Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Conflicting Styles

As a regular participant at WP:FLC, I've seen a lot of discographies get nominated. There seems to be some differences between current FLCs and recent FL additions with older FL discogs:

  • Aesop Rock discography is missing Peak chart positions for Singles
  • Should the certifications section of Carrie Underwood discography be incorporated into the Singles table?
  • Are the chart positions of Billie Piper discography in the wrong order? This is the English Wikipedia site, and emphasis should be on English speaking countries, with the artist's home country being first. The order for the albums should be UK, then other English speaking countries in alphabetical order, then non-English speaking countries in alphabetical order.
  • Alice in Chains discography, Dave Gahan discography and many other discogs feature a B-Sides section. Is this necessary in a discography? It seems to be discouraged at the most recent FLC, mostly headed by me but supported by others, in that it is a discography, not a songography. Why are B-sides to a disc being detailed, when album tracks are not?
    • I agree. Drewcifer (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The original idea was that these discographies should be "comprehensive listings of official recordings" – has that been watered down as time's gone by? Grouping these releases together is functional and helpful, I'd argue. If I wanted to know how many acoustic tracks Deftones had recorded, I'd be able to find out without trawling through "What links here" or just searching. You have to bear in mind that the majority of readers won't be too concerned about economy of information. Seegoon (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Per WP:LS##Bold title, the bold title of the Lead Section should not be wikilinked. This appears on many discographies, and there is no valid reason for it.
  • The bold title of the lead differs between discogs, from:
    • "The following is a comprehensive discography of Aesop Rock" to
    • "This is a comprehensive discography of Alice in Chains" to
    • "This is a comprehensive listing of official releases by Billie Piper" to
    • "This is a discography of Carrie Underwood" to
    • "This is a listing of official releases by Depeche Mode" to
    • "This is a comprehensive listing of official releases by Feeder" to
    • "This is a comprehensive discography of Godsmack" to
    • "This is a comprehensive listing of official releases by Goldfrapp"
      • Should "comprehensive" be included? As it is a Featured List, I would think no, because one of the criteria of a FL is that it is complete.
        • The differing bolt titles is definitely a problem, as is the fact that some discogs need to clarify that it's comprehensive. Drewcifer (talk)
      • Is it only a list of official releases? Can non-official releases be included? If they aren't, is it a discography?
        • I agree. I think specifying that they are unofficial is kind of an oxymoron in the first place. If they released it, it's official. If they didn't, it's not. Right? Drewcifer (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Exactly. Saying it's an listing of official releases, and listing the unofficials, and bootlegs would make the lead statement wrong. If we said, "This/The following is a discography of (insert artist/band here), it would probably be okay to list unoffical and bootleg releases. If there are no unofficial releases listed, then it isn't harmful, and if they are, it allows for their inclusion. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

These are only a few issues I have noticed among the first ten or so FLs. I'm not expecting them all to be of exactly the same quality, but as the FLC process moves on, so too should the already promoted lists.

Some of them, I think could be taken to WP:FLRC. I'm not about to do that, as I think now that there is a Project dedicated to these lists, the members should attempt to make the changes. However, before I do anything, I think a consensus needs to be made here. (Note that the FLC reviewers often look to see what a WikiProject's style guide is as they review.) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good points all around. I would definitely like to organize some sort of retro-spective discographies sweep kind of thing for exactly these reasons. Drewcifer (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also noticed that Gwen Stefani's discog features no chart positions.. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed that one a while ago. I've been avoiding submitting it to FLR simply because there's no written-down rules for what should be in a discography. But hopefully we'll take care of that soon. Drewcifer (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I was going to bring up the Stefani discog as well. I understand not including any chart positions for albums if none of the artist's albums charted, but an internationally successful singer such as Stefani has had her solo albums chart all over the world. I guess once certain guidelines have been agreed upon the project's members can go through older FL and fixed them up. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Order of Peak Chart Positions in discogs

Discussion taken from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sonic Youth discography on April 25, 2008

As this is the English Wikipedia, I'd like to see the chart positions for English speaking countries be grouped together before non-English speaking countries (both alphabetised), with the band's home country first, and the World charts if available last. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think UK/US should come before all other English-speaking countries in the charts. These are the two most important markets in terms of marketing, sales, promotion, media coverage etc. indopug (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually guys, the way I've always done it is the following order: home country then descending by chart success. So, take for example David Hasselhoff. I would argue that the two most important countries as far as his chart performance goes are the US (his home country) and Germany (where he's practically worshiped). Perhaps (and I don't know this, but let's just assume for the sake of argument), that Hasselhoff has charted very poorly in the UK. Should the UK came before Germany? I would argue no, since it would be a logical mistake to put Hasselhoff's popularity in the UK before his uber-success in Germany, simply because the UK speaks English and Germany speaks German. Does that make sense? Drewcifer (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I was opposed to the idea of chart listings even having a set order as per Matthewedwards; its unnecessary at best and at worst, well, the Hasselhoff case. I mentioned about the US and UK only because I was afraid Matthew's suggestion would become a standard requirement for all discogs. I think the columns are fine in any order after the first 2 or 3 most important ones. Also requiring the nominators to now shift around the columns might cause inadvertent errors. indopug (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Surely for us to put forward what we think as the most important is verging on WP:NPOV? As pointed out by User:Kollision at the current Bloc Party discog FLC, WP:CHART say it should be the artist's home country, followed by all others in alphabetical order. My suggestion is that as this is the English language Wikipedia, we put the English langage charts in alphabetical order after the home country, then list the non-English language charts in alphabetical order. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussion taken from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Bloc Party discography on April 25, 2008
The general consensus at WP:CHART (a MoS guideline) is that the home country comes first followed by all other charts in alphabetical order. I think this is the way it should be as it is not only clearer to follow but also more NPOV. - kollision (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with that theory, although I think it should be refined to alphabetise all English language charts before listing foreign language charts (alphabetically again) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Didn't realize there was an MOS on that. Well I guess that takes care of it, no? Drewcifer (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It does insofar as basic alphabetising, but what about my suggestion for putting Eng lang charts first? I don't mind if it's not done, as long as a consensus is agreed upon. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
If there's a MoS on it, then okay. But I still think preference must be given US and UK, and in cases such as Hasselhoff's, Germany. I don't think the order of chart placement even remotely affects WP:NPOV; I mean, come on! Besides, its supposed to be Neutral point of view and not No point of view; for most Western pop/rock acts, the only charts a reader really wants to see are the US/UK ones; if we have to stuff one of them all the way to the back, it severely reduces the usability of the article for readers. I don't think we should go around changing the order of FL discographies' charts; its too much work over a trivial issue and can very easily lead to errors creeping. As for further segregation into English and non-English speaking countries (because this the English Wikipedia), I'm not sure I understand you at all. indopug (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the most logical and non-anal way to go about this is to a) make this a suggestion rather than a do-or-die requirement, and b) don't rock the boat and just go by the MOS on this one. Drewcifer (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what has been decided at WP:Charts, especially since its a MoS guideline. The artist's home country is placed first and then followed by all other charts in alphabetical order. No point in going against it. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with above. English speaking countries should not be prioritized. This is implying something about artist success, which is an NPOV issue. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Order of sections and subsections

What do people think the order of sections and sub-sections should be in? Some discogs place music videos with/close to Videos/DVDs, some place music videos near Singles, some place compilation albums and live albums with/near Albums, others don't. Is there already an established way, or does it need addressing? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always kind of ordered things on a case-by-case basis. Not the most rule-savvy way of doing it, but do you really think we need to specify a preferred order? But, if you pulled my arm, I'd say the order should be: Studio albums, live albums, EPs, video releases, compilations, misc, singles, music videos, appearances on compilations/soundtracks. Drewcifer (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think we have to have something set in stone, but some sort of consistency across the project would be a good idea, I think. Like a Project MOS. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
In the discogs I've worked on I have always ordered them this way: Albums (studio, live, compilation, etc.), EPs, Singles, Miscellaneous, Music videos and then Video albums (DVDs, VHS, etc.) -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


What not to include

Why is "Non-musical releases" included in the list of things not to put in a discography? -Freekee (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My intention was to avoid the inclusion of things that have nothing to do with music. For instance, Nation of Ulysses had a zine. But it wouldn't behoove a discography to include something like that. I would also argue that something like Some Kind of Monster wouldn't belong in Metallica's discography, since that would belong in a filmography. Drewcifer (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
My first thought was of spoken word recordings, but what about interview discs? I think you'll need to be more specific about videos and such. Wait a minute... no videos? Oh, you just mean no documentaries. Which would also preclude the interview disc. So we only want music and video music releases. Um, why not any recorded output by the band? Artistic output only?
Next question: What about single songs that were originally issued on compilation (or soundtrack) albums? Like, "The Perfect Drug"? Should there be a place in the discog for songs like this? -Freekee (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point about spoken word recordings. All of Henry Rollins spoken-word releases, for instances, should probably be in his discography. Maybe I'll see about rewording that. I suppose I was intending to focus things to be a by-the-books discography, which is usually defined as a list of musical releases only. But perhaps a slightly broader definition would be beneficial here. As for the Perfect Drug versions, I would argue that that should be included, basically since NIN had their own release of the song, specifically credited to NIN and featuring only that song and other NIN songs. Drewcifer (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but which product, exactly, should be listed in the discog? -Freekee (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say the "Perfect Drug Versions". But as the NIN Discog currently has it is fine: it says "Perfect Drug" with a link to the single's article explaining the details of the release further. Drewcifer (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, right, that one was a single. Okay, bad example. Hmm, I can't come up with any. But let's say a song does exist that only appears only on compilations that feature songs from multiple bands? Is there a place for such songs in discog articles? -Freekee (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea, in a "Appearances on compilations" section, or something like that. Plenty of discographies have them. But the important thing is that the track being included is original to that compilation, not just some already-released song that's been thrown onto some soundtrack CD. Drewcifer (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen that sort of listing before. Makes sense, though. Thanks. -Freekee (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Discogs

I don't think discogs should be a recommended external link, for the same reason that it is frowned upon to cite using IMDb; it is user generated content, and suffers from reliability problems. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An External link is different then a source of information. External links don't necessarily need to be reliable. Drewcifer (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Surely if the the wiki discography is comprehensive and reliable, the only external links required are to band/artist website? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If an article were comprehensive and reliable, no external link would be needed at all. ;-) -Freekee (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sortable tables?

