Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


FLRC for The Nation of Ulysses discography

I have nominated The Nation of Ulysses discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Mm40 (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Music video directors as a requirement

So I was working on a discog I was hoping to eventually see through to FL-status, but I'm having a hard time finding info for all of the music-video directors. And it struck me: is this stuff really necessary in a discography? I've been a part of alot of flc's for discogs, and every once and a while a list is failed basically because the list of directors is either incomplete or is lacking a reliable source or two. Is this a standard we really want to keep this lists to? Is this necessary? We usually don't require the producer, for example, to be included with the albums, so are the music video directors in a similar category? I'm not trying to get around doing this work for lists I'm working, it's just that as far as I know this question has never been specifically posed, and I'm not really sure where we (as a project) stand on the issue. Any thoughts? Drewcifer (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What discography? Normally when I find the name of a music video director, I also find information like the year it was created, the album, etc.--Canniba loki 03:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
LCD Soundsystem discography. As far as I can tell sources for the directors besides just don't exist. But like I said, I wasn't asking because of this particular list, I was asking a in broad project-wide sense. Drewcifer (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson albums discography

Hi guys just to let you know we are tying to end an edit dispute here-> Talk:Michael Jackson albums discography#Page Style..... I am post info here as you may want to comment as it pertains to layout.
Please leave a comment Talk:Michael Jackson albums discography#Splitting The Page here thanks for your help!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Pussycat Dolls discography

heya, was wondering if anybody could review the above for FLC and add any comments here? thanks :) Mister sparky (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dinosaur Jr. discography - expert wanted!

Hello! I tagged the Dinosaur Jr. discography as needing an expert - it certainly needs one! The numbers are likely incorrect - I used numbers from but it's clear that some of their songs were established as singles in the UK. Additionally, their footer box seems to be out of date or incorrectly organized. It links to singles articles that have not been created.

Hope someone sees this request and can assist. Thank you very much. mheart (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Discography order

Should discographies (i.e., a "Discography" section in an article about a musician) be in chronological order or reverse-chronological order, or neither? Is there an MoS that addresses this? I've seen past proposals in various talk page archives, but can't find anything that explicitly says "this is a guideline" etc. Thanx, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Releases should be listed in chronological order. This is covered at WP:LOW#Discographies. — ξ xplicit 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Separation of major label/indie releases

Rather than get in an edit war, I thought I'd pose the question here: Should major label and indie label releases be separate lists within a discography? I would think not, and the majority of discographies I checked here bear that out, but one user (and an IP that is likely the same user) keeps reverting my edits along those lines at Gucci Mane discography. Anyone care to weigh in? TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No reason they should be separate like THAT, no. That doesn't even make sense -- "studio" vs. "independent"? Am I missing something here? Now, separating by label specifically I could see, however, especially if the case in question formed their own label. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Classical musicians' discographies

Are there any existing guidelines for discographies of conductors, soloists et al? The guidelines for discographies of pop performers don't lend themselves to classical discographies. I have followed the customary book layout for a recent attempt (Malcolm Sargent discography) but would be much obliged for any guidance members of this project have to offer, as I have another similar discography on the tapis. - Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Blue Öyster Cult discography

Hi. The Wikimedia Foundation received a notice about this discography, over half of the contents which are albums of Jethro Tull. It's been this way since the 9th. I've tagged the accuracy problem on the article but am a bit swamped with copyright work right now. Anyone around, Blue Öyster Cult fan or otherwise, who might be willing to fix this mess? The creator hasn't returned since launching it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone was using the Tull discography as a template and created the new page after adding only the first four BÖC albums. I redirected it to Blue Öyster Cult until someone can put a little more effort into it. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


Help please!! I am working on the discography of Shirley Bassey: I am having problems with an editor who keeps removing my additions. Is there a rule about adding B-side to a singles discography? He removed the B-sides quoting it as not alllowed..... I maust add he has not offered any help and just quotes the 'rule book', which is a great shame as I thought Wikki was about helping people...I see on other discographies that B-sides are listed but want to know what the official line is on this - can anyone help? (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

B-sides are usually kept on the pages for the singles themselves, not included in the discography. See MOS:DISCOG#What should not be included :D --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 01:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Melanie C discography FL candidate

