This category is an absolute mess all the p*p artists need to be removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.75.55 (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if this has been touched upon before or is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia but I wanted to bring up something that's been bugging me for many months. I don't believe that Allmusic should be considered a wholly reliable source for discographical information—at least, it shouldn't be used as a definitive source. Just today, I reverted a large expansion of the discography section in the Howlin' Wolf article by a user who had cited Allmusic, Amazon.com and CD Universe as his sources for this expansion. The trouble is that his expansion included lots of erroneous release dates, incorrect record labels, and even fictitious album titles...all copied verbatim from Allmusic, Amazon etc.

Commercial sites like Amazon and CD Universe are obviously only concerned with listing currently available product and so an album—especially an older album—will be listed in its currently available edition and as such, will only be listed with the release date or record label of the modern reissue which is often totally different to the album's original release. Now, I'm not sure whether internet vendor sites like Amazon or CD Universe should even be considered as a reliable source for discographies (I couldn't see anything that expressly forbade the use of Amazon et al) but I'm guessing that they're not, in which case no problem. However, Allmusic—who are most certainly considered a reliable source—repeat many of the same discographical mistakes that the online vendors do, often confusing an album's release year and record label with its modern reissue and in some instances, even listing completely fictitious albums!

Now, I know that's a strong allegation to throw out regarding a trusted source like Allmusic, and I want to make it clear that I'm not questioning Allmusic's standing as a reliable source for factual information about songs, albums, Billboard chart positions, industry awards or album production credits, just their standing as a reliable source for discographical information. I'm repeatedly impressed with the factual accuracy found in the majority of Allmusic's content but their artist/band discographies are appallingly bad IMO.

Now, I'm sure that most Wikipedians here refer to multiple reliable sources in their quest to acquire accurate discographical information but while Allmusic is listed as a reliable source for discographies, it means that other, less discerning editors, can take Allmusic as gospel and pretty much copy & paste from Allmusic straight into Wikipedia articles. I can, of course, provide multiple examples of Allmusic's discographical inaccuracies if that is required, but I'm betting that I'm not the first person here to notice this about Allmusic.com. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fictitious releases? I'm quite impressed by that. Do you have examples? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 22:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can provide examples but I would stress that fictitious album's are rare on Allmusic and usually (although not always) found in the compilation albums section. It's much more common to see incorrect release dates or record labels than fictitious albums on Allmusic.

Anyway, my first example is from The Byrds' compilations discography (see here). The very first entry is an album supposedly released in 1964 by Columbia Records with the title Early Byrds (catalogue number 18515). I can tell you categorically that there is no such album as Early Byrds and even if there were, it would not have been released in 1964, since the band didn't start recording for Columbia until 1965. This Allmusic entry is, I'm guessing, referring to one of the three compilations of Byrds rehearsal recordings dating from 1964 that have been released on the Preflyte, The Preflyte Sessions and In the Beginning albums. However, none of these three albums were released in 1964 or by Columbia Records, and there never was an album with the title Early Byrds. Staying with The Byrds, Allmusic also lists an album supposedly released in 1969 called Early Flight (Jet Set) on Together Records, which is obviously referring to the Preflyte album but the fact remains, there is no album named Early Flight (Jet Set). There are many other date/record label inaccuracies in Allmusic's Byrds discography but those are the fictitious albums.

Some other examples of albums that don't exist are as follows: a Bob Dylan compilation released in 1992 on Germany's PBA label titled Bob Dylan (see here), a 1993 Bob Dylan compilation called Greatest Songs (see here), a Brewer & Shipley album from 1978 called Not Far from Free (see here), a 1992 Crosby, Stills and Nash compilation album titled The Very Best of Crosby, Stills and Nash (see here), and a 1984 compilation album by Gram Parsons called Melodies (see here). This last album is an error that I assume arose from confusion with the 1979 Gene Parsons' album Melodies, which was re-issued by Sundown Records in 1984. Anyway, these are just a few examples of non-existent albums that I've come across in recent months, but I'm sure that there are many more.

Something I should say, however, is that you often see Allmusic's mistakes repeated on other websites such as winamp.com, mog.com and even billboard.com. I assume that this is because Allmusic licenses their content to these sites. So, if you Google any of the examples I've given, you might see other websites mentioning these albums too, but a click on any of these search results will reveal the same lack of info as Allmusic regarding these non-existent albums. Of course, if I've made a mistake and some of these albums do indeed exist, I apologise and I'll gladly stand corrected, but I don't believe that they do.