Every once and a while, someone asks in an FLC why the tables aren't sortable. So my question to you all is, should they be sortable? If not, why not? If so, why, and to what degree?

My argument is that they should not be sortable, since many basic table functions such as rowspan and colspan don't operate correctly in a sortable table. I've brought up this technical shortcoming at the Village Pump before, but to no avail. So until the day comes when they can coexist, I'd prefer to leave them unsortable. Drewcifer (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHART

Should WP:CHART, part of the WP:MOS be followed here when dealing with Peak Chart positions? It states that the artists' home countries be first, followed by all others alphabetically.

My personal preference is home country first, followed by English language charts (alphabetically), followed by foreign language charts (alphabetically), ending with Worldwide chart. The reason being is that this is the English language Wikipedia, and most users of it will be wanting to look for their country's chart before, for example, Finland's.

User:Indopug's preference is home country first (I think), followed by the US and UK charts, then all others alphabetically, with the reason that the US and UK music industries are the most influencial.

I think a decision needs to be made because of conflicting advice at WP:FLCs. What is other users's opinions? Do you agree with any of the above, or have even another idea of presenting the order?

WP:CHART also says do not use component charts. These are mostly used by Billboard in the US. Should we include them here? If so, depending on the different style/genre of songs an artist records, they could have a many different songs only appearing once on each component. Should the Hot 100 (for singles) and Hot 200 (for albums) be the only ones used? What about if an artist's songs do not chart on the Hot 100, but do on a component chart? Should they then be allowed? Again, this is something that has recently come up at a couple of WP:FLCs. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am curious to know if WP:CHART is applicable at all for discographies. Just looking at the chart table at CHART makes me believe that it is tailor-made only for song and album articles. (see "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and Adore) indopug (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think so. The first sentence says "This page gives some guidelines for using and displaying record chart information in music-related articles. ". Peak chart positions would be "record chart information", and disographies are definitely music-related articles, so I can see the sense in applying it here. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Adore displays its chart information much like a discog page would. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It might say its meant for music-related articles, but have they actually considered the unique case of discographies? Consider the wording of "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart.", clearly that indicates a suggestion for single-song charts, not a table with twenty singles (like in a discography). How would that statement be used when one song on the table has charted the main chart while another has not? As for Adore, I am sure I have never seen anybody bring up CHART at FAC, so... indopug (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Why have bias just because "this is the English language Wikipedia"? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a number of discussions going on here, so let's try and split these things up Drewcifer (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC):

Chart order

There seems to be a consensus that home-country should come first. There also seems to be agreement that the majority of other countries should be alphabetically listed by their English-language names. Below are the two points that seem to be contended. Please provide your opinion below each point.

  1. Should English-language countries be given priority (after the home country) or should they be alphabetized along with everything else?
  • I would go with alphabetizing everything regardless of language. First, this opens up a can of worms as to what defines an English-speaking country: if you take a look at this category you'll see this isn't as obvious as a definition as it seems. Second, it makes things much much simpler to just alphabetize everything, from the viewpoint of both editor and reader. Third, it gives what I see as biased emphasis to some countries. Drewcifer (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I see your point, but English Wikipedia is more than likely going to contain more discogs from groups from the US, UK, IRE, AUS, NZ etc, than from FR, FIN, PO, JP SWE etc. Grouping them doesn't give bias, it provides the reader with really-ease-of-use instead of just ease-of-use. Looking at Red Hot Chili Peppers discography as a random example, grouping US, AUS, IRE, NZ and UK together makes sense because the majority of visitors to that article on en.wiki will be from those countries, not FR, , NLD, GER SWE or SWI. It also makes it easier to compare chart performances in the countries, for example if I was a NZer, I'd want that column closer to the US's to see how the release compared in my country to the home country. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. Where to put aggregate charts such as World Charts or EU charts: immediately after home country, alphabetized with everything else (presumably by EU and World-wide), or last?
  • I would go with putting them last, since they already act as kind of a summary. Worldwide charts would go last-last, while EU charts or any other less-then-worldwide charts before Worldwide in alphabetical order. Drewcifer (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Component charts

To what degree should component charts be included in discogs? Below are some potential solutions. Feel free to add to them.

  1. All applicable charts should be included.
  2. No component charts should be included.
  3. Component charts should be included only when a release did not chart on the primary charts.
This is what WP:CHARTS currently says, but I'm confused as to how it would apply to a list of releases. If "Album 1" charts only on a component chart, "Album 2" charts on a component chart and the main chart, and "Album 3" charts only on the main chart, which release do we favor? Do we include the component chart since one album charted only on that one chart, or do we discard the component chart since the artist has charted on the main charts? Drewcifer (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem with the Foo Fighters discog was that 5 or 6 component charts were being used and they pushed the tables off the right side of the screen (for me anyway, on a 21" at 1024x768). If they were allowed, I can foresee this happening on a number of discogs. It also gives a biased representation of US charts, when every other country only has 1. Note though, that the UK has indie, R&B, rock and dance charts (see the UK's BBC Radio 1 chart website). (They're also printed in the weekly Broadcast magazine, so it wouldn't be unfeasible to include those also, but no current Featured discog does. Finally, nothing at discogs states we have to include every single chart that every release has charted on, and if Hot 100/200 is already there, perhaps there is no need for the component charts. Even though I raised this, I should say that I'm not too concerned whether or not they are used. My main concern is consistency amongst all the discogs, and ease-of-use. I don't think having to horizontally scroll to view a table is a good thing. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Matthewedwards&site=en.wikipedia.org count · email) 20:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point; I find that too many people believe that for "comprehensiveness" we must include every chart. Completely unwarranted; a comprehensive discography should have every important notable official release by the band. Regarding the number of charts, the issue of aesthetics should also play a part: do not clutter the table and do not make so wide that we need to scroll. As for the US mainstream and modern rock charts' inclusion, it is important to note that most popular rock bands do not make it to the Hot 100. Hence, these two bands detail most singles of a band, while a presence on the Hot 100 can be considered as an indication of mass acceptance, not just from fans of the genre/band. For example, consider [[[The Strokes discography]], where only one of their singles charted on the Hot 100. Removing the mod rock charts would suggest that the band was mostly unsuccessful in the US, which is clearly not the case (per the mod rock charts). indopug (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This is definitely a tricky situation. Should we just say that component charts should be included if a release only charted on that particular chart, even if other releases charted on the main chart? So, in my above example with Release 1 2 and 3, since Release 1 only charted on a component chart, the main chart and component charts would be included for all three? I'm not sure if I see anyway around that. Drewcifer (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How to handle WP:Charts

I think it is clear that WP:CHARTS needs a major rewrite, not only does it cover a very limited type of article type (and seems to ignore discography articles), but also it doesn't seem to cover the points mentioned above (order of charts, aggregate charts, and component charts). Drewcifer (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If a decision is made here on how to handle what WP:CHART says, then that doesn't have to be mentioned. There is the possibility that we could make or raise potential changes on the talk page over there, though. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
CHART seems to work fine for song articles. Instead, why not strengthen MOS:DISCOG for the discography specifics; and include a mention at CHART that "this pertains only to song articles for discography-related information go to DISCOG"? indopug (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable solution to me. Drewcifer (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bootlegs

Just curious why bootlegs are not allowed -- Bootleg recording has an article, and there are articles with lists of bootlegs, such as The Beatles bootlegs. Just curious.Editor437 (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Because as those two articles say, bootlegs are unofficial. I could cobble together an album of songs and put it out there, but if it's not endorsed by the artist or record company, it's not part of the official discography of the artist. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, but that may be confusing bootleg recording with piracy. Bootlegs are not, generally, reorganized albums of already-released songs (which would be piracy), but collections of other material not officially released. So, not just anybody can cobble together a collection of songs -- you have to have the recordings, which are not available commercially. At any rate, such recordings, especially of major artists, seem notable and worthy of inclusion in a discography, so long as they are marked as suchEditor437 (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC).

Bootleg can mean alot of things – everything from outright piracy to leaked material – but in nearly every case (a few exceptions aside), they are unofficial, and therefore aren't part of the artist's discography, aka, list of official releases. I suppose I could imagine a case where an artist is particularly well-known for having a ton of bootlegs for whatever reason, so perhaps a seperate "List of bootlegs" article might be in order. Or if there are any particularly notable bootlegs (When the Whip Comes Down comes to mind), then you can always mention it in a See also section, like Nine Inch Nails discography does. Drewcifer (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Bootlegs (recordings of independent origin is a clearer term) are not usually officially endorsed/released by the band. Discography articles deal with what is official released. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Not to be contentious, but who says discographies deal with what is officially released? Has there been a consensus formed on this point? In my interpretation, a discography is simply a list of recordings - I don't see why they need be "official." This rule does not follow the standard in the arts -- if I provide a list of ""writings by Edgar Allen Poe," I'm giving you the whole list, not just the published works, or the works he intended to reach the public.

I'm happy to yield on this point if there has already been a discussion and a consensus, but if not I'm not convinced bootlegs need be omitted.Editor437 (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there has been any centralized discussion. So this could serve as it, I suppose. But just to be clear, I would argue that the Beaetles bootleg article is a slight exception to the rule, since the Beatles and their bootlegs are so notable. Drewcifer (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Release dates for singles

How come release dates aren't needed for singles but are for albums? I don't understand. While submitting the Supergrass discography discography for featured list, I got a comment from Drewcifer that said "Stuff like release dates and labels aren't necessary for singles." Why is this? --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Too much detail. Its simply a little too much information that isn't really that important which affects the aesthetics and appearance of the table. Further, many bands have large numbers of singles compared to their albums and overall, singles are less important than albums. Can you imagine how the Singles table of Madonna/The Beatles would look with detailed release information? indopug (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Music videos

I've been thinking about the inclusion of music videos in discographies for some time now, as I don't think they're all that necessary.

