Talk:Unwed Sailor

Discography

Yes, well, this discussion has been going on for weeks at other venues, but you've demanded one here as well, so here we are. Given that we are hellbent on reducing the number of album and EP articles on Unwed Sailor-related matters, the sensible thing to do is to merge them into either this page or a separate discography, as I have argued at length elsewhere. What doesn't make so much sense in terms of layout or user-friendliness is to have one or two EPs listed with their full tracks here, some with only the album information and no link to discographical information, and some with no information here and their own articles elsewhere. That's three different formats for information presentation in the same section; in terms of visual presentation and information accessibility, it's nightmarish. I think the best way to do it is, either here or on a separate, newly created page (either would work; it's a 5-second fix to change from one to the other), have each album listed with track names; if any have freestanding articles by that point, they can still be linked there, though I'm not entirely sure that'll be necessary. As much as I dislike the fact that I've been relentlessly browbeaten into doing this work, I am willing to put up at least a skeleton, but I can't do it while I'm on vacation, so I ask your good faith to allow me a week or two to get around to it. (Or, you could try your own hand at it...) Chubbles (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see what information you think would go in this. There's really not enough from what I can tell, but I'd be pleasantly surprised. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, a rough start on what I'd envisioned is now live. This cuts down the number of extraneous album and EP articles with little content, by moving it all into conveniently collapsible tables; now all the articles you nominated for deletion or tagged for notability have just been merged here instead, without losing any of the content. I imagine it could use a little sprucing up, or maybe some other format would be preferable, but it's functionally equivalent to having eight or twelve album/EP pages, all on one page. Chubbles (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DONTHIDE argues against hiding the track listings. It would be better if you a regular table or {{discography list}} for this.

Also, there are no sources. If you're going only on the album notes, use {{cite AV media}}.

Other than that, it's good. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought that using the collapsible tables sort of helped with clutter and quasi-replicates the effect of having separate album pages, but I'm certainly not wedded to it, so the table format can be changed. Chubbles (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either the albums are notable or they are not. If they are notable, the album should/can have its own article. If not, you don't get around the lack of notability with the track listing for each album in a discography section. Simply list the albums with sourced release dates. The addition of full track listings and personnel doesn't add anything except more space. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no attempt at evasion here. The discography of a notable artist is inherently encyclopedic information, and what songs the musician writes and releases is essential discographical information. In short, it adds a lot; it's probably more important than biographical information on the artist, if we were honest with ourselves. If the albums do not individually meet notability standards, placing the discographical information in a discography (a commonsense spacesaving heuristic that has widespread acceptance on the site) is reasonable. That was contested, so I just moved the content into the artist page. Notability does not apply to content; whether it is here or on the discography page makes no odds to me, but I tend to think it's more user-friendly on the separate page. (the previous discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firecracker EP and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Ox are also worth visiting; there was a consensus to merge, not delete, the information contained therein, which reasonably applies to the artist's other works (and, I would argue, other artists' works)). Chubbles (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Walter Gorlitz re: last edit - why is it unusual to include track information? Why should the inclusion of producer information "not be done"? I'm aware that this is not, generally, common practice on Wikipedia, but the question is why not, since it is common practice in many other musical reference works, and we have the space to accommodate it? The answer, I think, is that we usually farm that information out to album pages, but you've waged a sustained war against separate album pages. So why the objection to relocating this legitimate discographical information to a page that, indisputably, should exist? (You are, of course, welcome to nominate the artist for deletion, if you in fact do dispute that last assertion.) Chubbles (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The indenting is not appropriate and I will not attempt to fix it, nor will I attempt to follow it. See MOS:LISTGAP. To include a track listing is unusual as it's not supported at MOS:DISCOGRAPHY or Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines and Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style explicitly states that they should not be included. Of the articles I have seen, only those that use {{discography list}} have it, as it's a valid parameter there, and even there, not all do include track listings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crazily, I wrote the sentence in MOS:DISCOGRAPHY that starts "For artists without separate discography pages", years ago, and I meant for that list to be non-exclusive. I'm disappointed in whoever was managing WP:DISCOGSTYLE who inserted that tracklists shouldn't be included; that strikes me as similar to how the baseball Wikiproject gutted baseball articles of year-by-year player statistics, making Wikipedia the least useful baseball resource on the Internet (including non-English Wikipedias). The project is inactive, and it's not clear to me that its guidelines have real weight. I don't like the format of {{discography list}}, but if it will end this conversation, I'll investigate it. Chubbles (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the player information for Firecracker was already included in the prose text of the article. Since this group's lineup changes frequently, it's important to note album-by-album player changes, but it's already addressed in the body of the text, so ultimately, the removal of that information in the discography section isn't something I'll contest further. (The production and engineering facts I can live with removing.) The indenting issue doesn't strike me as particularly important, either. Chubbles (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]