While we're on the subject, I'd also like to point out a few examples of incomplete or misleading discographies: H. P. Lovecrafts's second album H. P. Lovecraft II is missing from their discography (see here); Ride's main album discography lists Live Light, which is a bootleg (albeit one the band tolerated) and not an official album (see here); the main Bert Jansch album discography fails to list his second album It Don't Bother Me, instead listing it as a compilation (see here and here), and on Stephen Duffy's discography page there's an entirely fictitious 1995 album titled Kiss Me and his debut album, The Ups and Downs, is listed twice: once for its original 1985 release and again in 2008 for its expanded CD reissue (see here).

Something else I forgot to say in my initial post is that Allmusic's singles discographies are often even worse and more incomplete than their album discographies are! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I always thought their discographies were a mess. Maybe it's because I listen to more obscure stuff, I dunno. But look at Yellow Magic Orchestra's discography "main albums":

• Three albums are compilations
• Record labels are incorrect for all but one album - it's more like "whatever label we found the album on" rather than what they were originally released on, and even if that were the case their albums were never released by Pioneer, or Avex Trax per se (Commmons and Avex Trax are both unrelated labels of the Avex Group)
• One studio album is absent (Naughty Boys)
• X∞Multiplies is listed twice, once with the incorrect date and using the Japanese title (it is a rather confusing issue though, as there is a Japanese EP and several export market A&M-issued LP compilations that all go by the same English name, but I digress)
• The 2009 "album" "Encore" is a bootleg!

Also, all singles from the band's original run (1978-1983) are not listed, not even US releases. The Compilations section is a similar disaster. --Zilog Jones (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

For discographies which I have worked on in the past, I have found that Allmusic is not reliable enough to be used as a source, but can be used as a general reference for a discography. A couple of uses are The Prodigy discography#References and Interpol discography#References. Don't know if this helps. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 13:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am no iconoclast, but not only have I found absolutely false information on Allmusic.com and could add a couple more titles of fictitious releases by major artists that appear as if they exist on Allmusic, as well as vast omissions of data (such as not all singles or albums releases that are extant and that have charted be listed as such) but I will go so far as to say I have found both the old and new (unpaid) Billboard.com and the RIAA.com sites sorely lacking, with erroneous dates, incomplete data and more. This is particularly troubling, as of course those are primary sources. I'm afraid to say that there is no definitive site and as we move toward a more commercialized web, there is less likely to be one, as various data sources consider their archives proprietary. (I know, I sound like an open-source, Burning-man anarchist Libertarian.) Of course we can't say that someone can't use these sources, yet how do we prove the negative in those instances where there is a fictitious claim? Some will argue that without a reliable source refuting the claim, the strongest evidence is the supposedly professional and popularly perceived as authoritative source. In a few instances I have privileged first-party information regarding the genesis of the fictitious releases (which does me no good here from the standpoint of third-party RS) and in other instances I have no idea how something came to be claimed. (With regard to the supposed German Dylan release I would note that German copyright law is egregiously lax, and German companies get away with things that few other so-called first-world countries' companies could, although I will speculate that an artist of Dylan's stature and resources may have learned of an unauthorized release that was officially announced and marketed, and had his people put a stop to it before it could actually be released.)

I'll also confirm what was said regarding the mirroring of some biographical and release content (as well, of course, as charting content) between Billboard.com and Allmusic, which compounds the problem, as it may seem to the casual editor or reader that two so seemingly authoritative sites are independently confirming something.

It's hard to say what we should do about policy regarding this, but I just wanted to add to the confirmation of the points raised by the previous posters in this thread. Abrazame (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic must be verified before using it as a reference, however, it is my opinion that it should remain as a source. The last time I checked, the staff at allmusic amounted to about 50 people, not enough to keep up with their task. There is a sizeable amount of incorrect information and also a lack of information where works have not been uploaded into their database. Artists, or labels can send in works, and that speeds up the addition of those works to their database. Allmusic also have a feature by which corrections -using a good reference source for the corrected information- can be sent in online. If an allmusic reference is needed, and their info is incorrect for the reference, the info can be corrected through that feature prior to using the reference. Doc2234 (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've proposed splitting this guideline, and have opened an RFC: Wikipedia talk:Record charts/RFC.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I extend this invitation to any project members interested in working on Grammy articles/lists. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an alert about a bogus entry. This article needs to be removed as soon as possible. This article is blatantly incorrect. It seems to be written by someone who is making up "facts". Although the structure looks impressive, the discography is not remotely correct. The actual discography contains almost 2 times as many albums as listed. Their are singles listed that are in fact albums. I am not an expert and to not have the resources to edit. Samuel Chorneau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bchorneau (talk • contribs) 10:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have nominated the page Wale discography for featured list a few days ago. Maybe some people can leave comments on it? Thanks