Just to inform any who may be interested, Melanie C discography has been nominated to become a FL. If you want to comment on the article you can post here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Melanie C discography/archive1. Happy editing! Tsange talk 19:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Article on Music recording sales certification

Someone recently added the article Music recording sales certification to the Discographies Project, which I noticed because it is currently on the "Unassessed" list. I'm not sure if adding that article to the project is appropriate given its topic. And how would it be assessed? I would either assess it as "NA" or remove it from the project altogether, but see no need to be so bold because the article might have some use as background info for project work. Comments? DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Certifications is quite relevant to Discographies. I'm not sure why anyone would even question it. You assess it like any other article on the quality scale, currently a Start-class I'd say. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify... it's information that is certainly relevant to discographies, but the article in question is not about a discography itself. That's my concern. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
As Discography. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

FLRC for Smoking Popes discography

I have nominated Smoking Popes discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting opinions concerning Tears for Fears discography

Hello my name is Caden. I'm looking for some feedback from others and I hope some of you can tell me which edit is best. I contacted an admin here [1] over an issue I was having with an IP editor concerning edits on the Tears for Fears discography article. The admin suggested I post here.

Here is the intro version that I believe is good:

The discography of Tears for Fears, a British Synth Pop group, consists of six studio albums, two compilation albums, one live album, and thirty singles. Consisting of Roland Orzabal and Curt Smith, the duo were signed to Polygram Records/Mercury Records in 1982. The group's debut album, The Hurting was released the following year. While the second single, "Mad World" reached #3 on the UK Singles Chart, it was their third single, "Change " that became their first charting single in the United States. Songs from the Big Chair was released in February 1985. The single, "Shout " became the group's first major hit in North America, peaking at #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 and the next single, "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" followed similar suit. Their third studio album, The Seeds of Love was released on Fontana Records in 1989. Its lead single, "Sowing the Seeds of Love" reached the Top 5 in the United Kingdom and also followed similar success in the United States. "Woman in Chains," a collaboration with Oleta Adams was a minor international hit, as was, "Advice for the Young at Heart" and "Famous Last Words." The band's first compilation, Tears Roll Down (Greatest Hits 82-92) was issued in March 1992, and spawned one major hit in the United Kingdom. In 1993, Elemental became Tears for Fear's first studio album in four years. Although it was certified Gold in the United States, the lead single, "Break It Down Again" only reached #25 on the Billboard Hot 100. Raoul and the Kings of Spain was released in 1995, and their most recent album, Everybody Loves a Happy Ending was released in 2004.

Here is the IP's preferred version:

This is the discography of the British rock band Tears for Fears. Formed in 1981 by Roland Orzabal and Curt Smith, the duo signed to Phonogram Records in the UK and released their first single the same year. It wasn't until their third single, "Mad World" (1982), that they scored their first hit, and their platinum-selling debut album The Hurting (1983) was a UK number one. Their second album, Songs from the Big Chair, was released in 1985 and became a worldwide hit, establishing the band in the US. After a third platinum-selling album, The Seeds of Love in 1989, Smith and Orzabal parted company and subsequent Tears For Fears albums Elemental (1993) and Raoul and the Kings of Spain (1995) were effectively solo albums by Orzabal. However, the duo reformed in 2000 for a new studio album, Everybody Loves a Happy Ending, which was released in 2004/05.

