fact that a large amount of studio bootleg material has been released from both artists. That leads me to conclude, that while it certainly is a worth-while effort, an article on Michael Jackson's recording sessions is largely redundant. Karst (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• That's what I was afraid of hearing, to be honest. It's why I figured that I'd ask around, just in case I was incorrect, but it looks like my first inclination was correct - it's just a bit too indiscriminate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Fugazi discography

I'm editing the Fugazi discography and I could use some help to see if there are any more areas of the article that can be improved. This is the first discography I've tackled so I welcome any expert advice. Thanks in advance. Vivatheviva (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Production discographies

I've come across a few articles with either separate discography pages or extended lists within the main articles for producers. Some are by not very notable artists and have often been COI'd to give a veneer of self-importance. For notable artists, they're generally more community-edited, but overall I feel they are far too long, often unreferenced and reach the point where we're crossing over into Discogs style database territory. I tried looking into guidance but couldn't find it really so just wanted a bit of clarification of production discography guidelines. Some examples I would like feedback on so I can understand and better contribute are: Teddy Park production discography, Frequency (record producer) and Ryan Tedder discography. Thanks Rayman60 (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

For lists such as Babyface discography (I appreciate Babyface is a very well known artist so a discography is apt), the issues in the production discography section I would think that need addressing would be - lack of references, format, selected - who decides what to put - and do we really do things by halves on this project? I thought it's a collection of all worthy knowledge so if it's justified in its inclusion, it's intentionally incomplete by being selected and that doesn't seem right to me. Do we need chart positions? And why are they in such a horrible form? I don't fully understand all the positions, none are referenced and what the damn is '#1 R&B Airplay circa Winter '87' or '#3 FIMI'. I'm not an expert in charts but I'm not oblivious either and I feel readers are being let down by using terminology that isn't clarified. So to follow on from my earlier request for guidance, what would you do in this situation? Leave as is, minor modifications, WP:TNT? I would probably be tempted towards the latter option due to it really needing to be built from the ground up if we can ever justify having an extended production discography of a recording artist when other suitable databases exist (again looking at discogs). I think that's partly down to my philosophies leaning towards deletionism and When Nothing Is Better Than Something although as an outsider to this project, i didn't want to be WP:BOLD when it clearly goes against the general consensus. Any advice on this would help me understand a little more what we're striving towards so my edits when I do come across something are more in line with the greater project's goals. Rayman60 (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

A list of records produced by a record producer per definition includes minor successes. A list of releases by a record company, or of artists managed by a certain bureau or person would, too. That's no problem at all. However not all artists are that notable to get an individual article written on them. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated Taylor Swift discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Singles released exclusively through artist's websites

On the page Shakespears Sister discography, the singles "Dancing Barefoot", "Someone Else's Girl", "Really Saying Something", and "Do I Scare You?" are listed as standard release singles, but none of them actually received a full release, and were released exclusively through the artist's website, shakespearssister.co.uk . Is their listing as singles correct, or are they, by definition, promotional singles or otherwise?--Smenicle (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The latter 3 you mentioned had a physical CD release (I'm not sure about 'Dancing Barefoot'), and none was labelled 'promo only' on the sleeve, so I wouldn't categorise them as that. But I get your point about them not being 'available in the (physical) shops'-type releases. I guess they're kind of similar maybe to exclusive fan-club singles from an earlier era, except people had to buy them from the shop rather than receiving them as some kind of membership/loyalty. Maybe they could be listed in a separate 'Other singles (available exclusively though...)' category - but then this may seem promotional in nature.Nqr9 (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I know "Really Saying Something" and "Do I Scare You?" were released physically (wasn't even aware of "Someone Else's Girl"), but since they were also released only through the website, I guess they'd be considered as "Other Singles".--Smenicle (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain about "Someone Else's Girl", as I never bought it (and I don't particularly like that track), so I could be wrong. It might be worth checking discogs.com to see if one is listed there (and for 'Dancing Barefoot'). The distinction between what counts and doesn't count as a 'single' these days is murky, with most 'singles' having no physical release.Nqr9 (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Numerous major discography pages list fully commercially released singles as promotional singles, eg. "Almost Said It" on Carly Rae Jepsen discography, which is why I felt that might be the most appropriate to categorise. The distinction certainly is murky.--Smenicle (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no concrete definition of what constitutes a single. I've started two discussions attempting to find a standard to follow on Wikipedia, but both times there was no consensus other than to follow the terminology used by independent reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Suzanne Vega discography

