Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

MOS:DISCOG redirect nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#MOS:DISCOG. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Sales" item further attention.

This page's guidelines state that sales information is useful and desirable, a conclusion with which I have no argument. It makes sense in writing about a recording (or an artist's aggregate body of work) to indicate the commercial success of the work (or artist). However, in practice, I see carelessness in reporting sales figures, some of which are back-calculated based on recording industry association awards (which may be based on sales or shipments), and some of which are merely from less-than-reliable sources.

• I have removed the plus-signs from the Nirvana example table's Sales column. My reason is that sources almost never say "more than" X units sold, and that's the only time we can justify the "+" to indicate that. In all other cases, we have some certain number of sales or shipments reported in a source, so that's the number we should repeat in WP. Even though it's logical to assume sales will continue for a hot, fast-selling single, it's not our place to suggest any other sales figure than the one we got from our referenced reliable source. These plus-signs are a plague, IMHO, and their inclusion here in the examples of this model page is unhelpful.
• I've added some editorializing on item 7, "Sales", in the "Per-release" list, as I alluded to in the discussion above (see Ericorbit's "Support, support, support " above). See if you find it tolerable, fantastic, or wholly unacceptable.
• I have removed the wikilink from item 7, "Sales". It went to Music recording sales certification, which is a fine enough article on gold awards and certifications, but doesn't help the editor understand what sales figure this style guideline is prescribing.
• I have left item 7 in the list, and the Sales columns in the example tables. Is that how we still want things?

Feedback strongly encouraged. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this section and pasted by comment from above. I support John's expansion of eo's comment (way above): "it occurs to me that you would be glad to see the entire Sales column removed from the examples here and Item 7 removed from the list,..." Since Sales figures are so dubious, they have no place on Wiki that requires "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable".—Iknow23 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment of the plus sign. USE ONLY IF THE SOURCE DOES SO. To do otherwise, we are misquoting the source and it then becomes UNverifiable and (rightly so) subject to challenge and removal.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Bolding of album titles

I've noticed it's a common trend to bold the titles of albums in discographies, and this is even done in many of our current FLs. I was recently looking at MOS:BOLD, and it states that text should only be bolded when it's the title of the article or a synonym, in table headers, in definition lists, or if it's the volume number of a journal article. Album titles do not meet any of that criteria in discographies, which is why I would like to propose the removal of this format. –Chase (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I friggin hate the bolding and for a long time I was waging a losing battle by removing it wherever I saw it, however I would always be thwarted til I admitted defeat and gave up. But if this can be put into style guidelines, I'd welcome and support it! - eo (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Discussions above this note were made at WT:DISCOG. The discussion has been moved here. –Chase (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I brought this discussion up before. Naturally, it went no where. — ξ^xplicit 00:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fail to see John Cardinal's point that bolding helps to accentuate the title. It's perfectly visible, especially since it's the only thing in the album details field that is not bulleted, in most discographies. –Chase (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In previous discussions it was noted that bold titles help accentuate the album and make it appear clearly different to the single. This is not my personal opinion. Anyway... this discussion is going to ever lead to anything because impending accessibility changes will automatically bold the titles... more about that later. *watch this space* -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does accessibility mean album titles have to go in a separate column? I don't see why it has to be bold. AnemoneProjectors 12:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you're talking about the changes to support the MoS and WP:ACCESS, which hadn't been made when this thread started. This thread was/is talking about bold album titles when in the same table cell with some details (e.g., release date).

The move to a separate column isn't just for accessibility, but it makes the most noticeable difference there. In fact, it just makes more sense, when we consider what our display of tabular data is supposed to represent. We are not tring to establish a correlation between years (historically the left-most column) with chart peaks and certifications, we're trying to correlate the albums with the peaks and certs. That's why the album title should be the row headings in the left column.

Now each row refers to a separate album release, and it is properly labeled with the album name as a heading (in HTML, this is <th> markup, but in wikimarkup, we use the exclamation mark). And it is because it is (appropriately) the heading for the row that your browser displays it in boldface. That's the default display for table headings in most (all?) graphical browsers, so it's actually a bit of a problem if we say, "yes, it's a heading, but no, we want to disguise that fact". It's similar to the questionable practice (on some sites) of making links black and non-underlined until you hover over them.

Text-to-speech readers (and sighted human beings viewing default-formatted graphical displays) can more rapidly parse and understand the meaning of the headings and the table when the appropriate markup is used. That's a brief summary of what's behind this. Any help? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I don't get it. Back up... what's an "album"? - eo (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What, I left something out? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks John, I'm sure I will get used to it, I just wasn't sure why the accessability thing meant the album title had to now be separated. I've always been against using table headings for rows. AnemoneProjectors 14:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Link to album on singles table

I have removed the links to albums on the singles table on this article because even if it was the first time it was linked, that is because albums sample discography and singles sample discography are from different artist. This can confuse people by thinking albums should be linked there even if they were linked in albums table. It would be better if both albums and singles samples were from the same artist. In all featured discographies, albums are not linked on the singles table (unless it wasn't linked before on studio albums).--Neo139 (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify the policy/standard is to link the album once only... in the album's table. However if a single is released from an album which is not listed e.g. a various artists compilation then that is the only time when the album can be linked in the single's table. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly --Neo139 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly is this policy/standard stated? To the best of my knowledge there is no policy, style guideline, standard, or even consensus that it is inappropriate to link albums in sections other than just the albums section. Neo139 seems to have taken his opinion as carte blanche to change not only the style guideline, but every FL discography, which to my mind is highly inappropriate. WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK in no way prohibit linking items multiple times through the course of an article, they merely encourage smart linking practices. In fact, WP:REAPEATLINK explicitly makes the exception for "tables, as each row should stand on its own". Our discographies are formatted as tables, so the application is obvious. Further, linking the album in a Singles section is not redundant to the link in the Albums section, as (A) the links are in separate sections of the article, and (B) typically quite distanced from each other (another explicit exception made by REPEATLINK). Longstanding practice has been to link albums in singles sections; this and the fact that every FL discography article links them as such represents a standing consensus that it is not inappropriate to do so. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

AGREE with IllaZilla. Quite well said.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up to the 'smart linking'. I will only link an item ONCE WITHIN the SAME table, regardless if it appears on multiple rows.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That's long been my practice too. With years and albums I've always used rowspan to avoid repetition across multiple rows, but recent discussion seems to lean towards avoiding that. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I still use rowspan frequently where it makes sense and have not heard any complaints (so far).—Iknow23 (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not change 'every FL discography'. There are currently 138 featured discographies, all of them didn't link to Albums on the singles tables except 14 of them. (Not counting articles for singles discographies like Madonna or Michael Jackson has). I changed those 14. But if you take a look at those 14, most of them, the day they got to featured status they didn't have the albums linked on the singles table. (see here, here, here, here,here, here, here). Although some of them, did have albums linked the day they got featured status. This is maybe because they reach featured status some years ago (2007 & 2008), when these details weren't enough to limit them from FL status. (see here, here, here, here, here, here). So which discographies do you think have correct style, 132 featured discographies or 6 old featured discographies?. I think that what was 'highly inappropriate' is IllaZilla reverting those 14 edits. --Neo139 (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

“ This is a wedding! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who... ” — M. Palin

In keeping with those wise words, I won't say anything about who should (not) have done what, but I will comment about what linking makes sense to me. It's common to see links repeated in a table, so I don't get too upset when an album is linked multiple times in a singles table. Better, though, is to have it linked once in the table, at first use. If that's too much for you, I'd hope for acceptance of at least one link per section (first use), which leads to the observation, already made above by IllaZilla, that the Albums table and the Singles table are invariably in different sections. The fact that the two kinds of tables are in different formats strengthens the case for linking album titles in the singles/songs tables (at least once).