Which version is accepatable for a discography? Just so you know, the IP and I were not able to agree as seen here [2] on my talk page. Thanks. Caden cool 14:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried to merge the texts into a new one?--Canniba loki 15:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The IP user's version (or "preferred version" as I'm unsure if they wrote it or not) is the better one because it is more accurate. The intro Caden believes is the better one is riddled with inaccuracies: TFF are not a synth-pop band they are a rock/pop band (Depeche Mode are a synthpop band), they signed in 1981 not 82, Mad World was their third single not second, Change was their fourth single not third, the stuff about the minor singles from The Seeds Of Love is not relevant, etc. I've read the discussions between Caden and the IP user (in the edit summaries and on Caden's talk page) and the IP user asserts that there is too much of an American bias towards Caden's preferred version. Considering TFF are a British band and not American, s/he has a point. Whereas Caden's preferred version is incorrect, there appears to be nothing wrong with the IP user's version. It is concise, the right length for a discography intro, is not filled with unnecessary details but it does includes relevant details that cannot be seen in the discography tables themselves (such as the change of TFF personnel in the 1990s and the reformation of the original line-up in 2000). And above all else - it is 100% accurate. Kookoo Star (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you the IP? Or not? Caden cool 14:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Caden, no I'm not the IP but I do have an extensive knowledge of British pop music. Also, it might have been beneficial (not to mention good faith) for you to have invited the IP user to this discussion so that they can state their opinions. Kookoo Star (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Good faith? Um, I'm sorry but couldn't because the IP uses multiple accounts to edit from and therefore I could not give them a shout. I covered this in my diff above in my original post. On a side-note I disagree with your previous comment in regards to this thread. Thanks anyway. Caden cool 07:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Well you seem to have been able to communicate with each other so far (even though both of you could have shown a little more civility towards each other). I was going to recommend placing a message on the article's talk page directing the IP user (and everyone else) to this discussion but I can see that you did that earlier today. Unfortunately the tone of the message basically continues the incivility and is deliberately misleading because you are trying to paint the other user in a negative light simply because they disagree with you. Whilst I don't necessarily agree with IP editing (it costs nothing to make an account), there is no rule against it. As for my previous comments above, you're entitled to disagree but it still won't make you right - your version is still filled with incorrect information. Perhaps you need to leave this to people who have a greater knowledge of the band than you do. Kookoo Star (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Caden. I think your best bet is to see if you can agree on how to add valuable and pertinent details from your version to the IP's preferred version. I say this because it appears that some of your points are erroneous, and because some of your grammar and punctuation is a little off to be the framework of the lead. However, I think your version has some important elements that the IP ignores, which makes his version worse than yours. For one thing, citing the first UK hit, "Mad World", but not citing the first U.S. hit, "Shout", seems to take a UK-centric tone. And, considering that the U.S. followup, "Everybody..." was equally successful if not more so, it deserves mention as well. Of course their home country success is very relevant for a UK act, but U.S. success is several times more sales, airplay, publishing and concert revenues than demographically comparable success in the UK, and in fact, after their first album, a good portion of their work seems to have been more successful in the U.S. than the UK. The IP version inaccurately spends more text on lesser successes. Chart success is not the end-all, be-all, and of course to the artist, the works are often equal. For the reader, they may know less about the lesser successes, but a fan shouldn't write about lesser successes at the expense of the greater, as if they're making up for the attention the hit received. I'd observe that you don't need to specify every chart peak and every single, particularly lesser ones, but that the IP focuses on albums at the expense of their singles. I would suggest something along the lines of:
This is the discography of the British rock band Tears for Fears. Formed in 1981 by Roland Orzabal and Curt Smith, the duo signed to Phonogram Records in the UK and released their first single the same year. It wasn't until their third single, "Mad World" (1982), that they scored their first hit, and their Platinum-selling debut album The Hurting (1983) was a UK number one. Their second album, Songs from the Big Chair, was released in 1985 and became a worldwide hit, establishing the band in the US on Mercury/Polygram Records with back-to-back number-one Hot 100 singles "Shout" and "Everybody Wants to Rule the World". After a third Platinum-selling album, The Seeds of Love, and its international top-five single "Sowing the Seeds of Love" in 1989, Smith and Orzabal parted company. Subsequent Tears For Fears albums Elemental (1993) and Raoul and the Kings of Spain (1995) were effectively solo albums by Orzabal. However, the duo reformed in 2000 for a new studio album, Everybody Loves a Happy Ending, which was released in 2004/05, returning the band to the UK Top 40 with the single "Closest Thing to Heaven".
Further to the issue of ethnocentric POV (I don't mean that as harshly as it sounds), I note that the singles chronology is based on their UK releases, with "Mothers Talk" preceding the U.S. #1s rather than following them, and suggest that if you're interested in beefing up the information about this band and its singles that you research and add a U.S. singles chronology beneath the UK chronology.
To that point, the discography chart table requires a separate row for the "Mother's Talk" charting in the U.S. as it was a completely different recording of the song that charted in the U.S., and the charting was two years later than the UK charting. As such, it's not technically the same single and so needs its own row, and a footnote for explanation. (And, of course, if the NZ charting was of the U.S. version, that should be moved as well.) Incidentally, I sympathize with you Caden—while anybody can edit, and registration isn't a requirement, IP editors can't expect the same level of discussion and patience as users who are willing to identify themselves as being the same person from one edit to the next. Their work should, however, speak for itself. Abrazame (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What makes a single