It looks like both Suzanne Vega discography and Template:Suzanne Vega need some love:

1. The most important problem is how should we count "acoustic" albums, which are kind of studio re-recording of her songs, but gathered around threads, not simply repeating the tracklists from the original albums, so it is also a compilation in some way. I find it hard to place them anywhere in Template:Infobox_artist_discography categories.

2. What about Close-Up Series box set, which contains all of the acoustic albums plus DVD featuring live concert? What kind of Template:Infobox_artist_discography category it is?

3. Which live albums should we count? Currently we have 4 of them, but there are much more of her different live records. Which ones should have a page, which ones should we count, what kind of Template:Infobox_artist_discography category it is (especially considering that some of them are live EP).

--kocio (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Buddy Holly and the Crickets template

I totally disagree with the edits on Buddy Holly template which have been made pretty recently by an user. We have discussed here and we definitely don't agree with it. Could someone give his opinion ? Elfast (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Alyssa Milano discography - Featured list candidate

I have nominated Alyssa Milano discography for featured list status here. I'd appreciate it if any of you could take a look and leave your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Pearl Jam discography#Split

The split proposal will affect the status of Pearl Jam discography as Featured List. I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Chartings of re-releases, re-recordings, remixes, etc.

Remixes and re-recordings shoukd have their own entry in lists of releases, however concerning re-releases Wikipedia writers don't seem to consider when mentioning them is important, and how. However, a chronology in itself is meta-information which Wikipedia should supply.

Sometimes the pattern of releases of records by artists isn't globally the same. However most Wikipedia articles on here take the American releases as starting point, disregarding policies of record companies elsewhere. A few proposals on how to handle in these cases.

1. add as a footnote or reference that a certain release or seeries of releases were different in a certain country.
2. add month and year of every release.
3. add the months in which charts peaks were achieved.

If a chronological list of releases is very different one may consider creating a separate section or even a separate article on it. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Glee discography split

Members of this WikiProject might be interested in a proposal I've started here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Style guideline

A discography is defined as "a descriptive catalog of musical recordings, particularly those of a particular performer or composer" (Oxford American dictionary). Many WP discographies appear to be "lists of chart and sales data" – chart and sales figures often completely dominate and the album titles and actual details squeezed into narrow columns. With long, skinny columns for the peak chart positions (sometimes one number and the rest "–"), the tables look mostly empty and provide an unbalanced, awkward appearance (sorry, but to me, the Led Zeppelin discography looks ridiculous).

I own several published discographies (and have seen dozens more) and none devote so much to charts and sales. The style guideline never made it past the proposal stage and I think it's time to reconsider what constitutes an acceptable WP discography. Specifically, more emphasis should be placed on producing discographies that have more balance and visual appeal. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPR#NFCC #8 and Discographies

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPR#NFCC #8 and Discographies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of TEA/SEA (combined streaming numbers) with sales in discographies

In 2015 streams accounted for about an extra 10-15 percent so the numbers still made sense with the certifications. It's 2017, streams make up more than half of bigger artists numbers often but the only column in an artists discog is pure sales. Iit makes no sense for album to show 700,000 sales when it's 2x platinum. We need to start including streaming+sales numbers in discography pages on wikipedia. BlaccCrab (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Citations in discographies

Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) is constantly adding {{citation needed}}s to discography pages/sections, such as Walker Hayes. I find this unnecessary, as usually a.) the body of the article text verifies that the album exists, so verifying it again in the discography is redundant, and b.) there should be no need to have a standalone citation on a list unless there is signficant reason to doubt it (such as the "Pimpin' Joy" single, which quickly disappeared without a trace, or the single "C.O.U.N.T.R.Y." on LoCash, which was never actually released due to the label closing). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Reply - I agree with this to an extent. However, any Wikipedia article must have at least some reliable third party sources, with the possible exception of WP:BLUE. It would also take some time to look through the entire article to find the sources that apply. Furthermore, tagging guidelines that I should follow were discussed at length at User_talk:Jax_0677/Archive_15#My_proposed_guidelines_for_tagging. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Tom Chaplin discography