Michael Jester (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked through the archives to see if this was covered, but what is the status on the "Extended Versions" albums? I'm gathering that they seem to only be released through Wal-Mart, but I've noticed they don't seem to be in any discographies that I noticed. I saw a few of them with articles, but they seemed to be fairly old (5 years or so). Is it that they should be added to discographies, but haven't simply because it hasn't been "gotten around to yet"? Or is there a consensus that I couldn't locate regarding them not being placed on the lists? DurinsBane87 (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you editors feel about "List of ARTIST songs" articles in addition to discographies? Case in matter, List of Kate Bush songs, where there is already Kate Bush discography. I don't see many of them, but if one is notable, so is every other. Any thoughts? --Muhandes (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Are there any Alanis' fans out there or at least people that might help? I'm re-writing her discography (you can see what I've done so far on my personal page) and I've been wondering how to classify her non-studio albums. For instance, MTV Unplugged is by default a live album, which makes it go to live albums section. The Collection is a compilation album. But how about Feast on Scraps, iTunes Originals and Jagged Little Pill Acoustic? FoS is a double album (CD/DVD), CD consists of songs that were not included in Under Rug Swept, and a DVD is a full live show. Jagged Acoustic is an album released at oroginal Jagged Little Pill's 10th anniversary. And I have no idea what iTunes Originals is and if it's neccessary to include in discography section at all. -- Cannot (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've done some more on Nadia Ali's discography and was wondering if anyone can go through it and help me improve it from it current C-Class rating to a FL. Hassan514 (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am developing the discographies of two record producers, and I am interested in finding a Feature List template from which to build my pages. The only producer's list that I have seen is the Quincy Jones discography. The other list that may be applicable is for the label Willowtip Records discography. The discographies that I am working on have a sizeable number of entries. One contains over 200 entries. Is there a Good or Feature List producer's discography that I can use as an example? Doc2234 (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello all the members of the discographies wikiproject. Currently I have K-Ci & JoJo discography as a featured list candidate. However, its been a long time and not many people have made comments on it. I would appreciate it if any members could check it out.
—Michael Jester (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

From the looks of it, not much people have been very active with the project. Is a membership cleanup needed? — Status {^talk_contribs 10:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My understanding has been that the certifications marked mastertone at (e.g.) RIAA apply only to downloadable ringtones for mobile phones and therefore are not relevant to sales/shipments certifications for singles that we show in our discographies. I have reverted a few well-intentioned edits based on this understanding I have. For example

• RIAA – Searchable Database: Smack That; It seems (to me) that "Smack That" is only double-platinum as a digital single; the 3× Platinum is for mastertone only.
• RIAA – Searchable Database: Fireman; RIAA shows gold for digital song only, platinum is for the ringtone.
• RIAA – Searchable Database: Chamillionaire; the song "Ridin'" is gold as a digital single, it's only as a mastertone that it's (yow!) 4× Platinum.

Have I gotten the wrong impression here? I figure that even if the entire song is downloaded as a mastertone, the user doesn't listen to the whole thing when their phone rings (except when they're behind me in the dang bus). Only the certs of type "digital" or "standard" count for us. What do you think? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have to think that only digital and standard (oh, and don't forget about Latin) certifications should be in discogs.
Michael Jester (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, and this should apply not only to discogs but also to other articles. I think ringtone certification is borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I am not saying that in extreme cases it could not become notable, but I have yet to have seen a single such case. --Muhandes (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject! I just wanted to let everyone know that Eric B. & Rakim discography has been nominated for featured list. All comments are welcome.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 07:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

How should discographies be when artists receive Latin certifications from the RIAA or when an album receives both a Latin and a standard certification be? Only when the Latin Albums chart is used or if it still charted on the Billboard 200? I'm asking this question in regards to bilingual artists such as Enrique Iglesias, Ricky Martin, and Shakira. Erick (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe whichever certification gives the higher amount of shipments should be used. For example, in Shakria's discography Fijación Oral Vol. 1 is certified 2x platinum (regular) and 11x platinum (Latin). If I remember correctly, a Latin platinum certification is 100,000 shipments. In this case, the 2x should be used because 2,000,000 copies are greater than 1,100,000.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

So, using Glora Estefan's Mi Tierra as an example, we would use 16x Disco de Platino over 1x Platinum since 16x marks 1,600,000 shipments sent over 1,000,000, rigth? And if only a Latin certification is given like Enrique Iglesias's album, Euphoria, can that be used? Erick (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes for both. Just as long as you clarify if a certification is Latin.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 22:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Thank you for your input. Erick (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