And I know this is heresy, but I don't place much weight in the FL argument, except where the FLC discussion explicitly considered the issue. A lot what we see/use in FL/FA pages is of the I-copied-it-from-another-page variety, so unless it's specified in writing somewhere, it's still somewhat open (IMO). But look! Up until last week (and now, again) our style page showed linked album names. And the guidelines for WP:REPEATLINK give us further guidance. My conclusion: keep the links. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Neo139, I apologize for jumping to an incorrect conclusion. I looked at your recent contribs, saw you delinking albums across over a dozen FL discographies, and assumed you were doing so en masse. On that I was incorrect, as I was incorrect to state that all/most of our FLs link the albums. That said, every discography I've worked on (around 15) links the albums in the singles section, and as far as I can remember any that I didn't create linked them before I started working on them. What upset me about your edits was that you were citing WP:DISCOG, WP:REPEATLINK, and this discussion as your justification, when (A) DISCOG is a project page, not a style guide, and doesn't say anything whatsoever about linking, (B) REPEATLINK explicitly says that repeating links are OK in tables, and (C) this discussion (at the time) consisted of your post and single reply by Lil-unique1, hardly anything close to a project consensus. Anyway, when all is said and done I (and I imagine Iknow23, based on his previous comments) agree with JohnFromPinckney: Treat each section independently, and link the albums in the singles table, but only once, on the first use. I think that is a sensible linking practice and provides the best navigation service to our readers, and jibes well with the MoS. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :D It's true that I did failed citing WP:DISCOG, I thought WP:DISCOG was WP:DISCOGSTYLE. It is true that I did modify WP:DISCOGSTYLE without discussion at all. I just saw all the articles one way, and DISCOGSTLYE other way. I saw this page citing both Nirvana and The Prodigy as example of what is right. I entered to Prodigy's discography and there weren't links to albums, so I thought this one was just out of date, so I changed it. Looking a bit at the history of all this, The Prodigy was added as a example on 2 May 2008 (see here) without any previews discussion about that selection (see here). The Prodigy article did have the links back in then but they were removed recently in September 2010 by administrator User:Ericorbit also citing WP:DISCOG and WP:OVERLINK (see here). Now thinking about all this, what I did was exactly WP:SILENCE: Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others.. So to avoid this weak silence consensus, I changed DISCOGSTYLE. I thought none will care, as everyone was already editing that way. Now, voices of disagreement are more than evident so the thing here is to choose between 'to link' and 'not to link'. --Neo139 (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Where links are not required, it is seen as redundency. A link to the album that the single is from is not required as the primary relevance of the single's section is to give info about the singles. If people want info about the album they'll go primarily to the album's section. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That is making a rather broad assumption about what readers are looking for, wouldn't you say? Maybe a reader knows only the name of a song, and is trying to find out which album it comes from. In any case WP:REPEATLINK explicitly says that tables are treated differently from body paragraphs, and if each row is to be treated independently then one logically extends that to consider that each table should be treated independently, especially when they are in entirely separate sections of the article. 3 links to an album in the course of an entire article (lead, album section, singles section) is hardly excessive, especially if the article is of significant length. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lil-Unique on this one. I see no need for repeated wikilinks, and not linking the album title in a table for singles/songs does not prevent an editor who "only knows the song title" to see which album it is from: on the contrary, it's right there in the table. A user only knowing a song title would, I believe, most likely enter the song's title in the Wikipedia seach field and go to the song's article, not the artist's discography. Something like this may come down to a matter of personal preference, but most of the disocgraphies I see do not have the albums wikilinked in the table for singles. - eo (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

They are allowed per WP:REPEATLINK, so personal preference is not a reason to change them. If you don't like them you don't have to add them, but just leave those that are already there as they are allowed.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think its time to vote link or Don't link:

• Don't link. --Neo139 (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Well, of course, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so voting is entirely inappropriate. Having said that, I still think we should link when appropriate (not three times in a three-single table, or when the Singles table immediately follows an Albums table with just one or two albums in it). Add albums links when they're useful and in conformance with WP:REPEATLINK. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Link, within reason. Agree with JohnFromPinckney.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Link once per table, only on the first occurrence. Smartest linking practice. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Limit of 10 charts. But which charts? Consensus needed

A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested, 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.
Relative success have been working good until now. (disagreement on Linkin Park discography). How we define relative success? What is 'more success', one song on #1 peak, or 3 songs in top10?.
To avoid this, I thought of this formula:
Imagine a band has N singles/albums/remixes/other charted songs or whatever involves charts. Each country chart will have the next formula:
$Success=$ ${\frac {1}{Single-n1-peak}}$ + ${\frac {1}{Single-n2-peak}}$ + ${\frac {1}{Single-n3-peak}}$ + ... + ${\frac {1}{Single-nN-peak}}$
Higher Success means higher success xD
Then we made a ranking and the top10 charts will go to the article. The calcs if necessary could be on the talk page
If a single did not chart or charts > 200, we can assume its peak was infinite so 1/inf = 0.
The formula is similar to the one used in the game Kings of Chaos. Tt used there to calculate alliance rankings.
We will only use this formula when it is needed, to avoid lot of discussion about which chart had higher success, and also to avoid WP:EW. What do you think? --Neo139 (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Does $n$ represent the peak for the respective region? Or is it $peak$ and $n$ is the average peak? I'm just trying to define the variables here. And I don't think we'd do all singles and albums and other charted songs together; there are many discographies in which artists have seen more success chart-wise with albums than singles and vice versa. Yves (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried to put Single nº1, Single nº2,etc So n is number. I don't know latex =P Tried to put a whitespace instead of - but couldn't. I just put the example for singles, but there should be a AlbumSuccess, SingleSuccess, RemixSuccess. The Album table, and the Single table doesn't need necessary the same country charts. One chart can appear in singles, and not in albums for example.--Neo139 (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So basically we add the reciprocals of the peaks? Yves (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yves, I mean... yes =P --Neo139 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so as an example, I'm using B.o.B's singles, as they are only three, but charting happened in many countries. The general formula is (where 1 = "Nothin' on You" ft. Bruno Mars; 2 = "Airplanes" ft. Hayley Williams; 3 = "Magic" ft. Rivers Cuomo):

${\text{Success}}_{\text{Country}}={\frac {1}{{\text{Peak}}_{1}}}+{\frac {1}{{\text{Peak}}_{2}}}+{\frac {1}{{\text{Peak}}_{3}}}$

B.o.B singles: "success score" calculations

${\begin{aligned}{\text{Success}}_{\text{Australia}}={\frac {1}{3}}+{\frac {1}{2}}+{\frac {1}{5}}&=1.0{\bar {3}}\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Austria}}={\frac {1}{28}}+{\frac {1}{4}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.2857\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Belgium (Flanders)}}={\frac {1}{44}}+{\frac {1}{9}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.13{\bar {38}}\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Belgium (Wallonia)}}={\frac {1}{40}}+{\frac {1}{12}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.108{\bar {3}}\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Brazil}}={\frac {1}{52}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.1923\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Canada}}={\frac {1}{10}}+{\frac {1}{2}}+{\frac {1}{17}}&=0.6588\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Czech Republic}}={\frac {1}{\infty }}+{\frac {1}{13}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.0769\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Denmark}}={\frac {1}{24}}+{\frac {1}{5}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.241{\bar {6}}\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Europe}}={\frac {1}{5}}+{\frac {1}{2}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.7\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Finland}}={\frac {1}{\infty }}+{\frac {1}{11}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.{\bar {09}}\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{France}}={\frac {1}{30}}+{\frac {1}{7}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.1762\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Germany}}={\frac {1}{22}}+{\frac {1}{16}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.1080\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Hungary}}={\frac {1}{\infty }}+{\frac {1}{5}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.2\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Ireland}}={\frac {1}{7}}+{\frac {1}{2}}+{\frac {1}{18}}&=0.6429\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Italy}}={\frac {1}{12}}+{\frac {1}{10}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.18{\bar {3}}\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Netherlands}}={\frac {1}{1}}+{\frac {1}{4}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=1.25\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{New Zealand}}={\frac {1}{5}}+{\frac {1}{1}}+{\frac {1}{6}}&=1.3{\bar {6}}\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Norway}}={\frac {1}{\infty }}+{\frac {1}{6}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.1{\bar {6}}\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Romania}}={\frac {1}{\infty }}+{\frac {1}{54}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.0{\bar {185}}\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Slovakia}}={\frac {1}{\infty }}+{\frac {1}{15}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.0{\bar {6}}\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Spain}}={\frac {1}{41}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.0244\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Sweden}}={\frac {1}{28}}+{\frac {1}{15}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.1024\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{Switzerland}}={\frac {1}{82}}+{\frac {1}{5}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.2122\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{United Kingdom}}={\frac {1}{1}}+{\frac {1}{1}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=2\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{United Kingdom RnB}}={\frac {1}{1}}+{\frac {1}{1}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=2\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{United States}}={\frac {1}{1}}+{\frac {1}{2}}+{\frac {1}{10}}&=1.6\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{United States RnB}}={\frac {1}{5}}+{\frac {1}{65}}+{\frac {1}{\infty }}&=0.2154\\{\text{Success}}_{\text{United States Rap}}={\frac {1}{\infty }}+{\frac {1}{2}}+{\frac {1}{25}}&=0.54\end{aligned}}$

According to this, the formula's saying the following charts should be used, in decreasing order: UK, UK R&B, US, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Australia, Europe, Canada, Ireland, and US Rap. But say if a country were to have only one of these songs chart, and at number one, that country would have a "success score" of $1$, and would be placed between Australia ($1.0{\bar {3}}$) and Canada ($0.6588$). And if a country had all three singles chart at number six, their score would be $0.5$, ranking them directly under US Rap ($0.54$), and ineligible for inclusion in the discography. Flawed? I'd say a country with three number-six singles is more "successful" than one number-two single and one number-twenty-five single. Thoughts? Yves (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I am surprised that frequent edit warring does not occur, as in "Show my country"..."No, show mine." This reminds me of the discussion at Record Charts where it was decided to eliminate the restriction on the number of charts. To ONLY show the MOST successful charts is misleading, skewing the data to an unjustified more favorable appearance. I realize that a Discog is a summary and for complete peak charting info to visit the separate article, but should a Discog rightly show ONLY the most favorable listings? As to how to properly determine which charts should be used though, I am at a loss.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree: it certainly is skewing the data. But if the restriction on the number of charts is eliminated, twenty-five columns, as can be seen in "Hips Don't Lie", "My Heart Will Go On", "Stan", etc. Having only the "most successful" regions, whoever, is not WP:NEUTRAL. Yves (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, If I wasn't quite clear. I do not propose eliminating the restriction for discogs, but wonder how it should properly be applied. One Proposal I do make though is that ONE country can have only ONE peak chart appear in each table. It is too resticted to allow multiple appearances of various charts of one country...unless there is only charting within a few countries leaving space available.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there does need to be consensus on this, but there is way too much thought being put into this. Ok this is what I have been going by. For an artist who has success in multiple markets, the don't get component charts. But an artist who doesn't chart in other countries would get US Rap, US Dance, US Country, or US R&B added. As for countries, the "big four" markets are known as US, AUS, UK, and CAN, then your IRL, NZ, FRA, GER's come along until you get ten. I strongly oppose doing some sort of formula on success and peaks because echoing what Yves said, that method is skewed and not neutral. My thoughts are that the countries shouldn't be there mattered on success of the artists' songs, but the markets in general. Another example, several songs chart in the Belgian regions, but they are rarely included in discogs unless needed because they are not prestigious markets. Candyo32 23:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You describe the "big four" markets. Hence I Propose that these notable markets are automatically displayed, even if NO charting action is shown because, once again, they are notable. But as to the other six listings, I am still uncertain.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

