Talk:Cradle of Filth discography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Discographies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Metal (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Black Metal (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of black metal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


If you want to delete the imports that's fine, but for this to be a complete discography they need to be placed somewhere else, perhaps in their own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by archenhaust (talkcontribs)

Firstly, by "import" you seem to mean "Japanese". They're not imports if you're from Japan. If you want to make a "Japanese editions" section or even an "International editions" section listing every international label that releases Cradle albums outside of the UK, feel free. I just don't really see the point - it's just going to be the same albums listed over and over again. Variations across territories are generally listed in the individual album pages - add to those instead if you've got extra info. I think that's enough, but does anyone else disagree? Cardinal Wurzel 16:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Granted they are not imports if you are in Japan, but this is the English version of wikipedia and not the japanese one. Thus to most of the people here getting their information they are imports. I think an imports section would serev just fine, but they need to be included. Secondly, some of the album pages do not mention alternate track listings for international releases. For this to be a complete discography you must have every version of every CD that was released. Otherwise it is merely a "selected" discography and not complete. Also, the change you made at the bottom of the page is confusing. It makes it seem as though all of the band shown were wrongly labeled Norweigan black metal, when in reality it may have only been CoF.Archenhaust 16:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't imply that at all. The wording is not confusing. As to the rest:
  • 1: I said add to the album pages if you think there's something missing from any of them.
  • 2: I said make an International editions section if you think it's necessary. It will just go Principle, Principle, Principle, Principle, V Empire, V Empire, V Empire, V Empire, Dusk, Dusk, Dusk, Dusk etc etc and will look crap, but go right ahead. If you're uploading images, make sure you tag them properly or they'll get deleted. Cardinal Wurzel 16:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
What you need to remember is that this, Wikipedia, is an encyclopedia told from a world-wide perspective - it is not an "English Encyclopedia", it is "the English Wikipedia". There may be some Japanese people who for some reason use the English Wikipedia, and this must site must be as neutral as possible. ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out the top of the Albums and EPs section now - I think that's a good compromise. Cardinal Wurzel 16:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"No, it really doesn't imply that at all. The wording is not confusing."

It is not clear as to whether the sentence is speaking of the list or CoF alone. It can and should be worded better. I am just not sure how you guys would like to do so.

"What you need to remember is that this, Wikipedia, is an encyclopedia told from a world-wide perspective - it is not an "English Encyclopedia", it is "the English Wikipedia". There may be some Japanese people who for some reason use the English Wikipedia, and this must site must be as neutral as possible."

I understand that and I think you make a great point. However, I still think that they need to be added here to make it a complete discography, but in some way that doesn't look like crap. I agree that the Principle, Principle, Principle, Principle, and so on and so forth would look like crap. I am just not sure how would be the best way to do this in a matter where it would be aesthetically pleasing. I don't think an International section is the answer. For something to be international you must have a home nation that makes everything else in comparison international. Thus, to people in Japan who may be reading this, a release that we would see as international, a Japanese import for instance, would not be international at all. You must ask, international in relation to what? Where Cradle is from? Where Roadrunner is based? What?

Maybe I am overcomplicating this. But you guys got me thinking. I just want the article to be complete and well put together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by archenhaust (talkcontribs)

Well they're a British band, so I'd say the "core" releases would be the UK ones and international would refer to everywhere else. But like I said - I think a disclaimer at the top of "Albums & EPs" saying to check individual album pages for international editions is a good option. It shows we're aware they exist and have the information for them, but it doesn't clutter up the discography page with repeated titles. Cardinal Wurzel 09:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I rearranged the Misc. section into different categories. It makes things look a little better but you guys can change it if you want. Archenhaust 17:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering why the new album cannot go on the list yet? It has been confirmed and will soon be released. magnius (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass removal of images[edit]

Just because this is a discography article, doesn't mean it can ignore Wikipedia's rules. The images in the tables was a blatant violation of our fair use rules, and I have explained it fully at User:J Milburn/Album covers in artist and discography pages, if anyone believes I am in error in removing the images. The image of the logo was given no context, and so served as decoration, so I have removed that too. Also, this article needs a lead paragraph or two. J Milburn 23:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use"? We weren't contravening that in any way at all. Cardinal Wurzel 10:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