The newly-created Tom Chaplin discography is in desperate need to help, if any editors are interested. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Discographies

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 14:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Theory of a Deadman discography

Hi there. I apologize if this is the incorrect place for this question, but I couldn't find a more appropriate way. I have completely revised the discography for rock band Theory of a Deadman, which is currently defined as a "Start-class" by this WikiProject. How would I go about getting the article reassessed? Thank you in advance! Miss Sarita ^Confer 21:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject Discography! I have nominated this discography for WP:FL (you can find it here) and the review seems to have stalled. May I please ask that anyone interested please take a few moments to review it and leave comments and support for its promotion? It would be greatly appreciated and I would be happy to reciprocate if you have anything under review that needs commenting. Thank you! — Miss Sarita 14:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Just need one or two more "Supports"! A lot of the major legwork has already been done. If anyone has some time to look it over, that would be so wonderful! It's so close! And as I mentioned, I am more than happy to take a look at anything you have that needs to be reviewed (now or any time in the future). Thank you! — Miss Sarita 19:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in discussion re: how we categorize all songs by an artist by genre(s)

Project members may be interested in this discussion re: whether or not we should categorize all songs by an artist by specific genre(s). Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

MusicBrainz at ELN

Whether or not MusicBrainz authority file numbers should be included in {{authority control}} is currently discussed at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#MusicBrainz. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Buckethead discography

Hello. Buckethead has a huge discography, some editors have created independent articles for many of his albums and "Pikes", see the wikilinks in Buckethead discography. Many of these are not sufficiently notable for stand-alone articles and so I propose they be deleted or redirected. Thoughts? Polyamorph (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Buckethead seems like the kind of artist who has active fan sites that are probably better at providing this type of info. They don't have to worry about reliable sources, OR, etc. I don't see that most of unreferenced WP album articles add anything to their understanding – just release, track listing, credits, etc., from the album covers. WP should focus on providing encyclopedic content. Redirects to the discography would be sufficient. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to lose valuable information on a notable artist's original album just because it's not notable on its own. Yet neither do I want discographies made unreadable by merging all such info there. E.g., suppose Bermuda Triangle (Buckethead album) were deemed non-notable. I would want most of the lead preserved, as well as the supporting refs. I'd want the credits preserved, or at least those of other notable artists. Myself, I'd want the track listing preserved. But the Buckethead discography is already bursting at the seams, so I think it is more convenient for the reader to leave this article in place. On the other hand, I think that something like Teeter Slaughter could be safely converted to a redirect without loss. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

1) WP:NALBUMS includes "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." Unless an individual album has been discussed (more than a release notice or track listing) by multiple reliable sources, it's not notable.

2) No one seems to be suggesting merging the info – that would overload the discography. The albums can be redirected, so they remain as search terms only. Maybe redirect those you think are most suited and see what's left.

—Ojorojo (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

My argument was that keeping these album articles, or at least some of them, despite <100% notability, is worthwhile despite the notability guideline. It is an argument from the WP pillar "Wikipedia has no firm rules" and policy which says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." However, if other editors are unconvinced, then I think that valuable info should be merged into the discography or other related article. If this requires that the discography be subdivided, or some other solution found to preserve readability, so be it. I've already offered my solution. What I do not accept is that we should erase detail just because we cannot figure out how to format it effectively. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Has this type of argument ever worked at AFD? Without reliable sources (that can be used to establish notability), claims that the very limited information about these albums in WP articles is valuable or important is original research or a personal opinion. Many of these have been tagged as "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music" for three and a half years with no improvements. It surprising that they haven't already been deleted or redirected. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that kind of argument would work at AfD and that is still an option (to take to AfD), but I felt it was easier and more congenial to propose informally here. Those albums that have sufficient sources to establish notability and significant coverage can stay (if any exist), but the rest should be redirected to the discography. As you say Ojorojo, this is not a merge proposal and content currently in the standalone album pages should not be merged into the discography page. We should not be providing tracklistings to non-notable albums. Polyamorph (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that kind of argument has worked at AfD, with admin support, even. But so what--if you don't agree, you don't agree. But why must every one of these articles be either a notable keeper or a non-notable, burn-to-the-ground redirect? Why are you disallowing merging for any of them? You have a thing against track listings? Fine, don't keep them. But why are you ruling out that there could be any valuable info in a non-notable article that is worth merging, especially if backed with an independent, reliable source? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