So we should only use the higher number? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It makes sense, because all the RIAA is doing is reporting a number. Referring back to Shakira's discography, it seems unnecessary to say "album name was reported to have 1,100,000 shipments and 2,000,000 shipments."
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one question I forgot to ask. What if the value is same for both certifications? Selena's Amor Prohibido was certified 2x Platinum and 20x Disco de Platino for shipments of 2 millions units and there other Latin albums that have been certified gold and 5x Disco de Platino. I'm guessing the standard is the preference to use? EDIT: I think this should be a guideline on Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style for future reference so that other editors will be aware. Erick (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

For the first, I'd assume it's the editor's preference. For the second, I will add it. Thank you for the questions.
—Michael Jester (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, editor preference. And like many discussions in this page, it should apply to the album article, not only to the discography article. My preference would be to use the standard certification since it is more well known and requires less explanation. But if another editor prefers to list the Latin one I don't object. --Muhandes (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Go check out the addition to WP:DISCOGSTYLE and see what you think.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 10:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoops looks like there's an error, Fijacion Oral didn't get double platinum it was only platinum (standard) according to the RIAA website. XD Erick (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Madonna albums 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Are songwriting credit tables allowed in discographies? Oz ^talk 07:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, can anybody help me out Talk:Paloma Faith discography#LP? I believe all formats of an album should be listed, but the information keeps being removed, mostly without edit summaries. The only one I got stated that LP's shouldn't be mentioned, just CD and digital download. - JuneGloom Talk 14:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Pursuant a suggestion, a discographies section has been added to the list of requested articles under music related topics. Please help populate this section with needed requests and of course, consider creating a discography from the list. Thank you. My76Strat (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Load Records 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. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 21:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed a significant number of discographies tagged with this project's banner that are rated with an article classification. As a discography fits the criteria for list inclusion, they should be classified as List-Class or FL-Class. It is hopeful that this project can assist with improving this condition. Thank you - My76Strat (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they should be List-class where the page is mostly made up of tables, which is usually the case for discographies. Prose-based pages such as Music of Final Fantasy IV should remain assessed as articles. --Jameboy (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Tomcat7 believes that List-class is incorrect, but sadly was not willing to discuss it here, which is a shame. See User talk:Tomcat7/2012/July#Art Garfunkel discography. --Jameboy (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Willowtip Records 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. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

We have put the Dan Leno discography up for peer review here. We would like to improve this to FL and would be grateful for any and all comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please could someone explain the approach to article assessments here? I would have thought that discographies that are mainly composed of a series of tables (i.e. most of them) should be assessed as List-class (or FL-class for those that have passed FL review). However there are many B, C and Start articles here, which is confusing. Could somebody explain why, for example, Aerosmith discography is rated C-class by this project but List-class by all other projects? Or is this simply something that is being slowly fixed over time, in which case I'd be happy to assist. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I failed to spot that another editor made a very similar point already (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discographies#Classification_and_categorization) --Jameboy (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rod Stewart discography article has been vandalized so many times that it's difficult to find the last good version and the current chart positions can no longer be trusted. I corrected the US chart positions but I don't have any reference books for the others. If someone has the time the article probably needs a complete overhaul. Piriczki (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The My Bloody Valentine discography failed the FLC nomination a few weeks back and has been updated a considerable amount since. If someone from here could drop by the peer review and help out it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Idiotchalk 04:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I added a picture of an album to a discography where there was an Image requested tag, see The Wallflowers discography. Obviously an album cover is a copyrighted images but they are allowed on the page about that album under Non-free use rationale. Is NUR also valid for a discography page or is the only logical image for such a page that of the artist/band?--Traveler100 (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Dischord Records 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. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it explicitly stated anywhere, or is there a previous consensus on a project page, stating that if a song was only released as a music video that doesn't make it a single? If not, could we open up that discussion now? Fezmar9 (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, could someone please comment at Talk:Sleigh Bells discography? Thanks. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking I would say that a track needs to be released for sale as the lead track from a single to be considered 'a single'. There are of course promotional-only singles, and individual tracks pushed by record companies to promote albums, but these should be treated differently. Non-physical releases muddy the water somewhat but not every track that has an associated video is a single. --Michig (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Pink 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. Till 16:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