But if there is no charting on a few of these markets, what would be the point of having them in the first place? For example, if there was a band that was only well known in one country, say Latvia (hypothetically speaking), and their singles only charted in the home country and maybe a couple of other surrounding countries, say Estonia, Lithuania and Russia but none of the "big four", what would be the point of having a few filled columns and four empty ones? Yves (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The ONLY reason I proposed it is because it is four, so in the case you describe there are still six remaining for a 'regional only' single/album. This would serve to emphasize that fact. Also we might not come to a total resolution of which ten, so this would at least serve to 'confirm' four of the positions.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I also don't see the point of adding them if the artist didn't chart there. And just to clarify, Canada is defeneatly not one of the big four markets, in albums France, Germany and obviously Japan are bigger, and Canada was never a big country for sales of physical singles at least during the 80s and 90s, other countries such as the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, and even smaller countries like Belgium, Austria, Sweden and Norway had bigger sales. Probably Canada's share has increased a bit now with digital sales but I don't think that even with that it enters the top five markets. With that been clarified I have to say that I always thought that since this is the English Wikipedia we should add the big 6 English markets regardless of peak position, unless the artist didn't chart there of course. This is the way other wikis do it. For example the German wiki, have Austria, Germany and Switzerland; while the Dutch wiki have the Netherlands and Flanders. As for the rest of empty slots I think it will change from case to case. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no charts that should automatically be displayed except for the artist's home country, if the chart meets Wikipedia's notability criteria and there is charting action. Otherwise, we should go by overall success - not automatically including four territories even if there's no charting. –Chase (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment in response to something I saw above - listing the most successful markets is not a WP:NPOV violation. Doing so helps to show an idea of the territories where an artist or band has primarily been successful, and other chart positions should be listed at each respective album or single page. –Chase (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Time to update

In relation to several earlier posts here and at WP:ACCESS I recommend that the examples are updated to show a more user friendly/accessible discography and that the newer examples are pushed forward as the best standard especially for Featured Lists. One of the most recent passed discographies was Kelly Rowland discography which bore the brunt of accessibility issues. Though I agree with comments by those campaigning for change that it perhaps doesn't go far enough it does satisfy the stable parts of WP:ACCESS whilst much of the rest of the guideline is still being fought over. What do people think? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 22:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussions are coming to an end. This version of the MOS is correct. We need more examples and explanations. But in a nutshell this is it. RexxS and Jack Merridev are being extremely stubborn. An accessibility expert came only to give explanations to RexxS. And RexxS managed to think he knows better without even providing references. This is giving me a headache.

In short: we know what are the requirements. We know precisely what needs to be changed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style. But I'm not sure if it's the right time just yet to try an make those changes. Unless you are willing to ignore RexxS (and possibly Jack Merridev) that is.

Sorry, but I think we should continue to wait for now. :s Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well Jack did give a bit of compromise with the Kelly Rowland discography - he accepted that the last group of changes I made were a good step in the right direction for improving both accessibility and usability. I've been monitoring the discussions from far and it seems like we're all working to different degrees of acceptability. The expert's response clearly points out that wikipedia is not far off achieving accessibility and that the steps we're all making so far are correct. But yes perhaps waiting is the best answer. But I did want to engage opinion and see that there is some sort of idea and consensus that this page needs updating at some point. Please don't apoligise for your comments. They are useful and helpful. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not have the time to follow this lengthy discussion. But from your summary it seems very interesting.

If Jack agreed to compromise the hardest is done. I am in the process of reaching a compromise with RexxS too. Basically it is a question of priorities. The improvements suggested by JD554 and me at the beginning of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style/Archive 2#Accessibility issues are consensual and high priority. RexxS and Jack suggest changes that are not consensual and no priority.

It is clear that perfection is the enemy of good enough. We should first make the consensual improvements. Afterwards, if this project agrees to get rid of colspan / rowspan among their data tables that's fine. But if this project does not agree to get rid of colspan / rowspan at least there will be major improvements to the tables among this project.

Maybe we can try this compromise. Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me to jump in and give my 5 cents. I have read JD554's original proposal and through the whole discussion above. I must say that I love the proposed new format! And it occurs to me that while it does not solve all the accessibility/usability issues listed above, it seems to solve a part of them. So why don't we at least take a step in the right direction and implement the proposed changes? – IbLeo^(talk) 11:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the idea! :-) Dodoïste (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to endorse all of the work Dodoïste has put in on these issues, and would recommend Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility/Manual of Style draft/Data tables tutorial as essential reading for editors. I do indeed believe that we should be striving to make all of our articles accessible to all readers, and that includes those with disabilities and those who have limited technology available to them (as is the case in many parts of the world). But as Dodoïste says, we can make progress in stages, and all improvements are worthwhile. --RexxS (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. :-) Now that we reached an agreement with RexxS and Jack, we have a consensus. So let's accept JD554's proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style/Archive 2#Accessibility issues. It improves the table headers, which are essential for table table accessibility.

Once this update is made, we will begin another thread to discuss the rowspan/colspan issue, as decided in the agreement. Dodoïste (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Right it appears that we have a consensus then? I recommend the first batch of changes should be updating WP:DISCOGSTYLE. Then because I worked on getting Kelly Rowland discography to FL at a time when the accessibility issues were a major priority I am happy to convert the discography to the new format as a WORKING/LIVE example. What do people think? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Simply: Let's do that! :-) Dodoïste (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you plan on doing these changes yourself, or do you need help? I'd be glad to give you a hand. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Since nothing has happened here (or, it seems, on Kelly Rowland discography) I have semi-boldly made the changes here for everyone to gawp at and see how bad it hurts each editor's sensibilities. I can readily accept the new samples as they are, but I am sure there will be some howling and complaining, so let me be the first to make some comments:

1. I think the first thing that stands out is the unexpectedly large size of the chart/country column headings. These are currently at font-size:100%, as used in WP:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial. If we really, really hate that size, it might be possible to squeeze back down to 90% or 85%, but the 75% we typically use is a true accessibility/usability problem. I'm hoping we'll hear more from the usability people on this.
2. Next up is the bold and centering of the album and single titles in the left column. They are bold and centered because they are now headings, as is semantically proper, as well as more usefull for readers of WP using assistive technologies (like text-to-speech readers). It is possible to left-align these headers, modifying the default behavior that browsers give to table headings, but see if you can live with the centered look. What do you think?
3. The table cells holding identical years are not merged in the examples, following multiple discussions on the matter. There is most definitely not consensus on the issue, but I believe we are better off showing an example with unmerged, repetitive cells, while we allow editors to merge cells on individual articles, than to show merged cells here as if we recommend them.

Possibly the changes I have made are such a jolt that others will demand further discussion regarding one or more points. That's fine; you can revert my edits with just a click or two. In that case, we'll have a model we can point to while we iron out the details (like alignment of the left-column row headings). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be that I am just late, but where was the consensus formed for all of these changes coming up? Candyo32 02:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, see the above, but also the archived discussion at Accessibility issues (which also includes some pointers elsewhere). Looks like you weren't involved in those discussions, but do you have to say about them (now)? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

@Candyo32: I'm not sure how many people need to agree to reach a consensus. But at least nobody opposed, if I remember correctly. We had disagreements on the approach within our accessibility project, but this matter is now sorted out. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Lil-unique1's suggestions

Moved from Dodoïste's talk page, to keep all discussions in one place. I suggest we add underconstruction to the top of WP:DISCOGSTYLE. Then we update discogstyle. It will need a new header message ... something like:

WP:DISCOGSTYLE was updated in September 2010 to reflect the changes in the Manual of Style for Wikipedia. The examples shown here may differ from existing works but are most up to date and correct format for discographies.

If maybe you could work on the page in your sandbox... and in the next few hours/day I will create the new examples with Kelly Rowland discgraphy and convert it to the new format? How does that sound? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Examples:

• Is this along the lines of what we're thinking? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It sure is. I was planning on doing it but you proved to be faster. Good job.

There is one more requirement these tables need to comply to. See Data tables tutorial#Correct table captions. These tables need a table caption.

Now about the header: it is not necessary to remove the "Peak chart positions" header. Look at the good example at Data tables tutorial#Making relevant row headers. It is a bonus to conform to Data tables tutorial#Avoiding rowspan/colspan, and if other WikiProject members agree we could sure remove this header. But it's not a priority, and I suspect users might hate to remove this header. I would not want to see this update refused because of such a detail.