1) Can you give an example of that? 2) If there is valuable sourced information then the pages will be redirects, the history will be preserved, so there is the option for someone to use any "useful" information in a different article if they wish to do so. Polyamorph (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I think most if not all of the pikes should be delete/redirected to the Buckethead discography page. Glancing through the 32 non-pike albums, all the early ones appear to be notable enough to warrant a page (Allmusic reviews generally indicate enough coverage to establish notability; someone correct me if I'm wrong there, but I've seen that argument used before). Of the non-pikes, the following do not appear to meet the notability requirements: Funnel Weaver, Island of Lost Minds, Inbred Mountain, Crime Slunk Scene (which can probably be notable if more references are added; as the album has one of his most popular songs on it), In Search of The, Pepper's Ghost (Buckethead album), Decoding the Tomb of Bansheebot, Cyborg Slunks, Albino Slug, Slaughterhouse on the Prairie, A Real Diamond in the Rough, Forensic Follies, Needle in a Slunk Stack, Shadows Between the Sky, Spinal Clock, and Captain EO's Voyage. RF23 (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note a few of the related entries of Bucket head albums at AfD: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. There are also many entries for buckethead songs. Most discussions end up as delete or redirect for failing WP:NALBUM or WP:NSONG. Some of these albums have then been recreated, despite clear consensus for delete in the AfDs. Polyamorph (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I got them all cleaned up now and redirected. I'm pretty sure a few of the ones listed above are actually notable, as they have published reviews or coverage.RF23 (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Good work Ringerfan23. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Korean artist discographies table should be sorted by date.

Hi everyone. I think the Korean artist discographies table should be sorted by date. and should not be separated by the Korean or Japanese or English language. It should be same other discographies that artist released multilingual such as Utada Hikaru discography or Shakira discography. User talk:Zealous37

Mistake in Banana Splits discography

The Beagles songs in the Discography section's "Compact discs" subsection are mentioned as being in italics, but actually are not.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

How to deal with a two-song digital single which has a different title?

Hi, I am having trouble with classificating this single/EP/"single album" – Ryu Sera's "Stay Real" (https://www.melon.com/album/detail.htm?albumId=10142776).

On Melon (a main source for Korean music) it's classified as a single. However, it's a physical+digital release containing two songs, both of which are named differently than the title. How do I include this in a discography? Do I treat it like an EP? I like the term "single album" used in Big Bang discography, maybe that would be appropriate? Thank you. Mast3r (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Scope of discography

Hi could someone from the project have a look at this article Steve Albini discography. From what I can gather a discography is supposed to cover recordings as an artist and not as an engineer. I could find nothing on the page that clearly says this and as the pages related to this artist are edited by a WP:SPA it might be useful to have this looked at by an expert. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NFC#Toronto Rock 'n' Roll Revival 1969, Volume IV - 70 non-free files being used

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFC#Toronto Rock 'n' Roll Revival 1969, Volume IV - 70 non-free files being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

companies

What is the current practice for the discographies in articles on record labels? Is it appropriate to list every recording? Does it matter whether or not the recordings or artists are notable? DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Talk:Sabrina_Carpenter_discography#WP:ACCESSIBILITY violations

There is a discussion regarding the use of rowspan in discography articles at Talk:Sabrina_Carpenter_discography#WP:ACCESSIBILITY violations. Editors are welcome to participate and voice opinions.