How do we define a 'single' in this post-physical day and age? Is it any song from an album released in advance of the album's release? Is it any song from an alabum that has a music video produced for it? Is it any song from an album that seems to be notably pushed forward in some promotional way (like being offered up for a remix competition or somesuch?) Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Most singles are still released in physical form, so those are easy cases. I can think of albums where there was a video for every track, so that isn't enough to make them singles. An album track made available for free download or pushed on radio stations? I wouldn't call those singles. A digital-only release, i.e. a non-album track released as a digital single - I would say that is a single. Maybe this can be summarized as a track or group of tracks either released physically (whether for sale or promotionally) or released for sale digitally indepenedently of any album that they appear on. --Michig (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Most singles are still released in physical form ..." Hmm, maybe that's true in mainstream music (I wouldn't know tbh, though my impression was that digital sales had taken over almost completely in that area), but it's certainly not the case with independent/underground music. What prompted me to ask this question is that a lot of the underground hip-hop articles that I contribute discographical information to have listings of singles up to around 2004/5 and then it just dries up completely, as though the concept of a single is extinct for that kind of music. And you might argue that it is. But people still talk about underground hip-hop singles. See for instance: http://www.2dopeboyz.com/2012/06/26/sole-young-sole/, http://www.urb.com/2011/12/19/b-dolans-film-the-police-goes-viral/, http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/the-full-retard-single/id520432570. And then there's a case like this, where a track from an upcoming album is released as its own release with multiple versions of the track: http://www.mushrecords.com/release/MH075.php Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said that most singles are released in physical form as well as in digital form. On those links you provided, the Sole one appears to just be a 'track' (at least going solely by that page - no pun intended), the second is described as a single by URB but I would disagree - it's a Youtube video and free download, the iTunes one is a track released for sale before the album came out, so I think that could be called a single, and the mush one is different tracks to those on the album, again for sale, so I'd also call that a single. You are right that for underground artists digital download is becoming the format of choice - I ran a record label and it's almost impossible to break even putting things out on vinyl due to the costs associated with small runs - CD is another matter as you can burn CD-Rs according to demand (much like the old cassette labels). The flipside of that is that with sites like Youtube, soundcloud, etc., there are thousands of people putting recordings of themselves playing music up on the web, and we wouldn't realistcally describe them all as singles. --Michig (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the monetary issue really crucial though? Because it's the only difference between the El-P track and the Sole track. Both were released in advance of the albums--the former by a month or so, the latter by about five months--for essentially promotional purposes. And promotion is really the main reason that you release lead singles in advance of the albums. It seems like this is a hard question to answer. My gut feeling (and what would determine whether I'd be inclined to personally refer to a song as a single) is based on whether the song has some clear existence independent of the album it featured on. But that's sort of the point I started out on... The Wiki definition of single (music) states: "In most cases, the single is a song that is released separately from an album, but it usually appears on an album. Often, these are the most popular songs from albums that are released separately for promotional uses such as commercial radio airplay". This is fine in an era of physical releases, but in the increasingly common case of albums that are only or primarily released digitally (where most people buy them from Bandcamp or iTunes), it makes nonsense of the concept of being "released separately", except in the case of lead singles. Because if the entire album is up on iTunes or Bandcamp, then anybody can download any individual track that they want without buying the whole album. Can a non-physical single exist after the non-physicial album has been released? The Wiki definitoion then goes on: "in other cases a recording released as a single does not appear on an album." But what does that mean for digital singles? Some musicians are constantly uploading new songs to Soundcloud, for instance, and these may be unconnected to any upcoming album - are these all digital singles? Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say they are not, but that's just my opinion. The single was originally a two-sided piece of vinyl with one track on each side. A lot of the time these days we are dealing with individual tracks downloaded from the internet. I think we need to treat these for what they are rather than try to relate them back to historical physical formats, but we're restricted here by what external sources do and say. --Michig (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The transition from physical to digital media has rendered the concepts of 'album single' and 'non-album single' ambiguous and problematic in different ways (ie: as above - what does it mean to 'release a single' after the album is already out? And is any non-album track uploaded to Soundcloud technically a 'non-album single'?). I would just add this to my point above: once an album has been released digitally, there actually is a very strong, identifiable relationship between which songs are subsequently considered 'singles' (or which serve the purpose that singles historically have) and which songs have music videos produced for them. To stick with Sole, his last album Hello Cruel World had no physical single releases, but five music videos were produced, and it was these five tracks that (of course) had been chosen to serve the purpose of promoting the album. The first of these, the title track, was a digital-only lead single that satisfies the same criteria as the Bigg Jus single, linked above, of clearly being its own thing, with its own separate track listing and exclusive material (https://www.circleintosquare.com/item/hello-cruel-world-single#.UHNEy1HtHKo). The four subsequent 'singles' (in order: "Immortality", "Napoleon", "Bad Captain Swag", "D.I.Y.") were 'released' after the album had come out, and of course there was no separate release, since anybody who saw the video and liked the song could then just go and download that track from iTunes or wherever. It seems like we can identify what a lead single is, but the concept of a single from an album that follows the release of an album seems incoherent now. Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I was recently part of a discussion over the difference between a single and a music video. The conversation started at Talk:Sleigh Bells discography, but because it clearly wouldn't end, was taken to WP:DRN which is now archived at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 49#Talk:Sleigh Bells discography. The result of the discussion was that singles and music videos are two separate, though sometimes related, entities. One person at the DRN suggested that belief that singles and music videos are the same thing bordered on a fringe theory. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"but it's certainly not the case with independent/underground music." That's absolutely incorrect. A lot of indie label artists release singles, typically on vinyl. My e-mail inbox is filled with press releases for forthcoming singles from indie label bands. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what I said was "certainly not the case with independent/underground music" was that "most singles are still released in physical form". Most singles are certainly not. Relatively few underground artists release physical singles now (compared with ten years ago), because, as Michig said, it's almost impossible for them to break even. I didn't claim physical singles are totally extinct. You'll also notice I'm focusing on underground hip-hop; I'm aware there are other underground genres for which physical singles haven't died out to the same extent (ambient, post-rock, etc, though there has still been a massive decline all-round). Wetdogmeat (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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. Till 16:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Discography disambiguation pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Ashley Tisdale 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. Till 08:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Foo Fighters 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. Till 08:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Discographies. I wondered if this should be changed to "denotes a recording has not charted or been released in that territory" since it is used for upcoming releases, or it's possible in some cases that a single could be released in future in places it has not been, or could chart in the future, perhaps owing to digital downloads of a rediscovered song. But especially for upcoming releases or singles that have just been released, or charted in some countries but not yet released in others. I know in the majority of cases, this will not be the case, and it wouldn't imply that the song will chart or be released, but the wording now implies that it will not, though in some cases it will. What do you think of that? –anemoneprojectors– 16:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Till 01:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated List of unreleased Britney Spears songs 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. Till 00:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Jessica Simpson 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. Till 01:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Sophie Ellis-Bextor 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. Till 01:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Powderfinger 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.