On nearly every discography we have, most of the music videos listed are exactly the same as the singles, because usually music videos are an extension of the single made only to promote it. As it is, all we do is list the videos and give the directors, and even then the directors aren't always given for each one, or if they are they're never cited. What makes these music videos notable? Usually nothing. Sometimes they win an award or two, or top a Channel 4 poll of the public's favourite, but that should be mentioned in the article of the single rather than being given their own section here.

Only very few times are music videos made when a single isn't released. These are more notable than the videos that are made to promote an already mentioned single, and so I think these and these alone should be mentioned, and could be grouped together with any videos or DVDs the artist has released. If the video has won something, this could be mentioned in the lead as "The promotional music video for 'Single X' won the 'Best Rock Video Award' at the MTV European Music Awards". Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the music videos are somewhat redundant in some discographies (where the table pretty much matches the singles table), but not so much in others (like Nine Inch Nails discography or Sonic Youth discography, for example). So although I agree with you in theory, I think the possibility of exceptions such as those warrant their overall inclusion. But, like I said, I do agree with you in theory, so yea... Drewcifer (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I see it as being similar to ==Other appearances==.. A song licensed from an official albums and included on Now That's What I Call Music! isn't listed as it's already a member of a main part of the discog, but brand new tracks written for a soundtrack or something are listed.
Music videos are simply an extension of the single used solely to promote, but music videos for non-singles are themselves more notable as they are stand-alone things (couldn't think of a better word!)
So what would do you mean by "overall inclusion"? Including all videos even when they match up with the singles section; not including when the music video and singles sections are the same but including all music videos for a discog such as Nine Inch Nails discography; or not including music videos anywhere unless they are separate from a commercial release? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
We are mixing up video albums and music videos in this. Video albums should be included in discographies because they are video albums. I am very concerned with the precedent you have set with Linkin Park videography Matthewedwards. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Linkin Park videography kind of concerns me too. Not because it's a bad idea necessarily, but because it opens up a veritable can of worms. In general, when speaking about what to include in a discography, the format of a release really shouldn't matter. What matters is that it's a) musical (duh), and b) original to that release (we don't care that much about reprints). So regardless of whether Linkin Park has a musical release on CD or DVD or music video (which kind of lacks a specific format, I suppose), they are still part of their discography, since they're musical and original. Drewcifer (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where the idea came from for Linkin Park videography, it wasn't me. I expressed dissatisfaction over the music videos at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Linkin Park discography, and that's it:

* I wouldn't be unhappy to see the music videos gone. A music video is an extension of a single, used to promote, not a release in itself. They should be mentioned there and that's it. It's like a radio-friendly version of a single release that the company provides to radio stations. We don't list those. Unless any of the music videos do not coincide with a single release, I say get rid. If not, "Given Up" needs a director.

They, along with the DVDs were moved to a videography page because I asked for references for the DVDs:

* Refs for DVDs please

Moved the videography section to Linkin Park videography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I certainly haven't set a precedent as I didn't request/suggest it happen. Although I did at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/U2 discography/archive1. I don't see why a videography article cannot be a sub-article of a discog where necessary, and I felt the size warranted this. Mariah Carey has two discog articles, one for albums, and another for singles. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I think a separate article for music videos and video albums is slightly more appealing if the band/artist has released a lot. However, discography can include music videos, as music videos and singles are almost one and the same. Video albums and films have a bit more of a subtle distinction. Is there one term we can give to a band's musical 'output'? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Music videos and videos should be on a videography page. Videos and music videos has nothing to do in a discography page. And it wasn't your fault when i created the videography page. I was a videography page before i started editing on wikipedia. See it for yourself. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction sentence ("This is a discography of XXXX")

As the title of our discographies are "Artist XXXX discography", is it necessary to introduce the article as "This is the official discography of XXXXX. XXXXX is an English pop music singer. He has released three albums, eight singles, etc etc...." or any alternative? We know this from the title, as well as being uninspiring (This doesn't relate just to discogs, many lists, including WP:FL are guilty of it). How about beginning with something as simple as "The discography of XXXXX, an English pop music singer, consists of three albums, eight singles, etc etc"? WP:LS doesn't insist on a bold title if one doesn't fit, it fixes the problem of wikilinking the bold lead, it reads much simpler, while relaying the same information with less words. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The bolded lead thing makes for an awkward read. Drewcifer (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Joining in late, I don't think discogs should be an exception to the rule. WP:TITLE specifies that the title, in some variation, should be emboldened. It's also common of pretty much every polished article. A lead sentence lacking a bold title looks incomplete to me. لennavecia 01:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I still disagree with you for all the reasons I gave in the BOLDTITLE section below. But I'm still hoping someone else will join in to help build a consensus. --JD554 (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorporating List of music recording sales certifications

I made List of music recording sales certifications specifically for the purposes of acting as a legend for certifications, in order to avoid what has happened at The Prodigy discography (look below the first table). Problem is, I'm not really sure how to lead people to the page. Should it be in a little legend underneath tables? Or should it be wikilinked somewhere in the tables? Should it replace the customary link to Music recording sales certification? Any suggestions? Drewcifer (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. At least that way the reader can see what the threshold for each tier is. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Or link "Platinum" or "Gold" or "Silver" to the page instead. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a good solution, but what exactly gets linked? The first certification only? The first time gold, platinum, silver, or diamond is mentioned? And since each body has a different definition of what s/g/p/d means, I think it's a little misleading to only link one or even a few. Personally I'm leading towards a legend of some kind, but I'm not super-sure about that. Drewcifer (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Question on order of countries

Hi, I was wondering, is there any consensus on the order of countries in the albums/singles rankings? Some are alphabetical, like this one (descending order) or this one (partly ascending). Other lists like this one are not alphabetical in any way. Which is best? Baldrick90 (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion further up, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Chart order, and MOS:DISCOG#Per-release #6. Definitely the first country should be the artist's home country. Then either alphabetize from A–Z the remainder, or alphabetize from A–Z other English speaking countries as this is en.wiki, and then alphabetize from A–Z all other countries. Finally, end with EU and World charts (if applicable) as these are not countries, but charts from a number of countries. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Question on acronym used for the Netherlands

Some lists use "NL", like this one. Others use "NLD", like this one. Which should we use? Baldrick90 (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

NLD doesn't list it as an abbreviation for Netherlands, but NL does. The ISO 3166-1 gives both though: NL in its ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 two-letter codes, and NLD in its ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 three-letter codes.
Either ISO code is correct, so I think as long as the article is consistent throughout, it doesn't matter much. Either all the countries within an article use the three-letter codes, or they are use the two-letter codes, not a mixture of both. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think using the ISO codes is a little dangerous, since it's not always an English-language abbreviation. Switzerland, for example, is CH. But that doesn't make sense to 99% of the people in the world who don't know that, so we go with SWI. I think a good rule of thumb is abbreviate using 3-letters except in obvious exceptions like US, UK, or NZ. That just keeps things simplest. Drewcifer (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Consider me corrected. You make a good point there, so yeah, probably the best thing to do is simply use your head about it and not worry too much. No doubt another user will edit it if they think it's wrong anyway! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps an easy rule of thumb would be to go by the 3-letter ISO unless the ISO abbreviation obviously doesn't match with the English word for the country. In most cases it is the same, so that should be relatively easy rule to go by. Drewcifer (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it is "dangerous" not to use the ISO standard codes, regardless of whether they correspond to the English names. I am a native English speaker, but would still be expecting Spain to be "ESP", Switzerland be "CH", etc. A lot of Europeans would be familiar with these, and they are widely used in televised international sports (FIFA and the IOC use more or less the same codes as ISO). I think using made-up abbreviations is a lot more confusing than following the standards that have been around for decades. Also, I don't understand the use of "IRE" instead of "IRL" for Ireland - I've only ever seen IRE used for things that represent the 32 counties (The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland) e.g. Ireland national rugby union team, but the charts are only for the Republic. --Zilog Jones (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Track listings

I've been browsing through the preferred discog style info, and was curious as to what's behind the consensus that track listings not be included in discographies. As a WP user, I personally find them extremely useful, especially for releases outside the US, which often go out of print very quickly. They're also great for romanizations and/or translations of non-English song titles. See TVXQ discography as an example. I realize a separate article could be for created for each album and single to accommodate this as well, but wow that's a lot of work! :) I know Ignore All Rules is definitely in effect here and is respected -- I was just generally curious as to the reasoning behind the current guidelines. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For me it's because it's a discography, not a songography. A discography deals with releases. The links to each release can then give the tracklistings. There is no point in re-stating exactly the same information on two pages. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I also think it's a matter of how much information is too much. As the above example illustrates pretty well (TVXQ discography), some of the track listings can get pretty complicated (take a look at "O"-正.反.合., or even more so T). Drewcifer (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Definitely, I totally understand both of your points. Regarding redundancy, yes, plus it creates a greater possibility of content conflicts between, say, and album's article and its listing within a discography. And yes, discogs that include track listings can and often do get extremely bloated. I think what I run up against is that not all albums have (or should have) their own article, and most songs don't (or shouldn't) unless they are "exceptionally" notable. The track listings are valuable whether or not an editor is able to write up the kind of accompanying prose that is expected in a full article. Granted, there are a lot of album and song articles out there that are nothing more than track listings and release dates. :) Thanks for your input! --hamu♥hamu (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I came here for the same reason, after seeing a number of AfD for B-side lists. Lists of B-sides are very useful for fans, and if they cannot have their own articles, then where should information on them be included, if not the discography? Many singles don't need their own article, so wikipedia would then have no place at all for this verifiable information! The single articles also tell the year and format of release, but these are included in the list - why the inconsistancy? Either this needs to be removed from the guideline, or discogrpahy articles should be renamed as Songographies. (who decided discographies don't include track-listings anyway? Many do!).Yobmod (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm running into this issue with Madlax and List of Madlax albums. Sometimes the individual releases may not be notable enough on their own but the collection of works may be or creating several articles would just be excessive. Perhaps in these situations using the WP:Albums MOS and putting multiple albums in one article would be a better approach. Additionally, this MOS seems to be very heavily biased towards Artist Discographies to the point that I think it should be restricted to that subject. For example, look at the text in "Ignore All Rules" which only refers to artists. Argel1200 (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To em or to en

There is a discussion on whether emdashes (—) or endashes (–) are to be used in empty table cells here. indopug (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Make this official?