Can you please see Lily Allen discography#Singles and share your opinion regarding the inclusion of "Back to the Start". It was a limited release, in one country and only one format. It can't even chart. But the user who has put it insists it belogs there. I, for one, believe it shouldn't be added. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Both the NME and the BBC describe these releases as singles[3] [4]. It also seems to meet the dictionary definition[5]. Needing to chart isn't how a single is defined. --JD554 (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, the point of a discography table is to compare like quantities, and if there was a limited novelty pressing it's disingenuous to give it table columns (specifically, chart columns) none of which could ever be relevant to the single. The information one takes away from a chart table is where and how high a single charted, and if it failed to chart then the presumption is that the single was given a wide release and "shopped" as any other hit but was not a success. Yet in a limited pressing, these singles could have sold more by percentage of the total pressed copies than any number of massive RIAA-certified hits, yet that is not at all what their appearance in that table suggests. I would note that her "Extended Plays" titles are not included in the album discography and indeed don't have superfluous chart placement boxes appending their mention, and that live and compilation albums generally feature in different tables despite being reviewed as and meeting the dictionary definition of an album. The appropriate way to handle these singles would be the same, in a discrete table without regional chart or certification boxes but with a footnote explanation. Abrazame (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know this template?

Does anyone have any idea about what {{Infobox album discography summary/Header}} is for? It's used nowhere... – IbLeo (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't have the slightest idea what that template is for. It was created in 2006, so I'm assuming it went with the now deleted {{Infobox album discography summary}}. Perhaps it can be deleted under {{db-subpage}}? — ξ xplicit 22:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Not in use, probably no-one even knows what it is (I invite a hang on) so I have tagged it with the above. --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 22:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Good work, the template has already been deleted. Thanks. – IbLeo (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! discography

Your help is needed with Now That's What I Call Music! discography. There are 24 countries listed in this discography? I added the Canada banner and Discographies templates the other day when I went through the Category:Canadian discographies. The article doesn't look right to me. However, it may be; I haven't seen many compilation type discographies. Can someone please help? Argolin (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the page, how about a break up into pages by countries? I invite others to discuss the change... --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 22:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Carlos Santana#Discography and Santana discography

Discussion here, comments welcome. Rodhull andemu 19:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Release format

Is there an easy, or at least possible, way to find out the release format for past album and single releases? Ie. CD, digital download etc. Looking at several discographies (including FLs), I don't see these details being referenced, but I don't have a clue how to find this information out. Are people just assuming that most releases nowadays will be on CD and digital download unless there is evidence that, for example, a release was download-only?--Beloved Freak 17:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Recently during the FLC for Interpol discography I had the same debate with a reviewer. If it helps, I've been using as a source on release formats - they list all formats on the page of a particular page. This gets a bit more difficult with download-only releases, as they don't get much mention on the web. Had to remove one of the above band's "singles", as it was a dl-only release. --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 13:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidates

Please participate in the discussions to remove 50 Cent discography and Natasha Bedingfield discography. The links take you directly to the discussions. Thanks! Candyo32 19:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Certification and chart list references

I noted some chaos about reference sources for both, certifications and chart listings of tracks. There are some indirect links when the table header references to some recording industry association. However for instance for german Media Control Chart the data base can not being verified without memberchip. There are alternative sources that are used in some cases, e.g. for german charts. This link seems to be quite frequently used for german chart listing but often messes up the chart tables. Also for certification it would help having some kind of standard links instead of cluttering the table with individual references. I would suggest to move some of the repeated appearing links somehow into the template or creating other standard elements in the template to help editors to standardise the discography tables, without the need to follow long reference link sequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the list at WP:GOODCHARTS? --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 13:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Track listings in discographies

According to WP:NALBUM "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." So if there was an album that failed to meet the GNG for its own article, but still might be notable enough for inclusion on a discography article, would this permit one to include a track listing in a discography? Fezmar9 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

To put this into context a little better, I am specifically referring to Cave In discography. It's currently undergoing FLC reviews, and I'm being rather stubborn about allowing the track listings to be removed. Here is the latest revision containing the track listings from three albums that do not meet the GNG, but are still notable enough for mention in a discography. So imagine they had their own articles, the articles were deleted and then merged with the discography. Does this look too cluttered or messy? Fezmar9 (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can producers get UK/US Chart Certification on their Wiki page?