About the style="font-weight:normal;" of the row headers: why not. But from what I understand, some users already want to have the albums in bold. And some do not. Now that it's becoming a normal row header it might be easier to go for the default bold layout. It makes editing easier when you don't need a lot of complex code to make a table. But this is only my opinion, and has nothing to do with accessibility. Which means if you disagree on that I won't insist. :-)

That's all. :-) Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

New issues:
The layout I went for was to keep the default styling for albums but I accept that the use of bold and non-bold formats will confuse people. We could make the singles bold as well but the problem is that when singles have featured artists it looks messy. See what I mean, by giving it a try in mh example. Alternatively for the singles we could use |scope="row" instead of !scope="row". RexxS informed me that it will have the same effect and is a lesser evil than using style="font-weight:normal;" constantly. I will re-instate the peak chart headers. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand everything you said. "The problem is that when singles have featured artists it looks messy": could you show me an example?

Hmm, RexxS is sure right, from a purely accessibility point of view. But I'd *really* prefer if we could avoid that. See, I try to put aside accessibility techniques that are too complicated or confusing for editors. This is important from a usability point of view, but even more important to prevent misuses. Now RexxS is suggesting to make row headers that completely look like normal cells, even in the wikicode ("|" instead of "!"). If this spreads in the articles its the beginning of a nightmare. User will no more know when the first row cell is supposed to be a header or not, and will eventually end up adding |scope="row" everywhere. That would be a huge fail for accessibility.

It's already complicated enough is it is, so we should stick to the basics for now. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

An example of what (I believe) Lil-unique1 is talking about is now on the project page. I have desecrated the song listing for "Firestarter" with a bogus listing for the featured appearance of Ricky Nelson, using the kind of crediting so common these days, esp. in Rap, R&B, and Hip-hop circles. Typically we currently use non-bold full-size text (usually linked to an article) for the song title, with <small> text with text like "featuring Eminem's dog". See, for example, Drake discography#Singles.

The example I have just added leaves the "featuring" bit as bold (it's still part of the heading) but reduces the size (it's not as important as the title, and we're very used to having it smaller). I have used 85% in the example, which is certainly smaller than 100%, but still larger than the 75% which I believe is the usual equivalent of the <small> markup. How is that for (an example of the problem and) a compromise? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this <br> tag makes it look better?

Also, to improve this messy result, there is a proposal at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#some wikitable ideas to have the row headers left aligned by default. Please go there and support this proposal, in order to caught the attention from a nice admin. Dodoïste (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Size requirement?

Whoa. There definitely needs to be more discussion before we make such drastic changes to a format that nearly all of the articles under this WikiProject use. –Chase (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest there's not really much to discuss because in its current state WP:DISCOGSTYLE is not aligned with the WP:MOS which has been updated several times yet no one has touched project discography. The fact is that the project is encouraging people to create discographies in a way that breaks all MOS rules. The new MOS changes are very clear and project discography must adhere to that. We cannot really argue with it. And before you ask... believe me I've tried to argue several times but even I have had to accept that the project needs updating to comply with WP:ACCESS as it is unfair and against a central consensus. Projects don't get deviate unfortunately. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what is the problem with lowering the country fonts to 85%? As noted by John above, it should not be a major accessibility issue. I would like to see where in the MoS that slightly smaller font sizes can't be used. –Chase (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am also weary about the small font thing, and don't see how it has to do with accessibility. Candyo32 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually its more part of simplifying the creation and maintainance of discographies. The choice to make text smaller is purely an editorial choice. There is no argument for doing so other than it looks 'nicer' than larger text. Also smaller text is less accessible towards users hard of sight. I too questioned its need but I too accepted that in the end it was the best interms of accessibility. Give me a few moments and I'll find the link for the conversation. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

85% is not that much smaller than 100% so frankly, I don't buy the argument about those who are visually impaired. And I would think that visual appearance would be something that should be taken into consideration. –Chase (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Think of it this way... by forcing 85% you downgrade the font size (imagine word processor going from Size 12 to size 11 etc.) which will make it harder for some readers. My imposing such a trivial thing for us able-sighted users you potentially create issues for visually impaired ones. For the sake of a 15% decrease in font size you could be making it 15% harder for visually impaired users as well as making it harder for new users to get involved in the project as they have to learnt yet more code which is only really used in discographies and very few other places. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

By own nomination of Kelly Rowland discography for FL-status attracted a barriage of comments as seen at the nomination page: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kelly Rowland discography/archive1. As you can see Rexxs put forward powerdful arguments that the small size text is not required as it serves no purpose but to deviate from webstandards for accessibility. Also at Talk: Rihanna discography a user pointed out that forcing a smaller text size causes issues when viewing pages on other devices such as iPod touches, phones etc. (even though the user was later banned).... It is something I can verify as I've tried to browse discographies on handheld devices and its near impossible. As seen here I've had an all out row with another user over trying to force too many things. Believe me this is a well thought out and planned compromise between all involved parties to create something which makes leaps towards accessbility but IS NOT 100% perfect. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

85% is a large enough font that I highly doubt any users with visual impairments would have issues. And as for viewing discographies on handhelds, shouldn't those issues be fixed once the new style changes are implemented into many of them? I doubt that the font size has anything to do with that. –Chase (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again what's you're reason for enforcing a smaller size accross all discographies? Again it appears that it is just an editorial choice.... one's preference instead of one's consideration for how it might affect others. By not enforcing a smaller size what do you or I lose? nothing. But by enforcing such a restriction you may make it more difficult for others. Plus not forgetting to mention that it acts as a discouraging factor for new users to get involved in discographies. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My reason is simple: 100% font size for countries is visually unattractive, slightly lowering it doesn't seem to go against any policy, and I very highly doubt that any harm would come from doing so. You have yet to explain to me why the larger font size is absolutely necessary, and I would also appreciate an explanation as to how it discourages editors from editing discographies. –Chase (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It goes against the principles of WP:ACCESS which clearly point out that the aim of the project to simply and bring wikipedia into line with basic universal accessibility standards. Are you honestly saying that you are comfortable in being able to impose a size restriction even though it may cause issues for other users, even though having 100% text causes no access restrictions to anyone? If you look in the discussion for the Kelly Rowland discography nomination another user, Rexxs pointed out that he had issues seeing discographies were small text was used. (notice how (featuring Nicki Minaj) is being replaced with (featuring Nicki Minaj). It discourages new people joining the project because it makes it harder for new users who are likely to be less familiar with html code. Also by not reducing text size it reduces the scope to add more than ten charts because they simply do not fit. Do they really look that ugly? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to be so opposed to 85%, would 90% be any better? –Chase (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not just the size, its all kinds of size restriction or style deviations. See WP:Deviations which is part of the MOS. Unless there is a specific reason for doing so its not correct to enforce. Think of it this way... what looks good to us may not look good to someone else. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Deviations does not say there is anything wrong with lowering font sizes. You still have not responded to my query about whether or not reducing the font by only 10% will really make a difference to those with visual impairments. And yes, to be honest, the 100% font for countries is rather ugly. –Chase (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, let's slow down a bit and clarify a few things first. I know this issue isn't clearly explained anywhere yet, as the usability project is a little fledge that has yet to learn how to fly. I'll start a page about it tonight hopefully.

Just like JohnFromPinckney said, the previous size was 75%, which is significantly smaller. If we really, really hate that size, it might be possible to squeeze back down to 90% or 85%, but the 75% we typically use is a true accessibility/usability problem.

1. The first usability issues to consider is readability. An extensive number of usability studies were made about the impact of text size on readability. It was clearly stated that small text makes it way harder to read, for example by reducing reading speed: if a text with comfortable size would be read by average users in 15 seconds, the same small size text would be read in 27 seconds. The default font size on Wikipedia is already too small, so we don't want to make it even smaller.
2. The second and third issues are both usability and accessibility issues. First, users with low vision that have severe low vision (but are still able to read really large fonts) use dedicated software to enlarge or reduce the text size. So they will be able to read it. But when the normal text size changes to a very small text size, they may have to adjust their zoom level only for this particular text, and readjust it afterwards. It's suboptimal, but not detrimental.
3. The biggest usability issue is for elders (and possibly anyone older than 40), normal users with small low vision and normal users with a particular resolution, device, and such. Truth is, most of these users doesn't know how to zoom with their browser. Yes, they don't know "Ctrl +/-" even exist, or they forget it. So when they encounter such small text they have trouble to read, their only option is to come very close to the screen and strain their eyes as much as they can. Until they succeed or give up because of too much strain.

Just like we said, we can also use a text size of 90%. But it would be way easier for everyone to not have to think about such issues, and simply don't ever reduce the font size. It also removes unnecessary code. Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

@Dodieste, Thank you for that explaination of why small sizes should not be used.