So how are we feeling about MOS:DISCOG? My own personal assessment of the past month or two is that this little trial period has gone pretty well. We've cleared up some pending issues, and I've noticed it being cited in more and more discog FLCs lately, which is great. It also seems like what's here is relatively uncontroversial as far as discog-regulars go. So how do we feel about making it official? Obviously we can still make tweaks and changes after the fact, but is it ready to be implemented as a bona-fide guideline? Also, if there's any other pending issues anyone has, please feel free to bring them up. Drewcifer (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I still have an issue with videos being in discogs, especially music videos when the list is an identical list to Singles. Sometimes I think a named artist/band videography article would be better being created and then being linked to from the discog article. I've recommended this at the current U2 discography FLC (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/U2 discography/archive1) where there are a huge number of music vids, DVDs, feature films, etc etc.
I also have some reservations about certain things though, such as the citations section -- this isn't so much as a style guideline as a notability guideline, although I agree with what's been said.
The last thing I noticed was missing is that it should say that the order of sections should be the same as the order in the infobox. We might also want to put a recommended order: Studio albums → live albums → compilation/best of albums. Singles. Feature films → full length home videos/DVDs → music videos. Guest appearances → soundtrack/compilation appearances. For example.
Otherwise, mostly everything else I think is addressed, and what we have is not too bad as a bare-bones guide. Meanwhile, I've been working -- on paper, which is also how I tend to edit articles -- to make it more "prosey", somewhat similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines and WP:MOS, rather than the "listy" format it's in at the moment -- hope that's okay.
Finally, to be made "official", I've heard it would have to be taken to the Village Pump and a couple of other places, but I'm not sure if this is true. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right, let's clear up the music video thing first. Exactly what is your issue with the citations section? I think ordering the sections based on the infobox is a very good idea. Let's just hope no one edits the infobox. =) And yea, I'd be open to a more-prosed based approach. So let's see what'cha got! Drewcifer (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just wondering whether listing citations that are okay to use, or project approved, are part of a style guide or a WP:NOTE guide. I'll work on putting the prose up over the weekend, and see #Music videos for my response about that. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of spurious sources out there, so I figured it would be helpful to list some known reliable source. That said, I guess doing so isn't technically warranted in a style guideline, but I think it's usefulness to new discography writers is worth bending the rules a little bit. Also, it gives us a place to cross-reference FLCs against, to make sure all the sources used check out. Drewcifer (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with making a rule against including b-sides or tracklistings. Fine for some artists, but not for others who don't have rabid fans making singles articles for every release. It is already being used to argue against merging such information form AfD B-side lists, with big losses of verifiable information from wikipedia ("ignore all rules" notwithstanding). Bjorks list of B-sides article is far more useful to me when checking if i have all her songs than having to click on each single article - this is what lists are for! If singles and B-side lists are to be deleted as non-notable by themselves (as they often are), discographies must be able to absorb this information without breaking guidelines, or we'll need seperate discogarphy and songogrphy articles for all artists.Yobmod (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not an act has a rabid fanbase or not shouldn't really affect their coverage on Wikipedia. In reality it does, since more popular bands are going to have better coverage, but that doesn't mean that either act deserves or requires an inherently different approach (with the only exception being the Beatles, but that's just my opinion). Guidelines for notability apply across the board, and 9 times out of 10 B-sides, unreleased tracks, and the like fail the notability litmus test (especially in an article/list devoted solely to those tracks). To include that same information in discographies is also a mistake, in my opinion. There's always the steadfast argument that it is discography not a songography, which implies that we are concerned with physical releases, not a breakdown of the content on each of those releases. That argument still holds true in my opinion, but it does depend a bit on semantics. So instead, look at it this way: a list as defined by Wikipedia is a collection of items that "links to articles in a particular subject area". Or in other words, by in large each item listed must meet notability guidelines, since each item should ideally link to its own article. Drewcifer (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
So renaming discographies to songographies would protect articles from this nefarious plot? And only albums with their own articles are to be included in discographies? Why is chart data included even though the chart position doesn't get it's own article? What makes chart data inherintely more notable than the discs content? Almost all discogrphies outside of wikipedia provide track listings for the release.Yobmod (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured discographies also contain B-sides, why the double standard for bands you like?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Bolt_discography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_discography.

I've removed the Garbage b-sides. They were added after the list became featured. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Video albums

I wanted to alert the members of the discog project to a couple of categories I have made:

  • Category:Video albums - This encompasses all video albums. By video albums - I mean the output of musician/bands that is in a video format. This can be a live show and or a collection of music videos. Perhaps it would be wise to outline that video albums is useful because it does not discriminate against VHS or DVDs. I have been concerned out some categories like "Category:Nirvana videos and DVDs". Video can mean DVD or VHS. I.e. a video just means stored motion pictures on some medium.
  • Category:Video albums by artist - Self-explanatory (Example: Category:Foo Fighters video albums)
  • Category:Video albums by year - Self-explanatory (Example: Category:2003 video albums)

A major issue is that video album is redlinked. Should we consider starting this? What do you guys think? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Chart data

In an attempt to qualm what seems to be ever-expanding chart data in discographies, I've tried to add a caveat to the guideline to bring things down to a more reasonable level. I've also tried to extend the guideline to allow for the possibility of component charts in a more rational way than WP:CHART. But the note definately needs a bit more input before I'd like to consider it set in stone. So, here it is so far:

"In the case of multiple-charts, "comprehensive" does not necessarily mean an exhaustive list of countries and charts the artist has charted on. A maximum of 10 separate charts should be presented, using any combination of country, component, or competing charts. There is no set inclusion criteria for which charts should and shouldn't be included, but a good rule of thumb is to go by the relative success of the artist on that chart."

So, here's a breakdown of the two important bits:

  • Max of 10 charts: 10 seems like a big enough number to give the reader a reasonable survey of the most important charts, while not bogging down the page with too much information. Too litle charts and we run the risk of being biased. Too much and it borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
  • "relative success of the artist on that chart." This is my best attempt to encourage the user to add "the most important charts" while not allowing for the obvious bias that might occur. Obviously no single chart should be deemed "more important", since a Swedish user might think the Swedish chart is far more important than the Dutch one. So instead of using loaded words like "important", I've tried to do it objectively: which chart the artist has been most successful on compared to the others. This is a prima facie way of determining importance: an artist is obviously more important in Country X than in Country Y if they've charted better in Country X. But by doing it objectively, we avoid an implied bias on the part of the guideline or the user.

So, let me know what you think and how to further improve upon this guidline. Drewcifer (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea, you created a way to ease when I'm working “on top” of discographies, where the artist gets entry into several charts. Cannibaloki 16:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup, support from my side too, although I am a little hesitant about the rather rigid maximum number of charts allowed. Allowing a little leeway per the main contributor's preferences wouldn't hurt. Maybe reword to something like "it is encouraged to limit the number of countries..." indopug (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Why a maximum number for different chart positions. It doesn't hurt the discography in any way and it should be a maximum of twenty or at least fifteen chart positions. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
10 seems like a good number to me since any more and it starts to get squished on smaller monitors. My monitor is 1024x768, and the 17 chart columns in Garbage discography really makes the tables look crammed into too small of a space. And I think that 10 is plenty of leeway to take care of the most notable charts. But maybe you guys are right, maybe a rigid rule of 10 is a little heavy handed. Howabout "A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested." (and not bolded) Drewcifer (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool. indopug (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I've would agree with 15 at least and why should it be a guidline for this. This should be a choice not a rule and i don't see the danger with more then 10 chart positions Drewcifer3000. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, 10 is far too little, especially with some artists who chart in over 20 countries/charts. I think that the guidelines should be a little more flexible and say something along the lines of "No more than 15 charts except where it is justifiable to do so". What do you think? --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
First i agree with The-G-Unit and why shouldn't it be a choice of how many chart positions should be added. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
My main concern, and my rational for suggesting 10, is to keep things under a reasonable limit for lower-resolution monitors. Too many columns and the entire table starts to go hay wire. That, and, realistically speaking, I can't imagine 15 columns being any more useful to 99% of the readers. 10 keeps things focused, and not an indiscriminate stat dump. Just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean it should necessarily be included. Drewcifer (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
If a artist appear in more than 25 positions, how you will write on the table? You will write all? We need to be more objective showing readers that those 10 positions are likely the best. I think over 10 is redundant!, independent of the monitor screen/resolution size. Cannibaloki 22:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean hay wire the Queens of the Stone Age discography is working out. Seriously how can you recommend this if so many is goin to disagree on it. Make This a Choice Not a Guidline. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do agree. After working on some discographies I really do think that 10, for some artists, is far too little. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So far the only argument I've seen in support of 15 rather than 10 boils down to "but it's not enough!", which really isn't convincing. Not enough for what? What exactly are we trying to show with the chart positions? An exhaustive record of the release's chart history? No, which is why we discourage chart trajectories. Are we trying to show the artist's relative popularity worldwide? No, since that would require far more than 15 columns. What we are trying to do is give a bite-size sampling of the artist's success, in order to compare the relative success of an artist's releases among the artist's larger body of work. Remember, in a discography, we are presenting the act's entire body of work, so every bit of data is meant to be comparative, not exhaustive. Also remember that if the album/single whatever has its own page (which is usually the case), then that would be a much better place for 15+ chart positions. So if you think 10 is too little or 15 is too much or whatever, try to think about it in those terms, not just "what feels right".
So, with that in mind, here are my reasons for suggesting a limit of 10 (as opposed to "10 feels right"):

  • Anymore than 10 and it borders on an indiscriminate stat dump. Too much information (ie too many columns) and the important information (the top 10) gets lost.
  • In lower resolution monitors, more than 10 columns runs the risk of making the table too wide and therefore squeezes the entire table, sometimes uncomfortably so. This is especially true when other data like certifications and sales are included.
  • Obviously chart positions are not the main attraction of a discography; the releases themselves are. So, if chart positions dominate the table (by being larger width-wise than the main column), then the table (and therefore discography as a whole) looses its focus. If the chart positions dominate the tables, the discography ceases to be centered on the releases, and becomes more concerned with the charts. 15 columns inevitably renders the chart part of the tables larger graphically than the other parts of the table.
  • An expectation of a ton of chart positions may ultimately be prohibitive to new editors.