I'm currently editing a few producers who produced and co-wrote a song, yet the track is credited to the vocalist. Is there any issue with putting the song's Chart Performance on the producer's wiki page? Mendle44 (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering they are part of the composition of the song, I'm going to say include. --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 13:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidelio discography

I think members of this project will need to keep an eye out for the result of this as it might have implications to this project, depending on its outcome.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Result was Speedy Keep, so nothing to worry about. --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 13:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

UK Charts

Okay, for those of you that don't know, the UK Singles Chart considers Record Retailer as the canonical source for singles from March 1960 to 1969. However, there was no "official chart" and other charts existed at the time and had greater followings, NME especially.[6] I propose adding chart performance on the many notable charts from the 60s (and 50s):

I've been working on number-one lists e.g. Record Mirror, Mersey Beat and NME (work in progress). I hope we can be more comprehensive in coverage by also mentioning these other charts where possible. e.g. Take Good Care of My Baby. I'd also propose similar for discographies. Do people agree? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Usher discography peer reviewing

I put down usher's discography for peer reviewing as I want to put it as a candidate for featured list, anyone who has some spare time on their hands, please can you help me by reviewing it, thank you.Rayman95 (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I've listed this at WP:RfD because I feel the prefix is inappropriate. This is not part of the WP:MOS. Jack Merridew 00:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Please forgive me if this has already come up (gimme a link to past discussions, if so), but is there a consensus regarding the notability of mixtapes? Personally I think they are not notable, are used only to hype up an upcoming album release, and most of them are unofficial. Should they be included within artist discographies? I see them popping up frequently, and I see more and more articles devoted to them. - eo (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It would essentially come down to the artist/topic but generally they should not be included; it's to do with notability. Under Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#What should not be included it discusses unreleased material and bootlegs, it formerly mentioned mixtapes specifically but this has since been removed. --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 23:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Was there a specific discussion that led to mixtapes being taken out of the text? If not, could a discussion or consensus be reached on this to make it less vague? My first instinct is to remove mixtapes from discographies but without specific language/style guideline/policy to back it up, there isn't much to stand on, as I'm sure there will always be an editor who insists that mixtapes are notable enough for inclusion in discographies. - eo (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
personally, i always remove them, as i agree with eric's reasons above. Mister sparky (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
A mixtape would have to be pretty damned notable to be written about in what I'd call reliable sources. For me, it has as much to do with verifiability as notability. What I see (and it's my own fault for loitering on rappers' pages) is a bunch of names being plunked down under the heading "Mixtapes", invariably unreferenced, but when there is a reference, it goes to some hip-hop blog or hot-rapper-gossip-scene-download-and-listen-NOW site. In that sense, mixtapes represent some list of random strings of words alleged to comprise a title. If I were going to vandalize WP I'd start adding bogus phrases to rappers' discographies.
It would be great to see a wider consensus here to keep these things out. Anyway, I'd like to see "mixtapes" put back in the What should not be included section. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed some more mixtapes yesterday. Any further word on this? Is there an interest in getting the verbiage put back into the guideline? - eo (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Rock on the Net

Does anyone know where, if ever, has been proved reliable? It's being questioned at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Hard Rock Performance/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga discography FLC

The FLC for Lady Gaga discography has been running on for quite awhile now with not many comments. If anybody could take the time to leave comments, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. –Chase (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Horizontal vs. vertical code in discographies