@Chase, WP:Deviations is a principle not a specific policy aimed at lower font sizes. It basically outlines that individual projects etc. should not create their own deviations of the main standard code for wikipedia. I will make one last attempt to present the case for not making smaller font sizes. You are asserting that large font sizes are ugly, this is a superficial issue which really has no impact on your ability to use the page. But as Dodieste has explained, enforcing a lower font size creates usability issues for visually impaired users. If the large font size is adapted neither you, I or our visually impaired users have to change the way we use wikipedia on a day-to-day basis. Yet if we adopt the lower font size we are making it harder for visually impaired users meaning they have to change the way they operate wikipedia or they may be discouraged from using certain pages. We have a situation where both parties involved (us editors and the visually impaired) can use wikipedia equally without either making drastic changes or we could force one group, the visually impaired, to change the way they use wikipedia just to view it the same as us? How would this be fair when if we chose to adopt the standard fontsize no one is personally put out or forced to operate differently? Wikipedia has been slow adopting the accessibility stuff that the rest of the web is doing and so really we don't have direct policies to say do not shrink font size. Yet it is a question of sensibility and compassion for those who may have difficulties using wikipedia in its current state. The movement for accessibility might just be a wikipedia project but it is now embedded in the manual of style and even though I had objections to it initially in the end I realised that an easier to use wikipedia is better for all. Do you still have an objection? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Lil-unique1, you still have not addressed my comment about how 90% would be difficult for those with visual impairments to read. It is a very large and legible size and is more visually attractive. I'm frankly not interested in reading essays about accessibility because there's no reason why a font size 10% smaller than the normal is nonaccessible. And it's not discouraged by any Wikipedia policy. –Chase (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Because like I've said there isn't a direct policy to do so. The accessbility project is designed to make things more accessible. What you consider an essay is an attempt to appeal to the human side of you and bypass your editor thinking. It obviously isn't working. As Dodieste has pointed out it does create problems as he's shown in the three examples. It is therefore the simplest solution to forget the use of size limitations. Again what do you personally lose by havaing larger text? Nothing yet you make it harder for those who have to already adapt ordinary pages to be able to use/read them. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Dodoïste was making comments about the use of 75% text being unaccessible, not 90%. Which explains why they concluded saying that 90% would be acceptable. –Chase (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it's difficult, and maybe it's unnecessary code, but it hardly takes up any space and the end result is more pleasing to the eye. Also, I'm not proposing the use of 75% text. –Chase (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Okies if others don't object to 90% then neither will I. At the end of the day any progress towards accessbility is a step in the right direction and we can come back to the size thing if it proves problematic in the future. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. In this matter there are two kinds of objectives: what we are able to improve right now, and what we aim for on the long run. The issues we are raising are really new to Wikipedians, so we shouldn't go too fast. We should try a few improvements, see how Wikipedians react to it. And with the feedback improve our methods.

Just like I said before, increasing font size from 75% to 90% is already a big step forward, and solves the most important issues. And 90% doesn't cause significant problems anyway. Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have bumped the size of the peak chart column headers down to 90% on both examples. I previewed halfway through and was surprised to be easily able to detect the difference. I do agree it looks a bit better now. See what you all think. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks way better. Nowyouseemetalk2me 02:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, you're actually building this formatting into live pages? Not too many all at once, I hope. There's still some 'splainin' (and complainin') to do here. (It does look pretty good, though, IMHO.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops haha.. it's just that one page, you can change it back if you need. Nowyouseemetalk2me 05:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What you mean: "me"? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by that?, but I already changed it back myself. Nowyouseemetalk2me 06:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we ready to apply this updated guideline?

I think it's time to make a clear conclusion on the state of this guideline. Is there consensus on the new guideline now? Is it time to make the corresponding updates to the articles? From what I understand the answer is yes. Do we all agree? Regards, Dodoïste (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree, but I fear we've had too few people weigh in here on the current form of the guideline. I frankly expect much howling (if only from particular editors) when the dramatic change to bold, centered row headings suddenly pops up in people's favorite music articles. What do you think the expected implementation delay will be for the left-aligning CSS mod we're hoping for at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#some wikitable ideas? Will it even be implemented at all?

Lil-unique1 has already started putting parts of this into Kelly Rowland discography. One approach would be to let him finish revamping that article, as we pause to hear and respond to the protests. I could add it to one or two articles that I tend, listening for moaning (and watching for reversions). If we deliberately converted, say, only a dozen articles in two weeks, we'd have a bit of feedback about the real consensus (some outraged editors would rush in here to make comments), we'd gently let folks know that a noticeable change is afoot, and we'd provide a bit of time for the CSS to get changed. This might reduce the scope (hah!) and severity of the pushback we experience.

Of course, I could just be being overly cautious here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who knows best hoe it works here, so I'll trust you without the slightest doubt - and if you dance with the flying penguins in the sky I'll dance with you! ;-)

Your approach seems reasonable and foolproof, so I'll support it. We're not especially in a hurry, as accessibility is a work on the long term. And it's really important for us to observe the reactions and feedback in order to know what works and what doesn't, and to improve the reach of our guidelines and approach.

As for the proposal at MediaWiki talk:Common.css: it would be best to make a summary of the discussion, and to make a request for comments or something similar I guess. I just tried it at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Summary of the proposals and request for comments. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys I've been a bit busy as of late. One think you might have noticed is that I have implemented the new wikicode for wikitables with regards to the music videos, album appearances etc. at Kelly Rowland discography. I need to add table headings to these. The next stage is the album and singles which I have in my sandbox but I need to update the new peaks etc. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - i have a few issues, having the text in boxes as big as you do, on certain computers, the text goes angled if the screen is not large enough, and it appears like this;
A
U
S
Another issue i have is in the singles section, having the "Year" the singles were released to the right of the singles is unatracctive, and its not consistent, what i mean is under "Music Video" its listed last (farthest to the right), they dont line up and its like extremely dumb and its not consistent. I prefer the way its written now, lined up such in Kesha discography. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've personally not come across the angled text so that needs to be looked into as its a serious issue if it does indead occur widespread. With regards to the year at the end etc. the whole point it because now we have to use !scope="col"|. This means that screen reading software will be able to read the information correctly. It reads the column name first then the row name. The most significant part of the row is the name of the video and hence that needs to come before the date. You could if you wanted put the date after the name of the song in question but in the first column doesn't make sense. Also reducing the use of rowspan="2"| is a major advantage here as it allows sortable to be used, which is a major advantage for this/these sections. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ive come across it on 3 of my 4 computers and many of my friends computers, it happens if the text is larger then 85%/90%. It happens on Google Chrome, Mozilla and Internet Explorer. Its bad and Rowland Discography. I thought i was just my computers but its on my friends too, it didnt happen until the boxes were widened. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, CK, thanks for your input. I'm surprised (and a bit confused) about the diagonal problem you report. First, do you mean "vertical" (the way your example shows)? Second, can you tell me what device/screen/browser you're seeing this on? I've got Firefox on a regular Windows PC and a 1280px display, and I can't get the column headings to break like that no matter how I resize the browser window or zoom the text. Do you see in this behavior in every browser/device you have, or only certain ones?

About the change in the Singles tables columns: yes, I realize it's a bit of an adjustment. Kesha discography is indeed how we're all used to it. However, the reason for such a drastic change (already mentioned by Lil-unique1) are improvements in the markup logic of our pages, with considerable benefits in terms of accessibility. The sticky point, if our first priority is how the tables look to us sighted users, is that our discogs won't qualify for WP:FL status anymore, since they'll fail WP:ACCESS, which is part of the MoS, which is a FL-requirement. If we set our priorities to include increased accessibility, then maybe we can get used to the trade-offs.

You say "they dont line up and its like extremely dumb and its not consistent." Well, "dumb" is something I understand (being an expert of many years), but I don't get what you mean about inconsistency and not lining up. What doesn't line up? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ive drawn up a quick "whats wrong" on my other account and left the issues i have with it below the boxes. User:L-l-CLK-l-l-Tester - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue about vertical alignment of text is strange, because the text inside those cells aren't supposed to be displayed like that by the browser whatever we do. Looking at the code it should be fine. I can't manage to reproduce this issue. Did you said it was a Windows XP specific bug? Could you upload a screen shot at ImageShack for example (easier than uploading at Wikipedia)? Afterward, our only option will be similar to JohnFromPinckney's approach: make several test pages to understand precisely which code is causing this, and if we can avoid it. Dodoïste (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

More or less its been fixed. Ill support as long as the row of "Years" line up vertically. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are at the point where you try it, and steer by listening to the howls.—Kww(talk) 04:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Going forward with the basics first

Hi. Two changes we requested just got accepted and will make your tables easier to make. Row headers correctly marked with scope="row" are left aligned by default, it saves some code. List in tables are left aligned by default, even if the cells of the table are centered by default. That will save some code too.

The addition of the scope="col" can be automated on a per-project basis. For example, the discographies tables are consistent, so a bot could do it. Since this change doesn't have any impact on the layout and such, I believe it is consensual so I'll try to find a bot to perform this task. Probably user:Xeno, skilled master of user:Xenobot, who is a member of the accessibility project. I just left him a message. This will solve the most important accessibility issue.