. Flooded with them hundreds 17:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This is actually a very important discussion, that this project should be made aware of, as the second example table at WP:DISCOGSTYLE is in fact flawed in WP:ACCESS terms. There may be a followup discussion at WT:WPACCESS about this specific and other related issues. Suffice it to say that most of the Discography tables on this project are problematic, and the consensus decision may be that they need to change in order to conform to WP:ACCESS. (And this is not the kind of thing that will be challengeable on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS grounds...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

How to know when to decide to split discographies into more specific lists

Some artists like Michael Jackson and Eminem has several lists of discographies for specific things. How does one know when a split or separate article is waranted?★Trekker (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:DISCOGSTYLE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dormant or not, when we consider unreleased material by a musical artist that has only had announcements so far, is it generally accepted to wait until midnight of the artists' country before it can be included, i.e. including Infected Mushroom's new album on Wednesday midnight Israel time? Jalen D. Folf (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other songs and credits

1. Should I add other songs section for songs not released on any albums or released only on compilations etc. to discography while certain artist has separated article for list of songs? Eurohunter (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Should I add songs written or produced to the section Credits in discography or should it be included only on list of songs but the question is even if it should be there (list of songs). Eurohunter (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Streaming

No streaming format in album details? It exists in some singles and albums articles. Eurohunter (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

When new discography additions cannot be verified (WP:V)

Greetings! I ran into this peculiar problem while editing the article 1200 Micrograms. The project is known to be defunct, but recently an anonymous editor labeled the project to be active again.[1] Moreover, four new singles and one new EP were added to the Discography section.

However, the closest one to their project website that I could find — the website of their record label[2] — doesn't support the information added. I even approached to their bookie[3], Sastra Rothfield, but have got no answer so far.

That makes me wonder, when citations are needed within the discography sections / -articles? In this case, I had to remove the recent insertions since they obviously couldn't be verified by the source. Still, even the most famous discography sections / -articles do not make any inline citations. I tried to consult MOS:WORKS, WP:DISCOGSTYLE, WP:WPMAG, and Template:Infobox artist discography already, but without anything dealing with a case such as this.

So, when are citations needed within the discography? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There's a recent discussion of aspects of this at Talk:Jerry Hahn. EddieHugh (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There's also another discussion of a similar issue at WikiProject Albums. The consensus emerging from these discussions appears to be that everything needs a citation, no exceptions, and that published albums are not sufficient sources to verify their own catalog data. Chubbles (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Michael W. Smith discography nominated for featured article

I've nominated Michael W. Smith discography, an article under this project's purview, for featured list. For anyone interested, any and all comments are welcome. Toa Nidhiki05 00:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Charts

Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but I see that an entire column has been added to the Nicki Minaj singles chart with positions on the Rolling Stone Top 100. It appears this is just an edit to show that "Megatron" is not a "flop" single, as some might believe. Is there consensus to add the Rolling Stone Top 100 to discography pages? I know a lot of old artists have Cash Box and even Record World, but this raises a lot of questions. Currently, "US" means Billboard. "US RS" seems very confusing. Also, it now adds an 11th column, and I know the standard is 10. The methodology is completely different as the RS doesn't count radio, so streaming is emphasized and hence songs by certain artists can be made to look more successful by the addition of this column. Also, the position of where it would go is concerning. How will readers differentiate between BB and RS chart positions? This all seems very confusing. I don't think it's the right time to start adding a new column for a new chart that doesn't really have a track record yet. Also, the data is different. I was reading a yearly music sales thing from BuzzAngle Music which provides info for the RS charts, and it differentiated from Nielsen. All articles use Nielsen SoundScan sales, now are we going to incorporate these alternative ones?

IMO, Cash Box and Record World are there for historical comparison when there was actual competition between chart companies back in the day and all were taken as a measure of success. RS Charts is kind of a joke ATM. I know radio doesn't have the greatest track record when it comes to things and can be *influenced* by certain forces, but to add an entire column for a chart (not just a genre like a BB Streaming column) that completely ignores a good chunk of the music audience? How is that a measure of success? I think it misrepresents the actual impact of a song. Again, it seems like songs by certain artists can be made to look more successful by the addition of this column. Rolling Stone should at least have to "prove its worth" and be taken seriously by the industry before it's added to discography pages on Wikipedia (which would legitimize it).