Those are my reasons, as clearly as I can state them. But remember that as it is worded at the moment, the guideline does not require 10, it suggests it. And, the bottom of the page stipulates that editors can freely ignore all the rules if there is a good reason for it. So the limit of 10 is hardly set in stone, but I would argue, as I have above, that it is the right amount for the majority of discographies. Drewcifer (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Drewcifer my point is that this something you want and not necessary what all the users on wikipedia wants, thats why this can not be a rule okay. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, by my best approximation 10 seems to straddle the consensus pretty closely. Based on the comments made above, myself, canniballoki, and indopug all seem satisfied with the limit of 10. A limit of 15 seems to be supported by G-Unit Boss and Black Hole Sun (again based on comments made above). I also remember a discussion somewhere on an MOS page where it was argued to remove the chart positions altogether (though I admit I'm having a tough time actually finding the discussion). So, if we go purely based on the straw poll (which is generally discouraged, but oh well), it's an inforaml vote of 3-2 in favor of 10 charts. But, like everything on Wikipedia, we go by the strength of arguments, not the amount of "yes" or "no" votes. And so far I've yet to see an argument for 15 columns beyond personal preference and the vague assertion that "10 isn't enough". Drewcifer (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How many users do actually know about this discussion. Its kinda obvious that chart positions are importent to see the artist success in different countries. The Nine Inch Nails discography seems to be in good order, i can't see any problems with, i know you can't either you got it to FL. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, "seems to be in good order" isn't an argument, it's a preference. But you're absolutely right, the NIN discog does have more than 10 charts, but I've been avoiding working on it until we settle this. And if you're unhappy with the amount of attention this discussion is getting, then by all means ask a few people to express their opinion here. This project has 26 members, and the majority of them haven't weighed in on the discussion yet, so that would be a pretty good place to start. Just beware of canvasing. Drewcifer (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitary break - discog columns

We have to ask ourselves how many chart stats do we provide to conform with WP:CHARTS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Who are we providing these stats for? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We are not an all-access-point for fans, and this is something WP:TV come up against all the time too. It seems that sometimes we are providing all these chart positions to cater to the artists' fanbase, rather than a neutral reader.

WP:CHARTS is a WP:Guideline for how to present chart data in articles for singles and albums, not necessarily discographies though we can and should implement the majority of what is being said.

"Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart." I would say this also extends to the UK's "Specialist Charts", which appear at BBC Radio 1's website and in print in Broadcast. Further to that, if an artist has say 20 singles or albums, and only one has charted on a component chart, that chart shouldn't be included in the table just because it can be. The same can be said for if one single or album charted in Latvia (the exception being unless the artist is from Latvia).

WP:CHARTS also says "The number of charts should include no more than ten official national charts, and up to ten additional or secondary charts, but no more than eighteen charts total." Mix and match as you will, but say if you only have three official nationals, you may still only have up to ten additional, for a max of 13 charts.

WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a WP:Policy, which states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion... Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." I think we all agree that including the chart stats is suitable for inclusion, but if it is true that only one single or even three out of 20 charted on a particular chart, is that chart suitable for inclusion? Does it really assist the reader in determining how (relatively) notable successful the release is, or how well it performed? Additionally, because we present the charts in a horizontal format rather than the vertical format used on album and singles articles, we should be take into account the fact that a table with 20 cells across and 20 cells down will contain 400 cells in total. If we call an average monitor one that is 19-inches with a resolution of 1204×768, it's pretty likely that you would have to scroll the page horizontally to read all the information. This is probably verging on "confusing" and it also "reduces the readability". I suspect it wouldn't conform with WP:ACCESS either.

In the end though, I'm not so sure we should be putting an official cap on the number of charts allowed as it borders on WP:CREEP for me. I also know that we shouldn't include every single chart just because we can. 10 charts does seem like a fair guideline for most artists; a "neutral" reader will not feel like they're being denied information, but those with a more vested interest can go to a fansite for the information. We are not here to provide fans with information. Advising the useage of 20 seems too WP:BEANSY, and I can't imagine that 15 or even 12 different charts will be able to tell a reader anything additional to what 10 charts can. There may sometimes be discographies where we find that more than 10 charts is desirable, such as for Elvis Presley or The Beatles, but if we say to use ten charts as a guideline, we shouldn't go around and remove two charts columns from discogs if they have 12, whereas if it is as high as 20 and is verging on WP:NOT#STATS, or if it's messing up readability, it should be acceptable to reduce the tables without the risk of starting an edit war. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with just about everything that Drewcifer and Matthew Edwards say above; they make very compelling arguments. To go stage further: is there an argument that we shouldn't inlcuded chart positions where the artist has only had one or two releases on that particular chart despite having a large catalogue of work? In other words, should there be some sort of percentage limit that might make this easier to define, such as 10% or 20% of releases need to make the chart? --JD554 (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts this wouldn't work. Consideration needs to be given to how high the release charts as well. --JD554 (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
If an artist has maybe 20 singles to their discography, but only one has charted in some obscure country such as Estonia, that chart shouldn't be included in the table just because it can be. Does including it show how successful the release was overall, or even how successful the artist is? Is it notable that this one single charted in Estonia when others did not? For the majority, I doubt it. The only time this should be ignored is if the group themselves are from Estonia, but have had great success abroad and minor success at home -- then we should include its chart. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree. I was just trying to come up with a simple formula of restricting the number of charts, but unfortunately it couldn't be simple as chart positions would need to be taken into account. --JD554 (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I will have to echo what some have said and that is that 10 is too little for some artists. There is no one-size-fits-all. For most artists, 10 is probably ok. But for the Michael Jacksons, Bon Jovis, and Madonnas of the world, they chart high consistently in so many different countries, that it is hard to pick which country gets cut and which doesn't, and doesn't give an accurate representation of that artist's scope of global success. In my opinion, the more information that we can present to people, the better, just as long as it is done in an organized fashion. Editors just have to use their own judgement. If an artist is globally big and charts consistently in a lot of different countries, list as many as necessary. If an artist only charts on their home turf (aside from maybe one big hit), than don't list all the countries. I completely disagree with blanket rules like this. You can't apply the same rules for an artist who's had 5 hit singles in their country and an artist who's had 50 hit singles across the world. Abog (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments guys. I completely agree with Abog: the Michael Jacksons and Madonnas and Beatles of the world would require a bit more coverage. 15 or 20 charts would probably be more appropriate for them. But for the vast majority of discographies not fitting into this special class, I would say all the other arguments for 10 charts would still apply. For instance the Queens of the Stone Age, Faith No More, or The Libertines discographies fall well short of that mark. But, I'd like to remind everyone that it is not a set in stone rule at all. First of all it's in a guideline, not a policy. Second, the guideline suggests 10 columns (albeit strongly), but does not require it. Thirdly, at the bottom of the guideline, it's further stipulated that people can ignore all rules when appropriate and with good cause. So it's not the case at all that it's a rule. The caveat to all that, however, is that going past 10 should be done with a clear justifiable purpose/reason, not merely because the band's awesome. Which explicitly allows for the Michael Jacksons and Beatles of the world to go past 10. So I think the way it is worded right now allows us the best of both worlds: restraint and flexibility. Drewcifer (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think looking at the definition of discography would help. According to Wikipedia, "A listing of all recordings which a musician or singer features on can be called their "discography"." Clearly, discographies, by definition, do not need chart positions. On Wikipedia, we include charts in discogs cause (I think) they're handy. So overloading the discog with >15 chart positions affects the appearance of the article, and thus may hinder the actual function of a discog--to list a musician's releases. So 10 is a good guideline, for the Beatles etc there can perhaps be a few more; many more would violate a whole bunch of things at WP:NOT. indopug (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of having chart columns in discography tables? Is it to provide a comprehensive resource on chart positions of every album? Or is it to provide an idea of the stature of releases? If the former, there should be no limit to the number of charts included. If the latter, there should be no exception granted to the Madonnas and Beatleses allowing more charts because they're more popular. It becomes an exercise in look how many top ten albums they had. For a band like Queens of the Stone Age, it's more like they made more charts than you expected. -Freekee (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

MVDBase

This is reliable so why is it considered unreliable. So called reliable sources has the same information as MVDbase most of the time so please help me with this one. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I found the same thing when working on G-Unit discography. UniversalMusicGroup's official youtube channel lists all of the directors, and these matched up to those that MVDBase listed. However, it was still seen as unreliable. The site itself looks very unprofessional but the information is, as far as I know, correct. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that MVDBase is usually correct, but since it is user-generated, you can never be 100% on its reliability. Therefore its best to avoid it altogether. But on the bright side, it's usually a good resource to use when you start working on a discog. Drewcifer (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently working on the Supergrass_discography. I just referenced 4 of the music video directors with MVDBase. Do I remove the directors if no RS can be found? TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 16:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This MOS is too Artist Specific