I'm going to update Template:Infobox artist discography according to the accessibility guidelines. It won't have any effect on the layout, average users won't notice the difference. But blind users surely will, since the semantic structure of this table is all messed up and doesn't make any sense. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just updated Template:Infobox artist discography. There shouldn't be any difference with the previous layout. Please let me know if there is any bug. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "other charted songs"

Yes, I am aware of the discussion above, but frankly, I see no valid point to keep these. Discographies are lists of musical releases - albums, singles, and videos. "Other charted songs" are not releases and thus have no point being listed with actual releases. If necessary, the information can go on a relevant album page - but IMO, it does not belong in the discography articles, which is why I would like to propose their removal. –Chase (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of other charted songs, and Oppose removal of guest appearances. Reasons stated in above discussion. Candyo32 01:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  None of the points in the discussion explain why they are relevant to discographies. –Chase (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose removal / see above discussion. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Which doesn't explain how they're relevant... –Chase (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose removal of other charted songs and strongly oppose removal of guest appearances, as well. IMO it does belong in the discography article; they are songs from officially released albums/EPs/compilations that received significant airplay and/or legal digital downloads. These are perfectly sourceable—as easily sourced as charted singles—and give information to the reader about non-singles that have charted, and one would find these in discography books like Joel Whitburn's. I see absolutely no reason to remove them, and strongly oppose both. Yvesnimmo (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  We cover releases (albums/singles/videos), not individual non-single songs, regardless of whether or not they come from officially-released albums. Wiki's discography standards are different than discography books in that we don't cover all songs. The information is possibly relevant to the album on which each song is included or in the song's article if it's notable enough for an article. But on our discographies, we only cover releases - charted non-releases are not relevant here. –Chase (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Where is it specifically stated that Wikipedia's discography standards are different? Although no explanations are given in detail, it still doesn't cover the fact that contributing users are against the removal. Candyo32 01:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Where would that information go, then? And who says Wiki's discography standards are different than those of discography books? Yvesnimmo (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  In an album article. In an article for the song, if it's notable enough. In a list of songs. Consensus has been adopted for including releases and not all individual songs on said releases - take a look at the majority of our discographies, they follow this format. Whether discussions took place or "silent consensus" formed, I'm honestly not aware and that's irrelevant regardless. Non-releases serve no place in a discography, a list of releases. –Chase (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Lists of songs don't have that kind of information, and they shouldn't, because they're lists of songs and not lists of chart positions of songs. A discography, if you take a look at the Wikipedia article as well as Merriam-Webster, is a list of recordings, not releases. Other charted songs are recordings (and releases, to an extent), and I disagree that they serve no place in a discography. Yvesnimmo (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  If Wikipedia discographies went off the definition that they are a comprehensive list of all recordings, they would list every song on every album an artist has released. Clearly, we don't do that, as there is consensus not to. And since our focus is releases, other charted songs aren't relevant. They are not releases to any extent. They simply chart because radio stations choose to play them or listeners buy them from digital outlets. Charting ≠ release. –Chase (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  This still doesn't state where it is that Wikipedia has different discography standards. Candyo32 02:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone disagrees that charting ≠ release. "Stairway to Heaven", one of the most well-known songs in the Western world, was never released as a single. If Wikipedia goes by what you are proposing, this means the song will not be found at all on the Led Zeppelin discography, which is, as stated below, ludicrous. Yvesnimmo (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Call it ludicrous if you may. Consensus for our discographies is to include musical releases, not be comprehensive lists of an artist's work, per the definition. Consensus can change though, but right now, it hasn't. Thus, for the time being, non-singles should not be a part of our discographies. –Chase (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  How is it that the majority of discographies use this format , as I've listed seven FL's on the Ciara FLC that use them, and that's just a few. Candyo32 02:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  ←WP:OTHERSTUFF. We are discussing how they are relevant, not which discographies include them. –Chase (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  First of all, I think WP:OTHERSTUFF is limited as FL's set precedent for other lists. Also if this were WP:OTHERSTUFF, then wouldn't your statement, "take a look at the majority of our discographies, they follow this format" be also? Candyo32 02:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  No, because we are discussing whether or not to continue to implement this format, not which discographies are using it. So listing off all the discographies that include other charted songs is irrelevant. Pointing out that most discographies on wiki go by release only is to highlight the consensus that was gained. –Chase (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• oppose, although I begun the earlier discussion on this I've come to realise that the lines that define a single are becomming thinner and thinner. The ultimate issue here is that in countries like the US songs can chart without ever being officially released thanks to airplay. These needs to be able to be listed somewhere. also the popularity and capability of digital downloads mean that people can buy invididual tracks from an album and so labels are inclined to promote popular records less and less. Also in some cases the parent album/song may have no article so where does the recording get noted? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  If a song from an album has charted, I highly doubt the album would not be notable enough for an article. The information can be noted in that album article or if there's enough info to build a song article, there. That's nice that technology has allowed non-releases to chart, but that still doesn't change the fact that they're not releases. –Chase (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral While I agree with Chase that discographies should stick to official releases, other chartings of songs should be included if the song is notable. For example, Taylor Swift discography has many charted songs, some of which are covers, and are pretty notable, while others are fillers that have charted due to airplay and digital downloads. The other point is that mentioning non-single tracks off an album in the album's page isn't really appropriate, but some songs should be mentioned somewhere. I can see the points of both sides here, but if I was pushed, I would probably lean to keeping them. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  One of Pearl Jam's most popular songs called "Better Man" was never released a a single and is listed under "Other charted songs" on their disco, and even though it is just a 'song' it reached number one of Billboards Mainstream Rock chart and number two on the modern rock chart and not having this song listed in their discography would be ludicrous, I'm sure their are many other instances like this. Nowyouseemetalk2me 02:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  It wouldn't be ludicrous, it's not a release. Can easily be noted in the album article, or since the song has an article, there. –Chase (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  A discography isn't a list of releases, it's a list of recordings. Nowyouseemetalk2me 02:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Then explain to me why we don't include every non-single from every album an artist has released? We don't go by that definition in our discographies, as nearly all of them show. –Chase (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Every non-single from every album isn't included because every non-single from every album didn't chart. Charting = notable. Nowyouseemetalk2me 02:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  But aren't discographies supposed to be lists of recordings? Clearly, we don't go by that. If we adhered by the definition, all songs by an artist would be included, charted or not, because the definition is list of recordings. However, consensus formed to include releases, and thus we go by that until consensus changes. –Chase (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Discograhies should mirror the career as a whole, not only official releases.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  If we were to do that, then every song of an artist's career would be included. Including non-singles from albums that didn't chart. We don't do that, do we? If consensus can be gained for our discographies to adhere by the definition and be a comprehensive list of an artist's work, I wouldn't care about releases. However, since that would make the lists extremely lengthy, most of our discographies just cover releases. And if we do that, then non-singles don't belong. Period. –Chase (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  I still don't see where all of these discography standards are coming from. Candyo32 02:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  They come from the fact that consensus was adopted to not be comprehensive lists of an artist's work. That consensus likely developed over time and consensus would need to be gained for our discographies to be comprehensive lists of an artist's work. –Chase (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  "...since that would make the lists extremely lengthy": I don't think that's the problem on wikipedia, as lists of songs do exactly that. Yvesnimmo (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Where is this consensus discussion located at? Echoing NYSM's comments above, including charted songs and guest appearances would not be comprehensive lists, as all songs performed by the artist wouldn't be included. Candyo32 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Well I stand by what I said before. I haven't found a discography yet that has such a problem. The "Other Charted Songs" and "Other Appearances" don't seem to take up much space. I say leave them as is. And just by the way, as an example, I've never heard of "Stairway to Heaven".--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• comment, but again I ask how do you define that a song charting from an album is not released? Yes its released as part of an album but it has charted independent of that album. this publication on discographies really doesn't dinstinguish whether it should/shouldn't be included yet its used on wikipedia's own page about Discographys. See at a discog I worked on: Kelly Rowland discography I successfully promoted it without any other charted songs. Perhaps the best solution is to leave the situation. If people want to add them, let them. If they don't they don't. Either way it shouldnt effect FL -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  It's confusing when many of the discographies implement the format and many don't. Furthermore, we need to decide whether our discographies should serve as a comprehensive overview of an artist's career, including all non singles, or limit it to just releases, as we are currently doing. And that will determine whether charted non-singles (as well as other non-singles, really) should remain/be included. –Chase (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  But this is kind of giving off the impression we want them included because they are non-singles. We want them included because they are non-singles that chart. Candyo32 02:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  But honestly, what does charting have to do with it? That doesn't change the fact that it wasn't released. –Chase (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Charting is notable. Nowyouseemetalk2me 02:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  However, that doesn't make it relevant to a list of releases. –Chase (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  A song from an official album is a release; It's part of a larger release. Yvesnimmo (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose the removal.
  1. I agree with Yvesnimmo, “…A discography, if you take a look at the Wikipedia article as well as Merriam-Webster, is a list of recordings, not releases. Other charted songs are recordings (and releases, to an extent), and I disagree that they serve no place in a discography.” As I also went to read OUR discog article.
  2. I agree with PeterGriffin, “Discograhies should mirror the career as a whole, not only official releases.”
  3. I don’t think that anyone is arguing to list EVERY song, just those NOTABLE. I have discovered charts containing this type of material on the Artist page have been MOVED to their discog as a more appropriate placement of it.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Then the argument that discographies are lists of recordings is invalid, if everyone says that and then argues that only charted recordings should be included. Very hypocritical and invalid. –Chase (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  If our discographies were lists of recordings, we would include every song of an artist's career, as I have said. –Chase (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Its not hypocritical to only include charted releases (because its charted ones that are notable). Non-charting shelved albums for example have been included in the past. Effectively for singles the only information we include is the album they're released from and the date as well as the charts. It would be different if we included recording information, who wrote/produced them etc. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  It is hypocritical to argue that discographies are lists of recordings and should thus be comprehensive, then to argue that only charted recordings should be included. You can't have it both ways. We need to either stick to comprehensive lists, or continue to include only releases, and leave non-releases out. –Chase (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Not at all hypocritical. Yes, do list EVERY album, EP, Mixtape, Single...but ALSO include NOTABLE other things such as charting songs not officially released as a single.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Considering the discussion here, and the silent consensus carried out on the other discographies, it seems that we want singles and charted songs. Where's the rule at that we can't have it both ways? Isn't Wikipedia carried out on consensus and changes are made per the ruling? Candyo32 03:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  If our discographies were lists of recordings, we would include every song of an artist's career, as I have said. — Please see my number 3 above.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Many edit conflicts have prevented me from expressing that, considering Iknow23's point, I wouldn't be opposed to having a "notable non-releases" section that includes canceled albums, mixtapes, other charted songs, etc. (If said items are notable.) But I certainly don't agree with grouping other charted songs with singles. –Chase (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Well wouldn't the title explain it all. "Other charted songs?" Other charted songs, not singles. Self-explanatory? Candyo32 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  They are never grouped with singles; always in a separate table under a self-explanatory heading. Yvesnimmo (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  However, they are grouped as a subheading under the singles section which is inappropriate. And no offense, but Yvesnimmo and Candy, I think both of you failed to see my last point. Give me a moment and I'll show you what I mean, visually. –Chase (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  ←So you mean you would support the inclusion if it were simply not under the singles heading? Candyo32 03:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  I think the difference would be negligible. Nowyouseemetalk2me 03:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Someone asked me to give an opinion, and I don't have time to read the prior discussion, but my suggestion would almost certainly be the same regardless: check featured lists, and follow their example. If there is a variety of standards, then follow the most recent ones. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus"?