Again, this is all really confusing! I think sticking with Billboard and Nielsen is good for now, but is there any consensus? What about the singles pages themselves in the "Charts" section? Heartfox (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason to including Rolling Stone's rankings in discographies as of right now. Like Radio and Records and Cashbox, they are more than acceptable and in fact encouraged (if you can find them) in songs and singles pages, but having two charts for one country seems a bit excessive, especially when the Rolling Stone charts are not only new, but use a proprietary analysis system that is owned by Rolling Stone's parent company. If anything their singles chart is basically just the Billboard Digital Songs and Streaming rolled into one - it excludes radio play. So it's less useful than the Billboard one. Toa Nidhiki05 00:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Some questions about what to include

Hello,

I'm working on Lecrae discography and I have a few questions.

1) Should remixes of an artist's work (in this case, Lecrae songs) be included in "other appearances" if their remix says "featuring X artist"? Or should this not be included for Lecrae, since the work is a mashup of previously recorded material and is not a newly recorded featured appearance?

2) Lecrae is part of a hip hop group, 116 Clique. Some of the 116 Clique songs say "featuring Lecrae [plus other artists]". Should these be included, since they technically are featuring Lecrae and not all the 116 songs feature him, or should they be restricted to the 116 article because Lecrae is a member of the collective?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Purported accessibility change to discography format

This edit may be of interest to the project. It claims to be more accessible. As the change was made with respect to comments and changes to allow the article to be a feature article, it may set some precedent, so discussion may be required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated Fantasia Barrino discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Aoba47 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on external links to Allmusic and Discogs on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the appropriateness of external links to Allmusic and Discogs on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Musician Discographies from Allmusic and/or Discogs. — Newslinger talk 01:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The RNS is already archived, but the conversation over the theme seems to be fragmented across various venues. For example, there's been lengthy debates on a user Talk Page, and more recently an open thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies. Even an RfC has passed concerning the matter. Ideal would be, however, that all the conversation over the topic would be concentrated in one, single place. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Single

Would like confirmation on whether the song "Let Me Know" counts as a single for its inclusion in this discography article (and its inclusion in the infobox of the artist's previous single): Lauren_Jauregui_discography#As_featured_artist. Info: The song is from new independent artist Clear Eyes (Jeremy Lloyd from Marian Hill); the song isn't notable enough for an article (received some light media attention due to it featuring Lauren Jauregui, who has a higher profile); Lloyd released it digitally/on streaming, and it has no radio or promo. Lapadite (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC relating to MusicBrainz at WP:VPT

Now launched at WP:VPT#RfC: should the "Authority control" template continue to include MusicBrainz identifiers?. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Discographies of session musicians

Are discographies of session musicians (i.e. a list of every song/album a musician has played on) notable? I don't think they are... it means everyone who's ever played on an album is notable enough for a discography article. But I don't see how these can ever be supported with any sources other than the liner notes of each album... a session player isn't ever going to get any in-depth coverage of his contributions to each record. I ask this because Tim Pierce discography has recently been created, and I think it should be redirected or deleted. Richard3120 (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Depends how long it is. I just saw a very long and unsourced discog section on Larry Carlton and that was a problem for me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's long, and it's completely unsourced. I'm thinking of putting it up for AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Kaytranada production discography

Am i mistaken, or is this a good example of how not to format a discography? Are raw Youtube links WP:RS in this scenario? It seems more like a fan page than a properly formatted/referenced artist discography. Acousmana (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's terrible. Shouldn't be including the entire track listing of each album, and the YouTube links aren't good either. It's pretty unreadable, really. Richard3120 (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Catalog numbers

I would like to bring a discussion about catalog numbers to this Project's attention for a broader consensus. Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Catalog numbers. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidate

I have nominated Abingdon Boys School discography for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Additional changes to WP:DISCOGSTYLE