Would information like this (a recording artist sort of hinting through Twitter of a new album) support making a "TBA" entry in the artist's discography article/section like here? While it's not entirely unverifiable speculation, it doesnt seem clear enough, right? Dan56 (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No. 'TBA' should never appear in a discography, given that a discography contains details of 'discs' (or downloads). A 'TBA' may or may not ever appear. It's of no use to the discography. What's more, every artist or band that hasn't retired or split up will generally have a 'TBA' that will appear at some point in the future - it's of no use to the reader to add this. It would, however, be worth mentioning within an article about an artist that a new album is scheduled if it has been announced (and can be properly sourced). --Michig (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing similarly in a record label's disc list, like at La-La Land Records there shouldn't be discs that only have one single bit of info, no release date or catalog number, etc? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Just needed a point of reference for the editor who made the revision. I incorporated the source in the article's prose instead. Dan56 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Could you please review the discography that I am working on here. A problem that I am encountering is getting the RIAA links to direct to the information that proves gold and platinum status. Their program used to preserve specific links in the url, and now it doesn't seem to do that anymore. Also, could you advise on how many references I need to put in place at this point in order to upload to live status without having the article suffer through the process. Possibly you could place cn tags where you feel that citations would be needed. I have spent a lot of time on this. Much more proof of Resta's involvement is available at Discogs, however, I haven't quite goten to putting all of those references in yet. I have found an image, and I am working on that. Thanks for any help you may be able to offer. Doc2234 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Discographers! Nothing formal... at least yet... but I thought I'd throw this idea out there and see how it comes out. I'm sure most of you have noticed the changes of chart positions, peaks, etc. in discography articles with no explanation. A lot of the times, they appear to be inflation (or deflation in some cases), which I'd say maybe 25% of the time they are. In addition, I'm sure Kww (talk · contribs) can vouch more than anyone the amount of times a peak position is updated, without the source being. With that being said, I think a great idea would be to include an edit notice stating that if you update a position, make sure that the source matches said claim and that an edit summary is provided explaining what has been done. Clearly, there are a lot of discographies, but maybe we could just focus on the ones in which this is seen a lot. Or maybe just apply it to the featured lists - as I've seen many become inflated over several years, and then nominated for FLR because of housing incorrect information. Of course, there's no promising that everyone will read and abide by the notice, but I think it would be useful in at least cutting back on it. And if anybody is unaware, only admins can create edit notices for articles and I'm not positive, but I believe there might be some type of guideline or policy of what sort of notices belong in articles. Anyways, let me know what you think. An idea I've been thinking about for a few months.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I sent out a few messages to people that I could recall having promoted discography articles to FL status. I will go through the featured lists in the project and will send out more notifications this weekend. Seeing as how this talk page isn't very active, I think it's necessary to notify.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a nice idea. I support it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 07:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Its something like this which is small but in test cases like "Scream & Shout" by will.i.am (featuring Britney Spears) it does appear to have worked. So I support this. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It does sound like a great idea in my opinion. It won't be enough but at least, it might stop some people from vandalising. I obviously support it. Decodet (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sensible idea; I support. — Robin (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that we got a few people involved here, does anybody have some wording suggestions on how such a thing would be done? I think that there should be a set notice to be generally used. Of course, changes could be made to satisfy any additional needs.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've got no problem with adding them, but I don't think they will have a lot of effect. If you come up with consensus wording, I'll add it to a few as a test case.—Kww(talk) 15:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of you have probably noticed that the Billboard charts have all moved around again. I've gotten {{singlechart}} working against the new site, but I can't do much with discographies because all the URLs are hardcoded. So that this doesn't happen again, I've come up with some templates to make that unnecessary. If you want to make a reference in a discography, then use {{BillboardURLbyName}} in the citation. For example, {{BillboardURLbyName|artist=Shakira|chart=Hot 100}} will generate https://www.billboard.com/artist/shakira/chart-history/hot-100. The chart name mapping is documented at {{BillboardChartNum}}. The artist name must match the one used on the Billboard site precisely: no allowances are made for cases like "&" vs. "and", and Billboard is extremely inconsistent about the use of a leading "The" in a band's name.