In Track Listings up above I commented that "... this MOS seems to be very heavily biased towards Artist Discographies to the point that I think it should be restricted to that subject. For example, look at the text in "Ignore All Rules" which only refers to artists." I thought I would highlight this in a new section as I feel it is soemthing that needs to be addressed either by limiting the scope of this MOS or expanding it to cover other types of discopgraphies. I would vote for the former right now so that you can get this MOS off the ground. Argel1200 (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. Do you mean it's too focused on artist discogs as opposed to bands? Or labels (a la Dischord Records discography?) Or maybe something like a symphony's discography? Could you be more specific? Drewcifer (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned, take a look at Track Listings. To use that same example, the Anime Madlax has had two soundtracks and two singles released for it. So a listing of those four items would constitute a discography. But it's discography of the music used in that Anime and not a specific artist (or band). In this case I think individual articles for each item is excessive and I'm not even sure if I would consider each one notable enough on their own. But all four of them combined are in my opinion notable enough to warrant an article. However, right now there is a proposal to merge the album list with the main article which would lose the track listings, album info boxes, etc. and this MOS is being used to help justify that. But does this MOS really fit? Chart listings are irrelevant (that or we would have to come up with J-POP rules) while B track info might be considered much more relevant. Readers will likely be more interested in opening credit, ending credit, and insert songs and which albums and/or singles they are on. And if it's the TV length version of a song or the original/full length version. Additionally, information about songs from one album may actually be included in a different album. As an example the US release of the second soundtrack for NOIR contains the lyrics for the songs form both soundtracks. And later on a third album was released for NOIR that contained Japanese versions of some of the songs originally sung in Italian. Track listings and combining the information into one article helps present this better than eliminating the info or forcing them into separate articles (assuming the article does not get too long of course). In the case of the List of Madlax albums after skimming over this MOS, the WP:Discog project, and the WP:Albums project I came to the conclusion that one article with all four items in it that followed the MOS from WP:Albums would actually be more appropriate. It's really a matter of perspective. This MOS appears to be assuming an interest in an artist or band (which is fine) but other types of discographies may come from a very different perspective. That means that there may be issues not addressed in this MOS or the rules in this MOS may not fit that different perspective. Anyway, I hope that made some sense. Argel1200 (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

aCharts and United World Charts

Following on from the deletion of the United World Chart article as being unofficial and having problems with sourcing, it has been decided that neither of these charts are considered WP:Reliable sources and should no longer be removed. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "and should be removed"? Surely if they aren't reliable sources they shouldn't be included. --JD554 (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Oops.. Yes. Or I might have meant, "and should no longer be used". Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

dates section

This seems to have been inserted before the changes last month at WP:MOSNUM#Dates, WP:MOSNUM#Date autoformatting, WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT. I've updated the text here. Please ping me if there's a problem. Tony (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

BOLDTITLE

The MOS states that the title of each article in some form should be included in the lead sentence and be emboldened. I've currently got a discog up at FLC and critiqued another. In doing so, it came to my attention that the lead sections of the various featured discogs are very different. From the wording of the lead sentence, to the list of what the list is not, and then many were not emboldened. Per WP:BOLDTITLE, and comments at WP:FLC regarding the inclusion of what the discog does not cover, which seems unnecessary, I edited most of the featured discogs to bring consistency and compliance with this part of the MOS.

So, I was reverted on a few of them. Some with no reason, at least one per this proposed guide. In the section above, it reads like this was the desired outcome, to bring consistency, and the suggestions were all in bold. So where's the discussion that lead to the guide reading to ignore the MOS thereby making discogs look different than every other article on the project? Jennavecia (Talk) 06:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the most unengaging, irritating way to start the lead of a list—to repeat verbatim what you've just read in the title. That is why the rules have been updated, chiefly at the behest of the experts at Featured List Candidates, including the Directors. I agree with them entirely. Please alert me to any instance where an editor reverts you henceforth. Tony (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I reverted some of your edits where you cited WP:BOLDTITLE. However, what you emboldened was not a verbatim copy of the article title and therefore shouldn't be emboldened per WP:BOLDTITLE which says: If [...] the title is simply descriptive [...] the title does not usually appear verbatim in the main text. If it does, it should not be in boldface. An example of one of the ones I reverted is Depeche Mode discography which begins: The discography of Depeche Mode consists... This isn't verbatim and, by my understanding, shouldn't be emboldened. --JD554 (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not the entire sentence. It reads "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive..." Discographies have a commonly accepted name. "XXXX discography", which I also wouldn't consider descriptive. Additionally, you've completely ignored the first paragraph of WP:BOLDTITLE which reads "The name of the subject is often identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations." Embolding the title in the lead sentence is something that is done project-wide, with few exception, as far as what I have seen of polished articles.
Pages that lack this are inconsistent with the rest of the project, in my opinion. And of all the discogs that's I've nominated for FAC, or help improve during, they've always had an emboldened title, and no one at FAC has every said anything about it. If there's a discussion somewhere showing a consensus to ignore this part of the MOS for FAs or FLs, I'd like to read it. Jennavecia (Talk) 12:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be mixing up the title of the page with the the description in the first line. Although the article titles are commonly accepted as you say, it mangles the English language to use that in the lead paragraph word for word the same. The description in the first line isn't commonly the same as the title. Verbatim means word for word the same, so the first paragraph can be ignored. Also nobody said anything about the lack of an emboldened title when I took Echo & the Bunnymen discography through FAC. The way I see it is that no MOS is being ignored, WP:BOLDTITLE clearly states that if the article title isn't used verbatim in the lead paragraph it shouldn't be emboldened. --JD554 (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Addition: I'm not the only one to think this, see Introduction sentence ("This is a discography of XXXX") above.--JD554 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)e
What page are you reading? WP:BOLDTITLE speaks specifically on the lead sentence, an the existence of the title therein. The first paragraph is completely relevant, and it directly applies here. "The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence, and normally appears in boldface. ... The name of the subject is often identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations." As it may appear slightly different, there's no issue with it mangling the English language. What you're claiming it says is not there at all. The part that mentions verbatim doesn't apply here. Discographies have commonly accepted names, as I stated above.
And two editors in agreement in a discussion of two posts does not make a consensus to override an accepted project-wide standard. Jennavecia (Talk) 14:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Because of the bit you've underlined is perhaps the reason it says "normally appears in boldface". We then come on to the verbatim part which gives a reason why it isn't "always appears in boldface".
I'm not sure that we are going to convince each other of our views on this, so I hope someone else comes along to help build a consensus. --JD554 (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The verbatim paragraph, which doesn't apply here, explains exceptions to the bold rule. The variation in title does not. Looking at any number of articles on the project shows wording different from the title and it's always emboldened. Jennavecia (Talk) 14:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
They were only "always emboldened" because you made them so on the 13 September. There were quite a few before that which weren't. --JD554 (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about discographies. I'm talking about every other polished article on the project not including those with descriptive titles. By the guide, discographies should have emboldened titles in the lead sentence. I'm trying to figure out why this is being ignored. Jennavecia (Talk) 14:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

B-sides

I don't know... I disagree with not including B-sides -- especially for articles that have not even been created yet. A good example is the discography for Phil Collins, in which there are quite a few articles that have not even been created yet. Taking out the B-side info for articles that haven't been created yet means that the information will be lost when it comes to the point of making an article. I don't have the time to create all the singles articles for Phil Collins, so to me deleting the b-sides portion of the table serves no purpose. Just my opinion, though! CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I see someone took it upon themselves to trash the Phil Collins B-side info. What a shame. A lot of work must have gone into compiling all that valuable information. No good purpose served in deleting it as far as I can see. DawnSM (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
the discussions about whether to include b-side listings or not is still ongoing. therefore, removal of b-sides is not trashing an article, it is removing something which at the moment, consensus is they should be removed. Mister sparky (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not following your reasoning at all, Mister sparky. Discussion is ongoing, yet you conclude that consensus is that B-sides should be removed? On what basis? No consensus on this issue has been reached: if there is anything even approaching consensus it favours the inclusion of B-sides. Since no firm consensus even looks likely, surely the default position should be to preserve verifiable, accurate information which is useful to at least some readers?
If B-sides are included, what's the worst that will happen? Readers may find more information than they're looking for and consequently take a few seconds longer to find the information they seek? Is that scenario really so intolerable? What's the alternative? People who do want the information don't find it on Wikipedia so they go elsewhere, taking their editing skills with them. Wikipedia's reputation as a good source of information on popular music declines; it becomes increasingly known for patchy and incomplete data, and worse, as a hostile environment for editors, where even genuinely useful, accurately sourced information has a significant chance of being needlessly removed on a whim or a misunderstanding of increasingly tortuous policy. Is this really what we want? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree 100% with User:Contains Mild Peril on every point. B-side information is valuable to many and including it when known only enhances Wikipedia's standing as the excellent source of information that it is. Excluding it does the opposite. Deleting another editor's valuable contribution on the basis of following proposed guidelines that are still under discussion, can indeed contribute to a feeling of hostile policing that some good, but less confrontational, editors may flee. Sorry, but that's sure how it feels to me.DawnSM (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
To be accurate: the B-side information has not been deleted entirely from the Phil Collins discography, it has been moved to the separate pages for each single. This way, one is not violating the current proposed guideline for Discographies. I, however, agree with you all that this should not be necessary. For one thing, the guideline is still under discussion, so it cannot serve as a valid rationale for making edits. Secondly, and I have mentioned this before on this page, not allowing b-side information to be included in the discography pages leads to many stub articles on singles that actually aren't notable enough to deserve a separate article (a much worse offense in my view). Almost all of the recent additions to this talk page have been in favour of adding b-side information. Isn't it time that someone changes the proposed guideline in this respect? Lumdeloo (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's happening again. User:Caldorwards4 trashed the B-Side information on the Wayne Massey page and then identified the edit to put it back on as vandalism! I read the page on Vandalism and it in no way fits this situation. Vandalism is destruction in many ways. Not the insistence of retaining valuable and pertinent information intended to improve Wikipedia for all, not just those that prefer a cookie-cutter format whether it makes for a better article or not.DawnSM (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am too having problems with the B-side listings of the Shirley Bassey singles, an editor has removed them stating that it is not allowed - this is not yet a rule I gather? I have also been told that I can not make anarticle for a single if it did not chart etc. A discography is a complete list of an artists original recordings? I agree that reissues should only be listed if there chart or has a special interest but a b-side can be an important addition to a discography. Listing only an A-side only tells half the story.... Dutchdean (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No there is defintely no consensus on the inclusion/exclusion of B-sides yet, as far as I'm concerned. See also the second "B-Sides" thread a little more below on this page. The sad thing is that there never seems to be a real conclusion to these (endless) discussions.Lumdeloo (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, as per the above user (Shirley Bassey discography), here is my response to him, and my general feelings on including B-side information:

OK, since I don't know you, this is hardly a personal issue. It is about making the article in question as good as it can be. Listing B-sides confuses the issue into what we're reading. The section lists her singles - a single is released under it's A-side title (as an album is released under an umbrella title). Unless you are going to list every song to convey an album, then the same should be true for singles. Let's look at it this way, what is a single? It's (usually) a two-sided record with one song on each side. The A-side is the one that counts (ie - the song that's played on the radio, the one that's promoted, the one that everyone knows etc), the B-side is added on just to make up space and in many cases is considered a "throwaway", insignificant track. These should not be listed with equal importance to a A-side as you have done. There are few examples of B-sides being listed (The Beatles being one - but that is a special case as almost all of their B-sides have articles of their own and are considered worthy of mention). Let's look however at some other notable artists: ABBA discography, Madonna singles discography, Michael Jackson singles discography - no, they don't list B-sides. Some others however will list B-sides in a separate boxed-off section (such as here) for songs that do not appear on albums (or previously released A-sides), that, I would be fine with, listing the appropriate single that it appeared on, but it's not what GA-listed articles are made of.