I'd like to know where this alleged "consensus for our discographies" is, as I don't really see it on the style page. Yvesnimmo (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can form silently. The fact that almost every discography is not a comprehensive list of an artist's work is a great example of silent consensus. This idea was established silently and was adopted as such. Or it may have been discussed. I'm not sure. It probably wasn't. But regardless, there is consensus that they should only be releases. Otherwise discographies would be full lists of every song an artist has included on an album or single. –Chase (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

But wouldn't pointing to other discogs be WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Candyo32 02:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. I'm highlighting the fact that consensus developed to not include all of an artist's work over time. –Chase (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I would argue that (given the last discussion) due the appearance of 'other songs' in so many FL discographies that infact there is an silent consensus that they are accepted. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. However, I began this discussion to see how editors would feel about them being wiped out. So the fact that consensus formed to include those is irrelevant, as right now we are discussing whether or not they should stay included. –Chase (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly every person here thinks they should stay besides you. Nowyouseemetalk2me 02:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly think they should stay. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So, based on the firmly one-sided commentary above, am I right to conclude that, on the project page, at What should not be included, where it currently says "Un-released material unless notable enough to include," we understand non-single songs which have charted to have become notable enough to include? Yes? And therefore no changes to the page are required? Or should we make some more explicit statement about what's in and what's out (*cough*mixtapes*cough*)? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, no changes are necessary. Mixtapes are actually notable for some artists, such as Gucci Mane, SEE HERE. It is a major part of his career.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for new "other notable works" section

Based from the Nicki Minaj discography:

Year	Title	Notes
2007	Playtime Is Over	Mixtape released by Minaj on (date) (Explanation of why the mixtape is notable)
2008	Sucka Free	Mixtape released by Minaj on (date) (Explanation of why the mixtape is notable)
2010	"Knockout" (Lil Wayne featuring Nicki Minaj)	Song from Lil Wayne's Rebirth (2010) Peaked at number 44 on the Billboard Hot 100

I must leave for now and this probably isn't a great example, but I might be able to develop a better one tomorrow. This is just a rough idea at the moment and suggestions for improvement are welcome. –Chase (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Chase that non-singles even if in a table appropriately named cannot be within a 'Singles' section of the article. It needs to have its own.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

One more quick note before I go: I don't think other charted songs should be included in this except in extremely notable cases such as "Better Man" or "Stairway to Heaven". –Chase (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I say list all 'other charted songs', otherwise are you going to name it "other notable works that chart only within the top 10" for example. Isn't it POV to pick and choose which ones you want to include? So IMO, include them all (that chart) and let the reader ignore those that they are not interested in. But other readers may be interested in those that the previous reader was not and vice-versa.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Its a nice idea, but I don't see anything wrong with the way we do it now. Candyo32 03:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - IF we did use this, then for the typical artist it would just include "Other charted songs" so why no just leave it as "Other charted songs" but not under the singles heading if it makes that big of a difference. Candyo32 04:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Comment - Another comment, even if we did use this idea, this discussion is for "other charted songs" and you've already included in the proposal that most wouldn't fit in this category. Candyo32 12:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of other charted songs. and Oppose removal of guest appearances. This has been discussed time and time again and people's opinions are always the same. The term "released single" really doesn't mean anything anymore. These days people can download and buy whatever they like and an "other charted song" shows that popularity. Mister sparky (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, I don't really see this as solving the any of the problems, just a stylistic change which will have little overal impact. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think it's fine the way it is. Nowyouseemetalk2me 20:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, tables are fine how they are now. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 20:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as per everybody: fine the way it is now. Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Split off "other charted songs" into new section

There's clearly consensus to continue using the format being used at the moment. At this point, I would at least like to propose that they stop being added as a subsection under the singles section, since they are in no way singles. –Chase (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I agree with this. Nowyouseemetalk2me 20:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I, too, strongly agree with this. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 20:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, other charted songs should come after singles in their own 2-level header. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support; makes sense. Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, I always did that anyway. AnemoneProjectors 21:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, per my comment above. I admit that I had never noticed that that was being done though.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support It's very common for non-single releases to make the charts, even on airplay-only charts like Hot Country Songs. The fact that such-and-such only got to #55 for one week is no less relevant than the fact that single X spent two weeks at #1. Keeping non-singles in their own section makes it clearer what they are. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, yeah that's fine. - eo (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support --Neo139 (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Pursuant to the clear consensus in this subsection I have added a new list item under Point 3 of the Article-wide portion. Please read through it and complain here or change it there if you're dissatisfied. I have left "What should not be included" untouched, as it seems to still accurately cover our position. Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Size Requirement Part 2

I would like to bring up an issue similar to one discussed above about the large size used in the country names. Does anyone else think that what we decided should apply to the size of featured artists too, for the same reasons? Candyo32 00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Candy, I'm not sure what you're aiming at. What do you mean by "what we decided"? Is something too large, or too small? And what? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In the above discussion, where it seemed as if everyone preferred the smaller font size for the countries rather than the normal, due to unattractiveness, among other disadvantages. I was wondering would the same thing apply to the (featuring.....) note, on rather it would be normal size or kept smaller like the countries. Candyo32 14:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you look at Rihanna discography or Nicole Scherzinger#Discography you can see we've used 85% font size for (featuring a man) etc. notes. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 14:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know because I had taken a look at one discog in particular I believe it was Kesha discography, and the font for that was was normal size. Candyo32 16:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Look and feel

I have come late to this party; please forgive me if I missed the relevant discussion, but the new tables look...for the lack of a better work...yuck! What was wrong with the previous styling? Compare the original Rihanna discography with that after the changes. IMO, it looks and feels unnatural. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Adabow, and thanks for asking. The reasons for these changes are all over this page and stretch into the latest archives, but the recent changes were catalysed primarily by a need to improve the accessibility of Wikipedia for those who don't have perfect, color-discerning vision. The WP-wide initiative had led (among other things) to developing WP:ACCESS and including it as part of the Manual of Style. Being part of the MoS means satisfying it is expected of FL and FA candidates, and of course other pages need the treatment, too.

But it's not just a oh-damn-now-we-have-to-do-this this thing; it's really overdue considering the popularity of Wikipedia on the WWW. The markup (HTML and CSS) behind our content has had problems, as with so many sites out there, but there's not really an excuse for it (for us or anyone else). The usual reasons for poor code are ignorance and laziness, and neither of those really apply here. So after much discussion, we're finally modernizing the discographies. Specific changes include use of the scope attribute to help screen readers parse tables, marking up row headings as headings (<th>, making them bold by default), rearranging columns where appropriate so the relevant data is on the left, and reducing the reduction(!) in font-size for some of the column headings.

You don't specify what you mean by "looks and feels unnatural", and I probably can't guess. If you mean, "it looks quite different", then, yeah, I agree. If you mean it's weird not to have the year in the left column, then I'll disagree, because the tabular layout of this data is now more natural, if you think about the relationships of the data items. But maybe you meant something I haven't guessed.