This doesn't generate any additional formatting: no titles to get into edit wars about, no hyphens or dashes to get into arguments about, nothing in it for anyone not to like: it just keeps you from typing a hardcoded URL. You can see an example of a reworked discography here.

The Billboard name may not match Wikipedia's naming: for example, an article about a song by Kesha needs to use {{BillboardURLbyName|artist=Ke$ha|chart=Hot 100}}, because Billboard uses "Ke$ha" for the artist's name. That generates https://www.billboard.com/artist/ke$ha/chart-history/hot-100, while {{BillboardURLbyName|artist=Kesha|chart=Hot 100}} will generate https://www.billboard.com/artist/kesha/chart-history/hot-100

This template is normally used within citations, i.e.

• <ref>{{cite web |url={{BillboardURLbyName|artist=Jennifer Lopez|chart=Hot 100}}|title=Jennifer Lopez Album & Song Chart History|work=Billboard|publisher=Prometheus Global Media|accessdate=June 10, 2011}}</ref>^[1]
• <ref>[{{BillboardURLbyName|artist=Jennifer Lopez|chart=Hot 100}} Jennifer Lopez Album & Song Chart History]</ref>^[2]

Sometimes, it won't work. The usual problem is going to be that you didn't match the artist name on Billboard. Billboard is picky! "Selena Gomez & the Scene" is not the same as "Selena Gomez and the Scene". "Ana Belén" and "Ana Belen" are not the same. So, double check your name. Next, doublecheck your chart name against the names listed at {{BillboardChartNum}}. It's possible that you will need to add the chart name, but it's an easy template to edit. Send me a message at User talk:Kww if you can't get it to work.

If that doesn't help, the problem probably lies in {{BillboardID}}. Fixing it is simple:

1. Go find your artist's list of charts on Billboard.
2. Look at the URL. Again, looking at https://www.billboard.com/artist/shakira/chart-history/hot-100 you will see that big number:. That's the magic number we need.
3. Edit the appropriate child of {{BillboardID}}. For Shakira, that's {{BillboardID/S}}, because "Shakira" begins with an "S".
4. Insert the line. Again, using Shakira as an example, it's

   ||shakira=

   Pay attention to the case. It has to be lower case inside the template.

5. Now try again. Please doublecheck a few artists' articles that begin with the same letter and make sure you didn't break them. You can easily break hundreds of articles by inserting an error in the BillboardID templates, so be careful. If it's too scary, User talk:Kww will work.

If we all use this while cleaning things up, I'll be able to keep URLs pointed at the right places automatically in the future: a lot simpler for everyone.—Kww(talk) 16:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a lot of people pitching in, and cleaning up the discographies is a bigger job than one man can handle. This is another example of how simple it is. It's tedious, but simple.—Kww(talk) 01:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Might there be an editor more familiar with naming conventions and the Wikipedia/classical music manual of style willing to copy edit the Oregon Symphony discography? Any assistance would be truly appreciated. I hope to have this list promoted to FL status, once completed and reviewed. Thank you so much. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This question relates in particular to the Haruka Fukuhara article, but could have implications for other artist-related articles, particularly those for Japanese music artists. I would like to know whether there is any precedent for numbering albums or singles in discography tables as as been done in this article. It struck me as being somewhat arbitrary (original research?) since some releases are numbered and some are not, and subsequent discussion on the article's talk page has failed to convince me that there is any real reason for retaining these numbers. I would therefore be interested to hear third-party views from other editors involved with discographies and musical artists' articles in general. Also, could someone comment on whether using right-adjusted dates for release dates in discography tables constitutes normal English formatting, as it looks odd to me, but appears to be how the editor involved likes to do things. Thanks for any advice. --DAJF (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion occuring here regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the Wikipedia project. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The Dannii Minogue discography is currently a Featured list candidate. Please feel free to add comments to help this list reach featured status. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I job on Sean Paul discography on Polish Wikiedia and now this is good base for your job. Please repair Sean Paul discography and added sources. Eurohunter (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I would like some feedback or advice on where to get more information about what the discography section of a DJ's article should look like. I came across the first article listed below and my initial reaction would have been to totally nuke the Mashups and Remixes sections as overlong, unencyclopaedic, unreferenced and so on. But before doing so I checked two other articles (and frankly I'm appalled) which both have extensive unreferenced "Remixes" sections, which, given the nature of theses Djs, are just long sprawling lists that go on for ever, because DJs, by definiton, remix other people's works.