I won't revert your edit as of now, but consider one more point - what is a single's article listed as? Burn My Candle (At Both Ends) - or A: Burn My Candle (At Both Ends), B: Stormy Weather? Your edits make each equally look important.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is my view also with the lower down B-side discussion, but I also don't think there will ever be a consensus on this issue. Hey-ho, Wikipedia!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad Charts

Just to give everyone a heads up, there is now a list of charts that should not be included on Wikipedia. The charts listed fail one or more criteria found at WP:CHARTS, or have, through a community discussion, been deemed unreliable and unsuitable for inclusion. The list can be found at WP:BADCHARTS. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I think that Anime discography need artist = anime_franchise, encompassing every audio soundtracks related to a given anime franchise.
That imply in the case of anime to some new categories in the infobox like Drama CD.
Drama CD are considered album and thus can make it to the album chart. I can give an example of drama CD which peak ranked 48th in the Japanese Oricon album chart.--KrebMarkt 18:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I think the useful resources section is... well, useful, but I think it would solidify its usefulness as a resource if we were to cite each source's reliability. Instead of just putting up the site as saying it's reliable, I think we should cite the rationale for putting it up there, in case anyone doubts its reliability. This comes up occasionally at FLC, and I think it'll help if we add all that information now. I've started with EveryHit.co.uk, and hopefully everyone who put a resource down so far remembers how they deemed it reliable, and can back it up with a link or explanation or something. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That would definitely be helpful. Right now, when I look at that list, I take everything with a grain of salt. For EveryHit, it doesn't seem clear whether BBC Radio lists it as a reference or if it is just an external site. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
BBC News have used EveryHit as a source here as has The Daily Telegraph here. --JD554 (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
More than one reference for EveryHit would be preferable. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed in the source for Zobbel, you mentioned what it's main sources are. But I don't think that satisfies WP:RS. It's kind of RS in reverse, actually. It doesn't matter that Zobbel says they get their info from somewhere reliable, since if they're unreliable they could be lying about that. What's important is that reliable sources us Zobbel as a source. So the other way around.... I don't think this works right now. Drewcifer (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The Telegraph article seems to be an editorial of some type, but the BBC link is convincing. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I have had a long search and can't find any (reliable) sources that use Zobbel as a source themselves. I also looked for ChartStats while I was at it and couldn't find anything for that either. This could be a problem for a number of FL-class discogs as I believe both these sites have been used quite extensively for chart positions, mainly because EveryHit only lists the Top 40. --JD554 (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Any given source is not either "reliable" or "non-reliable"; it depends on the text being cited. For a discussion of reliable sources in content review processes, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches, and for an example of how to establish reliability of marginal sources, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. (A list of sources that a given WikiProject considers reliable doesn't necessarily carry weight at FAC, unless the reliability of that source for the particular text being sourced can be established. FAC archives are replete with discussions of sources that WikiProjects use even though they are later proven not to satisfy WP:V. One example I remember is the use of Joe Baugher by WikiProject Aviation on aircraft articles.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we're trying to establish a fool-proof list of resources here, just an attempt to make the process of reviewing and writing discogaphy articles a little more transparent. Drewcifer (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Backing vocals

I've done some work on the Katy Perry discography and discovered she has done backing vocals for a few notable artists, including Miley Cyrus, POD and Gavin Rossdale (former Bush singer). Then i've come to think, these guidelines don't really cover this area (as far as i can see). So should backing vocals, guest appearances or collaborations (whatever you may call them) (eg. Eminem discography#Collaborations) be noted in a discography? If so, should it be done in this manner: Katy Perry discography#Guest appearance singles, or this: Katy Perry discography#Other appearances. Are the charts notable? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 12:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's relevant, but I don't think the charting of the songs are. Most hip-hop discographies have similar sections. I'd hesitate to include a mention of it in the MOS though, since we don't want to get too heavy-handed. I'd say the Eminem discog is a reasonable example to go off of. Drewcifer (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, thanks. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Guest appearance songs

This is an ongoing issue on the T.I. discography page and the discographies of other hip-hop artists: over whether a list of non-charted songs in which the artist guest performed is encyclopedic. Such a list is avoided on the featured 50 Cent discography. I looked in some other discographies (such as the one for Pearl Jam) and find that the "unreleased/misc." songs lists are more organized and sourced. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the only difference between such a section in the Pearl Jam section and 50 Cent section is simply the quantity of guest appearances. Hip-hop artists tend to appear on other records more frequently than artists from other genres do. That said, I see no encyclopedic difference between the two, so they should be treated equally and with a similar approach. This just means that most hip-hop discographies are longer and more difficult to make, which is reflected by the imbalance of genres represented in FL discographies. Drewcifer (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Since their seems to be conditions with certain artists, the first point under Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#What should not be included should be reworded reflect this, specifically the sentence that reads "Remember, this is a discography not a songography, so we're mostly concerned with the release, not every song on that release". DiverseMentality 01:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a list of every guest appearance an artist makes, regardless of status as single/B-side/just a filler track, counts as a tracklist. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

On the "What should not be included" section, to address this issue I propose adding "List of songs in which performer appeared as a guest", of course exempting singles/charted songs. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Disagree. The only problems I would have would be if such information were unsourced or presented in a potentially confusing manner, e.g. included in the same tables as releases by the artist in question. If editors are willing and able to provide verifiable encyclopaedic content clearly in a separate table or list I see no good reason for excluding it. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree as well. If a performer is featured in a song, then they are therefore featured on a separate release, hence satisfying the main criteria of a discography: releases. This has the unfortunate side-effect of making hip-hop discographies more difficult to make than other genres, but a discography would be incomplete without it. 16:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Samples

Two suggestions for improving the Samples

  1. Has anyone though of having the year column as a heading type
  2. Define the center alignment once at the top of the table and left align titles. This would lead to less "alignment" clutter in the mark-up
  3. Define style for small country abbreviations once
Less mark-up (and years look a little prettier)
{|class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
!rowspan="2" width="33"| Year
!rowspan="2" width="215"| Album details
!colspan="10"| Peak chart positions
!rowspan="2" width="145"| Sales
!rowspan="2" width="125"| [[Music recording sales certification|Certifications]]<br /><small>([[List of music recording sales certifications|sales thresholds]])</small>
|-style="width:2em;font-size:75%"
! [[Billboard 200|US]]<br /><ref>1</ref>
! [[ARIA Charts|AUS]]<br /><ref>3</ref>
! [[Austria|AUT]]<br /><ref>7</ref>
! [[Finland|FIN]]<br /><ref>9</ref>
! [[Netherlands|NLD]]<br /><ref>6</ref>
! [[New Zealand|NZ]]<br /><ref>10</ref>
! [[Norway|NOR]]<br /><ref>4</ref>
! [[Sweden|SWE]]<br /><ref>8</ref>
! [[Switzerland|SWI]]<br /><ref>5</ref>
! [[UK Albums Chart|UK]]<br /><ref>2</ref>
|-
! 1989
|valign="top" align="left"| '''''[[Bleach (album)|Bleach]]'''''
*Released: June 15, 1989
*Label: [[Sub Pop]] <small>(SP #34)</small>
*Format: [[Compact disc|CD]], [[Compact cassette|cassette]], [[LP album|LP]]
| 89 || 34 || 26 || 24 || — || 30 || — || — || — || 33
| {{nowrap|1.7 million + (US)<ref>12</ref>}}
| {{nowrap|Platinum (US)<ref>13</ref>}}
|-
! 1991
|valign="top" align="left"| '''''[[Nevermind]]'''''
*Released: September 24, 1991
*Label: [[DGC Records|DGC]] <small>(DGC #24425)</small>
*Format: CD, CS, LP
| 1 || 2 || 2 || 1 || 5 || 2 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 7
| {{nowrap|10 million + (US)<ref>14</ref>}}<br>{{nowrap|26 million + (worldwide)<ref>15</ref>}}
| {{nowrap|Diamond (US)<ref>16</ref>}}<br />{{nowrap|2× Platinum (UK)<ref>17</ref>}}
|}
Current (more mark-up)
{|class="wikitable"
!rowspan="2" width="33"| Year
!rowspan="2" width="215"| Album details
!colspan="10"| Peak chart positions
!rowspan="2" width="145"| Sales
!rowspan="2" width="125"| [[Music recording sales certification|Certifications]]<br /><small>([[List of music recording sales certifications|sales thresholds]])</small>
|-
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Billboard 200|US]]<br /><ref>1</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[ARIA Charts|AUS]]<br /><ref>3</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Austria|AUT]]<br /><ref>7</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Finland|FIN]]<br /><ref>9</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Netherlands|NLD]]<br /><ref>6</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[New Zealand|NZ]]<br /><ref>10</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Norway|NOR]]<br /><ref>4</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Sweden|SWE]]<br /><ref>8</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Switzerland|SWI]]<br /><ref>5</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[UK Albums Chart|UK]]<br /><ref>2</ref>
|-
|align="center"| 1989
|'''''[[Bleach (album)|Bleach]]'''''
*Released: June 15, 1989
*Label: [[Sub Pop]] <small>(SP #34)</small>
*Format: [[Compact disc|CD]], [[Compact cassette|cassette]], [[LP album|LP]]
|align="center"| 89
|align="center"| 34
|align="center"| 26
|align="center"| 24
|align="center"| —
|align="center"| 30
|align="center"| —
|align="center"| —
|align="center"| —
|align="center"| 33
| {{nowrap|1.7 million + (US)<ref>12</ref>}}
| {{nowrap|Platinum (US)<ref>13</ref>}}
|-
|align="center"| 1991
|'''''[[Nevermind]]'''''
*Released: September 24, 1991
*Label: [[DGC Records|DGC]] <small>(DGC #24425)</small>
*Format: CD, CS, LP
|align="center"| 1
|align="center"| 2
|align="center"| 2
|align="center"| 1
|align="center"| 5
|align="center"| 2
|align="center"| 2
|align="center"| 1
|align="center"| 2
|align="center"| 7
| {{nowrap|10 million + (US)<ref>14</ref>}}<br>{{nowrap|26 million + (worldwide)<ref>15</ref>}}
| {{nowrap|Diamond (US)<ref>16</ref>}}<br />{{nowrap|2× Platinum (UK)<ref>17</ref>}}
|}