Due to the fact that the number of WP:DISCOGSTYLE watchers is only a half of this page, I will discuss my opinions in this page. Well, WP:DISCOGSTYLE become dormant through years, modifications and changes are needed. Here are my several ideas of changes, you are welcome to discuss! -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Separate types of releases should be in a certain order, usually studio albums -> live albums -> compilation albums -> EPs, an example: Taylor Swift albums discography.
2. Certification references should be ones of Template:cite certification (like "American certifications – Metro Boomin". Recording Industry Association of America. in Metro Boomin discography), editors should avoid using Template:cite web, because the titles are difficult to unify and be understood by readers. (cite web examples: "Gold & Platinum – RIAA". in Cardi B discography and "Gold and Platinum - One Direction". in One Direction discography)
3. Pure sales should be clarified when the sales reached that amount, an example: the note "Worldwide sales figures for Up All Night as of 2013" (in One Direction discography)
4. Sales and certifications in the header row should be wiki-linked, an example:
5. For entries of singles and albums, if the album or single does not have an according page, references should be added following its title (not the artist). Once the page is created, the reference should be removed.

List of singles as featured artist, with selected chart positions and certifications, showing year released and album name

Title	Year	Peak chart positions	Sales	Certifications	Albums
		US
"College Girls" (8 Ounz featuring Kendrick Lamar)	2011	—			Non-album single
"Hood Gone Love It" (Jay Rock featuring Kendrick Lamar)		—			Follow Me Home

A lot of changes should be applied on the style guideline and my further ideas will be append to this section. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@BrandNew Jim Zhang: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,200 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: thank you for your notice! I tried to modify it and I wonder what it looks like now. :) -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it did work :) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

BrandNew Jim Zhang, it's not clear to me what you want here, unless you're just hoping to revive interest in WP:DISCOGSTYLE, which unfortunately never made it to the MoS. But I'll make a few comments anyway...

Your Point 1 is de facto the case already; are you proposing that it be nailed down in the documentation (similar to MOS:ORDER)?

Point 3 deals with sales figures, which are often problematic. You (apparently) want to mandate some "as of" text where we name figures, an idea which I know has been discussed, but not clearly accepted. Wouldn't be enough to insist upon an access-date in the ref? That the sales figures (when we even have them, which I'd rather not) become outdated is a problem all across Wikipedia. Any figure we mention which can still change (not, e.g., number of Apollo missions or population of Paris in 1789) needs to be clearly referenced and taken as a snapshot of some point in time.

Point 4: When working on WP:DISCOGSTYLE, we specifically rejected linking "Sales" to anything. And we didn't add sales for individual singles, as you've shown in your example table, but then, you partially changed your example from albums to singles, but left some of the albums version, so I'm not clear if you are proposing making such a change.

Point 5: Personally, I think everything on every WP page ought to be reffed, whether there's an article somewhere else or not. I'm not sure this view is universally held by the project's contributors.

Your example table, ostensibly for singles but originally for albums, includes a link to US, an album chart. I now think the table caption is rather long, and should probably be shortened somewhat. Also, if you want to work on new forms for such tables, you should include ref citations for peak positions so people can discuss the pros and cons. You might want sample certs in the table. But again, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. If you wanted to rework WP:DISCOGSTYLE, you could have put the RfC there and advertised the RfC here, where there are more watchers. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not a valid use of the RfC process. The issue should be discussed beforehand (See WP:RFCBEFORE), and there should be a brief neutral statement of the question that is to be settled (see WP:RFCOPEN). I've therefore closed it procedurally. Please continue the discussion either here or at WT:DISCOGSTYLE to explore the issues, and there may be consensus found through that process. If there is no consensus emerging in a reasonable time, then RfC becomes a reasonable procedure to decide consensus on unresolved issues. --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with all points ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What would be the best way to source this discography?