I'd say 99% of discography pages use this method [7], which in my opinion makes it much easier for the editor to modify, however this method [8] was implemented here as a vandalism deterrent. Is there a consensus on how this should be handled? The output is the same, obviously. Does anyone even care? - eo (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that Gimmetoo has a decent argument in favor of horizontal. One of the things that always frustrates me in a discography article is trying to identify which figure has been changed in an edit, and the horizontal layout helps that. It also groups all the figures from one song together, which I could see would be a little easier to work with. Strikes me as one of those "leave it alone" issues. I wouldn't start a campaign to do it all over, but I wouldn't start a campaign to remove it either.—Kww(talk) 14:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand his reason for horizontal also. I bring it up because if his version is seen by a consensus to be more beneficial, then perhaps many more, if not all, discographies be should modified for the same vandalism-prevention reason. Surely JLo's discog page is not the only one heavily vandalized. If there was one, agreed-upon way of doing things, it would (I hope) prevent any future reverts and undos, that's all. - eo (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Or, consistent with WP:ENGVAR (and direct statements about some disputes like Wikipedia:CITE#Citation templates and tools), everyone could respect the established styles of articles and leave them alone absent genuine consensus to change them, not have small discussions in obscure Wikiproject pages (or worse, user talk pages or IRC) to "decide" what automatic, often buggy, scripted changes to make to thousands of articles until the next group of editors "decide" to make a different set of arbitrary changes. It would be nice if a MOS discussion resolved things, but in practice it doesn't seem to. For instance, "date delinking" had something like a year of discussion on a main MOS page and what appeared to many as a consensus of a lot of editors, but that didn't prevent "reverts and undos" and a lot of fuss. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Why so contentious? I'm not sure what point(s) you're trying to make, but I'm reading a bit of snarkiness in your reply, which I don't understand. It seems that you want people to respect established styles of articles, implying that you suggest nothing be changed anywhere ever. Then it seems that you'll accept change, but only when there's genuine consensus. But I don't see how genuine consensus can be developed or identified if you forbid discussions. I get the impression you're fundamentally against and centralized style or content guidelines, and would just like to do things your way. Is that a accurate reading of your position? (I think it must not be, but I can't see a plausible alternate conclusion.) Please correct me. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Horizontal method used throughout IMO, contrary to the 99% which use vertical. Much easier to see vandalism (as well as simply understand a previous edit). --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 01:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd never thought of going horizontal, since (a) all the articles I've ever edited were vertical and (b) I have no imagination. It even took me a while to perceive the benefits of the horizontal format. Calling it a "vandalism deterrent" is a bit misleading; I'd be surprised if any vandals were deterred. But since neither vandals nor experienced editors are reliable about mentioning which song is now #3 in Finland (which they usually won't mention either), the checking of edits is a real PITA.
I've just tried adding the horizontal form to a couple of large-table, active-artist pages I work on. It's too early to tell how it'll go over, with me or other editors, but it could help.
I don't think we ought to change all articles, as too many people would hate it, for too little gain. I think horizontal is okay to leave when found, and I expect I might add try converting certain articles to horizontal in the future. Of course, when I do that, I'll be sure to provide a clear edit summary of my intention, which eo may well have missed from Gimmetrow on Jennifer Lopez discography. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
For the record, he said that horizontal was "needed here" [9] but did not explain why until he undid my undo [10]. That's why I asked my original question here. - eo (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
John I don't think it was as much deterring vandalism as making vandalism easier to see by other users. --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 03:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Mauboy discography

I have nominated Jessica Mauboy discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Album titles bolded in discographies

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: Moving the discussion to WT:DISCOGSTYLE since it's likely more relevant there. Please continue the discussion there and do not contribute here further. –Chase (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nadia Ali Discography

I have updated the discography for Nadia Ali, could someone please review that? Also, if someone here is involved in the WikiProject Album and Songs, could you please have a look at Crash and Burn, Love Story, Fine Print, Fantasy and Embers and provide me with feedback. Hassan514 (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Stand-alone requirements for discographies?

At the FLRC for the Jessica Mauboy discography, I brought up that I felt that the artist's contributions weren't large enough that her discography warranted its own article. As it seems that many discography writers objected to this, I felt I should ask here– what is the criteria for a discography article to be separated from the artist's main article? Nomader (Talk) 02:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem redirecting "small" discographies back to the artist's page. A spin-off article is really supposed to happen when the original page becomes "too large". Personally, I think an artist needs to have at least two albums to justify a separate discog page, however a lot of artists have a trillion charting singles and another hundred songs on which they are "featured" before their debut album even comes out (i.e. Kesha, Nicki Minaj). I don't think that there is anything set in stone. It depends on the artist, how long their article is, how notable they are, etc. If I see a discog page with one album and three singles, I merge and redirect. - eo (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Linkin Park discography

I have added Linkin Park discography for peer review. If someone can check the list and see if anything wrong it would help. Thanks --Neo139 (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Santana discography

Check Santana discography, who is also on the peer review list. Thanks-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Music videos


I have a question: are there any sites, which shows all informations about the music video, i.e. director, producer, acts, cinematographs, make-up-artists,...? Thanks-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC) generally includes most of that information, but some editors don't like that site as it's generally not accessible to people outside the US. –Chase (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No Angels discography FLC

The nominator for the FLC has been blocked indefinitely, another person may wish to come in and address any comments regarding this FLC. Afro (Talk) 07:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatś wrong with the Blind Guardian discography?