I hope it'll grow on you; I'm already starting to prefer it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate it. I do like that album titles are in a column that is in a deeper shade of gray. But the repetition of the year, the bolding of countries, the new columns for album details all seem useless. I'd rather have back as it was before. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Why was it updated if it wasn't needed. This is the ugliest thing EVER! -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 17:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't responded because I assume your question is purely rhetorical (it doesn't have a question mark at the end, either). I could tell you why it was updated, but then it's already been discussed and explained on this page. And your logical premise that it needn't be changed if it wasn't needed is good, but undermined by the fact that it was needed. Of course, that doesn't help your problem with the ugliness you perceive, but that's something I hope will change when you give it some time, knowing it's part of an important accessibility initiative. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I, too, hope it will grow on me, but to me the bolding of singles and the repetition of years are really not needed, and makes it look ugly. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Adabow, what do you and Ipodnano05 mean when you both refer to "the repetition of years"? This bothers me, as I don't know where you're seeing that. Nothing's suppoesed to be repeated. We've actually got one less column for the year on albums tables, and we only swapped the columns for singles; nothing should have been added. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well at [1], every single has its own cell for the year released, with no rowspans, which is also what the sameple does. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it. Yes, those are intentionally done that way on the examples (and on Rihanna_discography, which I changed myself) in response to concerns about using rowspan so much. There's been considerable discussion, not all of it here, but one big problem with using colspans (and rowspans) is that it breaks sortability.

For the discog tables we're interested in here, we already use rowspan a majority of the time to identify the Peak chart positions columns, so I believe allowing colspans, too, wouldn't break things any more than they already are.

As I recall our discussions, I think we decided to show individual-cell years in the examples as an encouragement to think that way, but not get too upset if editors merged the year cells on individual pages. We don't explicitly say anything in the text about cell merging being forbidden, so I don't see how we can say merging violates the guideline. We don't strictly specify the "Peak chart positions" heading text, either, so I sometimes see "Chart peak positions" or "Peak positions" or "Chart positions", etc.

Would you be more comfortable with the new styling if you felt free to merge year cells together? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I definitely feel more comfortable with the new styling, however I still don't understand why things had to change. I can't see how this is any more access-friendly. Apart from the years all I can see that is different is that the single is named in the first column, which is darkened (heading-style), and that the names and chart territories are bolded. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're a sighted user like myself (or even younger, without glasses), it's no wonder if you don't notice it to be more access-friendly. I think if we relied on a screen reader we'd notice the difference quickly.

I don't want to rehash all the discussions and explanations here, but briefly, the rearrangement of columns and the changing of the (new) left row to actual headings are part of the attempt to correctly mark up the tables. That is, if we have tabular data (our discography stuff certainly qualifies), then we have a list of things (albums or songs, say), correlated with some attributes (peak in Austria, peak in US, Certs, etc.). We make the top row headings for the columns, we make the left row headings for the rows. Until this initiative, we haven't had row headings, and we just had some years in the left column.

Now, I don't use assistive technologies (AT), and I don't know which ATs require which bits of code to be present and correct, but my understanding was that the row-heading markup (<th> in HTML, ! in wikimarkup) was necessary or helpful to some of them. I have certainly been led to believe that correct markup is always better than sloppy "probably-works" code.

Being headings, they're shown as bold by our graphical browsers. And you've recognized above that they're shown "heading-style", so the improvement in usability is now documented. The darkness of the chart column headings is another part of the attempt to not make text unnecessarily small. There are some studies floating around (I don't have links now) about how much faster page content is accessed (even by fully sighted persons) when the text size isn't reduced too much. In the past, we've typically had 75% or so of the user's default size for those column headings, or 25% smaller than they want/expect. We're supposed to be using 100%, but we compromised (after much discussion) at 90%. It's still 10% smaller than usual headings, but 20% larger than it has been.

For more why's (explained better, probably), read the discussions above and in this page's archives, at WP:ACCESS and its Talk/archive pages, and check out the Accessibility and Usability projects. Or ask me again, and I'll try to hit what I missed. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up. Sorry if I've been a nuisance :). I suppose they're not that bad, but I do really think that the model discographies here should have the year cells spanned. Otherwise, the only problem I have is that there is a lot of work to do to bring older discographies up to the new style. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait: going back to the merged year cells—I understand the sorting thing and having it not merged, but shouldn't it be that way with albums that way, as well? For consistency purposes, shouldn't it be wholly one or the other? Yves (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you've already achieved consensus on this, so I won't interfere. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Error - Contradiction of Own Policy

I believe I have found an error. At one point on the page, under Article-wide under the Content header, we have...

5. An External links section

• Commonly-used links include the artist's or band's homepage and/or links to Discogs or Allmusic.

Later on, under the Citations and references sub-header Sources, we have...

Only reliable sources should be cited as sources of information. Discogs, for example, should be avoided, since it is user-generated and therefore not considered reliable.

So in one place, we encourage its use. In another, we don't. Can we make up our minds and remove the contradiction? CycloneGU (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've noticed this too. Just to clarify Discogs has been brought up at the content noticeboard and multiple talk pages. Its use on wikipedia is depreciated and so it should be removed from the external links section. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha "depreciated"—that works, too. :P Yves (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL did i miss something? well we decided long ago to stop using it and therefore if you encounter its use its a depreciated form of editing? (i dont get it lol) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The word is actually "deprecated", but "depreciated" works, too. I like it better, actually. :D Yves (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh... i'm guessing you speak American English? Cus here in the UK its depreciacted. LOL deprecated looks strange lol -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Fuck no; Canadian English all the way, man. "Depreciation" (opposite of "appreciation") and "deprecation" (not in use; computer jargon) are different things. Yves (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed Discogs in the earlier case. Is there another one we can add? Might be good to put another couple of reliable sources aside from just AllMusic; sometimes they also make mistakes! (For instance, Jo Dee Messina was seen as part of a group that was in music before she was born; she in fact covered one of their songs and made it a successful single.) CycloneGU (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

New Style is Hard to Read

Honestly - I don't want to seem like a bitch, but not only is it ugly, it's harder to read. This is bugging me to the point where I used to always use wikipedia for looking up chart information and discographies, but now i'm using it MAYBE 10% as much as I had just a month or so ago. I can't really pinpoint what exactly, but the entire new style just seems REALLY messy and distracting. I literally can not focus at all and I get lost so easily. It feels like a 3 year old just kinda waltzed in put the information together any which way Impracticable (talk)

Hi there. I would firstly like to remind you to date your comments in addition to signing. Secondly, can you think of why it seems "messy and distracting"? None of the information is changed; just some rearranging and standardization of columns and rows, necessary for WP:ACCESS. Yves (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one, the fact that now thew title column, which is huge, is dark gets almost all of my brain's attention. Aside from that, the fact that the years are still merged makes it a lot easier for me to lose my row and start reading the wrong row. For example, I might be looked at Taylor Swift's Singles Discography and be trying to see the peak positions for Should've Said No, but while I maneuver my eyes towards the peaks column, my brain gets derailed by the awkwardness of the years and I end up reading the peaks for Love Story instead. However, when the years aren't merged it just looks like there is WAY too much information and I get just as lost, just as easily. Impracticable (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Impracticable (heh), thanks for your feedback. Do you think providing some extra width for the year column would help you? Please take a look at my Sandbox where I have (only temporarily) copied the tables portion of the current Taylor Swift discography article. In the Singles section at As main artist we have a table with the year cells separate, even when duplicated, at a specified width of 5em. Below, at Promotional singles and Other charted songs, we have tables with merged year cells at the same 5em. (Ideally from a coding and Web flexibility perspective, we wouldn't specify a width at all. So we didn't.) Do one of these strike your fancy? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a sensible reason for not using colspan: from a usability point of view, colspan makes the table more confusing indeed.

But as for the reason why you are so confused and distracted by this new layout, I'm not sure. Some users are very sensitive to changes, and simply get used to it after a while. In your case, since you seem to be terribly confused, I'm considering some other reasons. Could it be something related to dislexia, where visual delimitations provided by blocks of text and lines have a major impact on your reading? I recently attended a conference about such common handicaps, and how to take them into account on the Web. What do you say? Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I find I'm having the same problem reading this new-and-improved style as Impracticabl. And I'm far from dyslexic, and it's not some other excuse like I'm retarded and can't follow lines. It's just a poor style. Surely per WP:ACCESS that you all like to harp on about so much, you should now work to make sure that all readers can access the information because by your own words, dyslexics cannot. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What seems to be happening is we're favouring the few. The change has made this more accessible to 0.1% of our audience and less accessible to 99.9% of our audience. What a shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna discography#Music videos is one of the worst examples of a table I've ever come across. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I made it myself. (I'm so proud.)

Would a wider Year column help you accept it better? Or will only non-bold row headings do for you? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I've made a request to remove this emboldening of row headers here, perhaps you would like to join the discussion. I'm finding the whole thing a little obfuscating, the debate starting at FLC, heading to DISCOGSTYLE, then Mediawiki pages... that really isn't accessible! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not the bolding of the music videos that is my issue in this example (although I don't understand why they need to be, and it does go against other parts of the MOS), it's that the year column is wedged in between the other two, and the rowspan makes it awkward for the eye to move from left to right to follow the information. Why can't the year be the row header? Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, I hadn't even noticed that. And funnily enough I just asked a similar question at User:RexxS's talkpage, i.e. "what if the first column isn't the "main" part of the list". This is more than accessibility now, it's a content and data precedence issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've attempted to start a centralised discussion at WT:FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The year is a poor choice for row header because the table isn't about the year, it's about the video. If we want a table of years in which videos came out (for an artist), then the year should definitely go first. But we want to show the videos the artist produced, with some other info. I agree that the year looks rather dopey in the middle like that. And the rowspan is a compromise for those who bitched about having "2007" five times in the same column. It's harder to read, and disables any sorting one might want to implement, but it's the result of the discussions. So far. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)