Miki Matsubara's discog section is wholly unsourced and idk how to proceed since it may more than likely be impossible to find articles for many of the older releases aside from the more popular ones that have been receiving coverage recently. I think most of her catalog has individual Oricon profiles. Could using liner notes work too? (Ik those are usually just for tracklists but they have the release year in them and I believe all the info is available on discogs.com as well.) -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at MOS:TABLE

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Conflicting guidance on headers, which concerns MOS guidance on "year" and "title" columns in tables (specifically, which column should be the rowheader, and the ordering of the two columns). — Goszei (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Discographies of classical compositions

See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions (please discuss there, not here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability of discography articles

Does a standalone discography article have any kind of inherent notability requirements? For example Leo Ku discography, which has been tagged for notability since 2017. Is that tag justified?

The way I understand it, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Discographies, size is the only consideration for splitting off a discography; it doesn't come with any additional notability requirements. So even though the discography is now a separate article, it's still 'notable' as long as the artist is notable, just as is the case for a Discography section of an artist's article. In this particular case, the discography is unsourced, which is obviously an issue, but that's not a notability issue the way I see it.

Is this assessment correct or am I missing something? Thanks in advance. Lennart97 (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:SPLITTING, the new article needs to be notable as well - ... only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia. Hzh (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, sure. But if a discography’s notability is independent of the artist, and independent of the individual items (albums/singles) that make up the discography (I assume), then what are the notability requirements for a discography? I can’t imagine there’s a lot of significant coverage solely dedicated to discographies. Lennart97 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that a notable artist would have articles that describe or list their works in part or as a whole, that should be sufficient. You don't need sources that are dedicated to discography, even though there are sites like AllMusic. Discography articles are just specialized list articles, and you don't need sources that have all the individual items listed in one place per WP:NLIST. In the case of Leo Ku discography, I'm sure it's a matter of just looking into Chinese-language sources if anyone feels inclined to do that. Hzh (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size is also a consideration. If the discography, with sources to show the charting positions and release dates, etc., is starting to make the article too large, it should be moved. The easiest thing to do to determine the readable prose size is 1) render the page, 2) copy the text of the article, 3) paste that text into a word processor or text editor, 4) do a word count. If that word count is less than 1000 words, it probably does not need to be split simply because there's a discography. It's still quite readable. There are obviously other considerations for a split; this is only one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

So imagine you have a discography section of an article which is too long and should, size-wise, be split off, but there's no evidence that a standalone discography article meets the notability requirements. What do you do? Conversely, if one were to merge Leo Ku discography into Leo Ku, even though it would create a size issue, would the notability issue be solved? Lennart97 (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a tough question. If it's not sourced, should it even be in the main article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a tough question, too. Ideally, unsourced content shouldn't be anywhere, of course. Most discography entries, however, can be confirmed to at least exist with a reasonable degree of certainty by a quick Google search - stuff like listings on Spotify, Amazon and the like. So while not currently supported by RS, they're not exactly contentious, either. Lennart97 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

If an artist has an article large enough to be worth consider splitting, there should also be sufficient RS to support the article. If there aren't sufficient sources, the artists or bands is probably only just about notable, and should not have a separate discography article. The one problem I have come across is fans of very minor singers or bands who create a disproportionately large discography section on very obscure albums or songs that are mostly self-released with little coverage, and then want to split the discography section into its own article. If the discography section is split, only a small article is left, just barely above stub level or even just a stub. The person who wanted to do it argued that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Discographies allows him to do it because the discograph section has become disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article, which makes me think that the the wording of item #2 of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Discographies should be adjusted by adding the proviso that the article must be sufficiently large before it can be split, which would reduce problems with non-notable discography article. Hzh (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a very good point, which I hadn't really considered. I agree that the Discographies MoS should be updated to reflect this requirement, because as it stands it really does seem as if length is the only consideration. Lennart97 (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Q about potential updates to Sia discography

Hi – I have recently been in the process of expanding the List of songs recorded by Sia article to a point where it is a completely comprehensive list. On Sia's main discography article, there is a Songwriting and other appearances section, which has a lot of overlap with the List of songs article when talking about her features, soundtrack appearances etc. In my opinion, we should condense the Songwriting and other appearances section so that it is songwriting credits for other artists only, and have a "See also" link to the List of songs article at the top of the section. Thoughts from discography article experts please? Thank you! - Peterpie123rww (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)