— Deon Steyn (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I loved it! For users who are trying to edit a discography—copying the layout of others—will have a better guide, with this exsample. Cannibaloki 18:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm new to the project. If more agree, someone can replace the Samples. I guess we could also turn the entire thing into a template? I can give it a bash... — Deon Steyn (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on "What should not be included"

I have a problem with 2 of the criteria under "What should not be included" and thought it worth discussion:

  • Tracklistings, B-sides, or any other description of the tracks on a release. Remember, this is a discography not a songography, so we're mostly concerned with the release, not every song on that release.

I think this should be changed to something like "Tracklistings, B-sides, or any other description of the tracks on a release that is notable enough to have its own article." The reason being that there are sometimes official releases which are not notable enough to merit stand-alone articles (due to a lack of third-party sources), yet they do exist and the information about them is verifiable and thus completely pertinent to a discography. The example I have in mind is Rocket from the Crypt: I've been working on a discography of them in my userspace for a while. They released at least 22 vinyl singles in the course of their career, none of which I believe merit their own articles. Yet the pertinent information about them, including tracklists and release details, is verifiable through their own official discography page as well as the sites of the labels that released them. This seems like totally valid, pertinent information, but if one follows the above rule to the letter then there is no place on Wikipedia that the information would seem to fit. If it doesn't belong in a discography, where is it supposed to go?

  • Un-released material unless notable enough to include.

I would amend this to "Unreleased material unless verifiable." For much the same reason as above: Artists can have unreleased material, information about which is completely verifiable through sources (usually primary) even if the release is not notable in its own right. And of course notability explicitly does not limit article content, only the criteria for independent articles. There is no reason to exclude information on unreleased material from a discography so long as that info is verifiable from reliable sources.

Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, with regard to #1 above, there are some featured discographies that don't jive with this either, for example Deftones discography, which lists b-sides and compilation appearances that were previously unreleased at the time. The Metallica discography used to do this too, and I thought it was perfectly valid, but I see that it's now been culled. This seems to me to conflict with another of the "What should not be listed" points:

  • Non-original or previously-released material used on soundtracks, trailers, commercials, or any other compilation releases.

To me this implies that original, previously unreleased material from soundtracks, compilations, etc. would be acceptable (and indeed pertinent) to list, which is what the Deftones discography does (and the section in the Metallica discography could have been trimmed to fit this as well, instead of just completely removed). I think the apparent conflict between this point and point #1 above needs to be smoothed out. Surely it's pertinent to list verifiable tracks from soundtracks, comps, etc. that are otherwise unreleased. In some cases these are important to an artist's repertoire, and surely a discography is the appropriate place to list them. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a regular participant in this project, but I'll give you my opinion anyway. I think your RFTC discog looks good. I really don't understand the prohibition against mentioning the b-sides on the list of singles. In the old days, that was a somewhat important bit of info. Your vinyl single section looks good, despite having the miscellaneous info. The table doesn't get out of hand. Aside from it looking fine, the reasons you cited for including the info are valid. I'm not sure if this is a strong enough case that I can't be covered under IAR (the last section on this project page).
I don't agree that it should be changed to "Unreleased material unless verifiable." It needs to be notable and verifiable. It is true that notability requirements do not apply to article content, but I think that in this case, we should try to limit content, to keep things from getting out of hand. Verifiability (and WP:RS) always apply, so no great need to mention them here.
I don't understand what conflict you're talking about with the previously unreleased material.
Okay, now let's look at the Deftones discography. Horrible. B-sides should definitely not be listed in a stand-alone list. I think it's great to mention them with the a-side, like "Paperback Writer" b/w "Rain", but not to add a list of b-sides. Then, they have lists of songs divided into categories - covers, live, remixes, etc. Someone needs to just delete that whole section. It's barely even encyclopedic, let along appropriate for a discography. How about an article called Lists of Deftones songs?
-Freekee (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I tend not to like "list of ____ songs" articles, but that may just be prejudiced on my part. They seem listcrufty to me, and not necessary when you already have album articles & a discography article.
As to your second point, I think that "keep[ing] things from getting out of hand" is a very subjective assessment. What's "out of hand"? A list that's long, even if all of its content is pertinent & verifiable? As you said you didn't find fault with my in-progress RFTC discog, but I'm sure there are others who might feel that the tables of vinyl singles & other appearances are "out of hand". If unreleased material is verfiable through reliable sources, who's to say that including it in a discography is "getting out of hand"? Shouldn't we encourage these things to be comprehensive (within the limits of V and RS of course)?
There was a similar list (of other appearances) in the Metallica discography until some months ago, but it was cut citing this MOS as a reason (though it didn't specify exactly what part of the MOS such a section was contradicting). Now there is no mention in the Metallica discography that they contributed a cover of "Remember Tomorrow" to Maiden Heaven (just to pick 1 song off the list). You cannot find that information by looking at any Metallica articles, and that seems stupid to me. A discography ought to include songs from comps, etc. that are not from any of the band's proper releases. A list of original, previously-unreleased material ought to be perfectly fine in a discog, and I think that the Deftones one just needs to be cleaned up & reorganized. The b-sides should be listed in the articles about the singles, so those can go, but leave any that are from non-Deftones releases (ie. comps & soundtracks).
Getting to your third statement ("I don't understand what conflict you're talking about with the previously unreleased material"), here's what I mean: The first "what not to list" instruction above basically says "don't list tracks, at all". The third instruction says "don't list non-original or previously released tracks from soundtracks etc." The conflict is A) this is redundant, as it's already said not to list individual tracks at all, and B) the third point seems to imply that it's alright to list original, previously unreleased tracks, which contradicts the previous "don't list any tracks" mandate. You can't say "don't list individual tracks, period", then say "don't list these kinds of tracks, but these ones are okay." These are contradictory instructions. It's akin to saying "don't list any vegetables", then following that with "don't list any green vegetables".
I do agree with you that the Deftones ones needs a cleanup, but what I wouldn't want to see is what happened in the Metallica discog where a bunch of valid info about compilation & soundtrack songs that are otherwise unreleased is simply wiped from mention. There has to be a way to reword these instructions so that pertinent track info (like the "Remember Tomorrow" example) is able to be included in discographies. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't like song lists either. I was being sarcastic with my suggestion about the Deftones song list article, but it was the only way I could think of to include those lists.
Yes, "out of hand" is subjective, but so are a lot of things around here. My point of view is that of someone who struggles to keep trivia sections at a minimum on music articles. This song was played in the background when the main characters were riding in a car on Episode 3. Ugh. So when I hear about an unreleased recording, I think that unless it's notable, we shouldn't bother to mention it. Otherwise we get 1994 - "Sympathy for the Devil" - Recorded during the Sturm and Blame sessions. Even with a reference, I don't think this is a necessary inclusion.
I'm on the fence about lists of "other appearances". I don't think I'd create one myself, but I wouldn't argue against others doing so. And I don't see any prohibition against them in the project guidelines - as long as the songs listed were recorded for and/or first released on that other recording (you can't list "One Way Out" in the Allman Brothers discog, for appearing on the Almost Famous soundtrack).
I don't think that there is a contradiction, though it's not very clear. The first point is saying to not mention this sort of info under your list items. For example, in your album discog chart, don't have a column for track listing. The fifth point (Non-original or previously-released material...) is for items that you are considering to add as list items. In other words, top level list items, as opposed to second column characteristics of top level list items. I think this is fine, but it might be nice if the wording were made clearer.
I mentioned that I thought b-sides were fine for inclusion in singles discogs. I notice that in many tables there wouldn't be room for them, such as singles discog tables with a dozen columns for chart info. I think this comes down to IAR. If you have room for them, feel free to add them.
-Freekee (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think we're getting more or less on the same page here. I'm definitely with you on the "as long as the songs listed were recorded for and/or first released on that other recording" part, and I think that point is made in the guidelines. I suppose my perceived contradiction goes away if you take it to mean "don't list tracks under your main list items", but that's why I think amending the criteria to "Tracklistings, B-sides, or any other description of the tracks on a release that is notable enough to have its own article" would clarify this. I don't think the intent is to say "don't make lists of otherwise unreleased tracks", I think it's to say "don't put tracklists under each release, as these belong in the articles about those releases". --IllaZilla (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest the following change to the first bullet point: "Tracklistings, B-sides, or any other description of the tracks should not be included in that record's entry. Remember, this is a discography not a songography, so we're mostly concerned with the release, not every song on that release."
I think the sixth bullet should be changed as follows: "Un-released material unless notable enough to include. I don't think "notable enough" is a good choice of words. It lets inexperienced editors think they have some leeway. And as I mentioned above, I think unreleased recordings shouldn't meet general notability requirements as a threshold for inclusion in discogs. -Freekee (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discographies/style/Archive_1&oldid=1190127499"