An image of the album cover on the article about the album, or an article where the album is discussed at length, is acceptable. An image for every album in an extremely long, undetailed list is out of hand, against our fair use policy, and possibly against the law. J Milburn 15:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this consensus project-wide? Rush discography, for example, uses images in its discography. —C.Fred (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't; myself and other editors are working to remove them. Many, many episode lists also use many screencaptures when they shouldn't. The agreement to not have fair use galleries is a project-wide one, there is no doubt about that. I guess this is a perfect time to link to this particular point... J Milburn 16:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use on discographies test case[edit]

Please see Talk:The_Beatles_discography#Poll_on_the_use_of_fair-use_images_on_this_page_and_the_interpretation_of_policy which is acting as a test case in this matter. Jooler 09:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sodomizing the Virgin Vamps[edit]

Well, in the article we see this text:

Sodomizing the Virgin Vamps Principle-era live tracks recorded in London in 1992

I think this is incorrect. These live tracks are recorded in 1994. See this page for proof:

LINK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unforgiven666 (talkcontribs) 12:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


What is the rationale behind including a list of bootlegs? I can't see any reason for their inclusion in an encyclopedia article... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Some bootlegs have unreleased songs (mostly live tracks). Some bootlegs have original artwork as a cover. So they do represent unique items in a band discography even if the band do not like the bootlegs.

A lot of fans search for these bootlegs and for information about them. The purpose of most encyclopedias is to provide information.

So bacause of all these reasons, I think bootlegs should stay. Unforgiven666 (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

However, bootleg releases automatically fail WP:MUSIC on notability grounds (see Albums section), unless notability has been established by a secondary source. Unless such a source exists the section should go. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of secondary sources such as these sites:
I think they are enough reliable sources although it is hard to say what is considered reliable and what is not. 12:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The specific part of WP:MUSIC that is relevant here is "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have independent coverage in reliable sources." Fan sites are not reliable sources as per WP:SPS. Besides this fact though, the links above simply state the existence and tracklistings of these bootlegs; even if they were reliable, they do not demonstrate notability. Finding reliable sources for the demos is trivial, which is why they should remain, but the bootleg section needs to be removed... unless relevant sources can be found (for every one!). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I found a review for the bootleg "Sodomizing the Virgin Vamps" here:
But I suppose it might be considered a fansite and thus not reliable again. That brings me to another thought. Are official music magazines and bands' own sites the only reliable sources? In a music magazines we will never see a bootleg reviewed, neither in an official site. But this does not makes bootlegs less existing, important or notable. And this is written in WP:MUSIC too: Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. So in this particular case I have a general feeling that most (if not all of the listed bootlegs) are well known from years in particular circles like metal fans, rock producers and musicians even without official statement from someone about their existence. So I think they should stay. Unforgiven666 (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Music magazines and bands' official sites are generally reliable sources. So are books on the relevant subject... so, for example, it'd be easy to find book sources for the CoF demos, but not for bootlegs. The existence of bootlegs is not in question, but control of their inclusion is... it would be ridiculous to include, say, every Led Zeppelin live bootleg. On the other hand, Mayhem's Dawn of the Black Hearts (itself a bootleg) has established separate notability, largely owing to the photo on the cover. It remains the only bootleg release listed by Metal Archives, for instance. The lack of reliable secondary sources I am afraid does make bootlegs less important and notable than other recordings. On a practical front... no-one has any issue with the inclusion of the demos; rare tracks are recorded on Wikipedia in the relevant sections; that leaves you with bootleg live recordings and fan-created artwork. These, unless there is some special pleading of notability with sources, have no place in an encyclopedia, as per WP:MUSIC and WP:SPS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely the notability thing is about creating pages for each album. The bootlegs are part of the discography, whether or not they're official. They are Cradle of Filth CDs that exist and therefore they belong on this page. They might not be notable enough to have their own articles, but it's useful info for collectors. And without them, this page would still be here, it would just be less complete. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely another practical issue is WP:V? If they are bootlegs how can you find a reliable source for when they were released and the like? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That's trickier, because the info has tended to come from places like eBay as and when they've come up (links to auction and commercial sites being forbidden by the Wiki Thought Police), and from people that actually own the discs. When the discography was illustrated it was less of a potential issue, but since that's now also forbidden... Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing appears to have been done about this. Bootlegs, as stated above fail WP:MUSIC, WP:SPS, WP:V and WP:N. They have no place in an encyclopedia. Can we please just delete them now? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing's been done about it because nobody wants them gone except you. But do what you like. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)