The discography of Blind Guardian is rated low. Two questions:

a) What is wrong with it? b) What needs to be done top make it of the highest class possible?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deine mutti (talkcontribs) 21:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a surprisingly interesting question. The article in question is Blind Guardian discography, which, I notice before actually reading any of the content, has its own unique table style. It also shows 19 different charts in its Albums table, far more than the limit of 10 preferred for discographies.
The article is currently a Start-class article for this WikiProject (it's of List class in the WikiProject Metal). I checked the Quality scale and saw that Start means (among other things) "The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing." Well, the current version has lotsa refs.
Drewcifer3000 was the one who called it "Start", in May 2008. Drewcifer3000 appears not to be around to ask directly, but no matter. In May 2008, the article looked like this. Look ma! No references!
Mostly, I think it just needs reassessment, as it looks like about a "C" to me. It needs some charts pruned out of it, and a whole lot of styling work. What else it may need for a higher class may be seen by studying the Quality scale, which I'll leave to you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
There's actually several problems.
  • The lead needs to describe the releases in detail and be an overview of the list per WP:LEAD. An example of a proper lead for a discography could be seen in Eminem discography (which, at 5 paragraphs, is longer than the 4 paragraph maximum, but you get my point) or Lady Gaga discography. Both of these discography articles are featured list class, the highest possible quality class an article in this project could get.
  • Tables contradict our style guidelines. Use the tables at WP:DISCOGSTYLE.
  • Studio album table has far too many charts. Cut it down to a number closer to our recommended 10.
  • None of the references are properly formatted.
Fix these issues and the list should be closer to FL standards. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for assessment: Phish discography

I'm requesting an assessment of Phish discography. The class was recently changed from C to Stub. I'm convinced that the discography is not a Stub. I don't have a very strong opinion beyond that, although I'm inclined to think that C is about right. Thanks. Mudwater (Talk) 14:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to GreatOrangePumpkin for reconsidering his Stub assessment of the discography and changing it to Start. If anyone else has an opinion on the rating, please post it here, but I'm good for now, as long as it's not Stub. Mudwater (Talk) 11:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Discography in the main article

I am not sure where the guidance on what albums should be included in the main article on a band's article. Is the discography section of the main article only to include studio albums, or can studio-produced compilcation albums allowed? (The article in question: adding Death to False Metal to Weezer) Angryapathy (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be best to include the compilation album in the Discography section of the main Weezer article, with a brief annotation such as "(Compilation)" or "(Compilation album)". Mudwater (Talk) 11:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinion. I created "Studio Album" and "Compilation Album" subheadings in the discography section, and started a thread in the talk page for any discussion about the issue. Angryapathy (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna discography at WP:FLRC

I have nominated Rihanna discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Green Day Discography

I have noticed on the Green Day discopgraphy article that many of my recent edits have been removed. The edit that I was most frustrated about was the singles section being reduced to just 10 country charts, which included the removal the band's chart positions on Canada's Alternative chart. I'm upset about this because this was one of the charts which the band had their most successful peak positions, including several #1 and #2 hits. I feel it should be shown on the article to recognize the band's large success in Canada. I'd appreciate an explanatory response as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Girls Aloud discography at WP:FLRC

I have nominated Girls Aloud discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --JN466 09:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Discography vandalism

An IP to keep an eye on: [11] (currently blocked for a month). Changes chart positions in discographies to random numbers. Cheers, --JN466 09:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox song list

Template:Infobox song list has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox artist discography. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Santana discography


I appended Santana discography for featured list nomination. Feel free to contribute to this nomination. Thank you. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for new infobox: POSTHUMOUS ALBUM

There has been some talk that this project should clearly see and be involved in - it has led to a proposal of sorts for a new category called "POSTHUMOUS" for the Template:Infobox album ... Pls see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Posthumous albums: Studio vs Compilation.Moxy (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin discography


I appended Led Zeppelin discography for peer review. Feel free to comment to this review. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)