• Kaskade
• Afrojack
• Laidback Luke

Hi, posted this at the help desk and someone pointed me to this project page, replying "Personally I don't think there should be huge lists of remixes and mashups, for the same reasons you gave, maybe just a few notable ones backed up with reliable sources". Can I get some feedback, to me these sections just look appalling and can/will go on endlessly due to the nature of the artists. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Cœur de pirate discography is currently at FLC. Please leave comments and feedback to get this discography to Featured List status. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The Beth Orton discography is currently a Featured List candidate. Please leave comments to help this list reach FL status. Thank you! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Do any (small) symbols exist for discographies? I would like to use a symbol (presumably of a disc) in a navbox of works to indicate where there is a discography article. --Kleinzach 00:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Nerina Pallot discography is now a Featured List candidate. Please leave comments/suggestions to help make this discography a Featured List. Thanks :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. A merge proposal has been made at Talk:The Buggles#Merge - Buggles Discography to merge the discography article back into the main article as it was a recent spin-out. Members of this project might wish to participate in the discussion and input on this would be welcome as your wikiproject relates directly to this subject matter. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if combining Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (55k) with Jimi Hendrix discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (pre-death) (20k) doesn't make the article rather too large? (70k) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello music experts! The above article is supposed to be merged into Escape the Fate discography. Can someone who knows about discographies take on this task? Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A new editor (with whom I am somewhat conflicted) deleted the entire discography of Jeff Berlin and then put up an AfD a notability tag on his article. When I questioned this, he brought in an experienced editor who insisted that every individual entry be sourced, calling me "cavalier" for suggesting otherwise, citing WP:V. I have been slowly working my way through them. Is it really necessary? Comments, or help, welcome at Talk:Jeff_Berlin. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In theory, yes it is necessary. However, my thinking is that if an album in the discography already has its own wiki article, then the sources in that article should be enough. I mean, clearly the album exists, so listing it in a discography shouldn't really require an inline citation IMHO. Also, rather than putting a citation next to every single album, I'll often just put a note at the top of the section, like "Sources for this section are as follows:" and then the sources I have used (I've recently done this on the Clarence White page actually). None of this is official Wiki policy as far as I know, it's just a pragmatic way of dealing with discographies that are included within an artist's main page. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with another contributor about singles that come from EPs. The band has released four EPs before the debut album and some singles were released to promote those EPs. Later, two of those singles ("Chocolate" and "The City") were included on the full-length album, and the third one ("Sex") was re-recorded and released as the lead single from the album. Here's how I believe it should look: [1], and here's how this contributor thinks it should look: [2], as she says "Only albums should be included unless the single has only been released from an EP (the column states 'Album')". For now I chose a solution that is a corrected version of her solution: [3]. In the Wikipedia articles of those singles, in the infoboxes, they have the EPs' titles listed as albums from which the songs were released, so if the other contributor is actually right, all that would need to be changed. Or maybe they should be marked as coming from both an EP and the album? And the discography table would look like this?

Mayast (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The solution is rather complicated. You really have to narrow down the single to what exactly it's promoting, not just what the song is part of. In this particular case, Mayast is correct. "Sex" promotes the Sex EP, "Chocolate" promotes Music For Cars, "The City" promotes IV and The second issue of "Sex" promotes their debut studio album, The 1975. The EPs themselves do not serve as a prelude to The 1975, and therefore are their own separate releases. If the EPs served as a prelude to their album, like Imagine Dragons did with the Continued Silence EP in the lead-up to their debut Night Visions, then they would count. In this particular case, their single "It's Time", which comes from Continued Silence and also appears on Night Visions would count as a single from Night Visions, since the EP also promotes Night Visions as the main product. However, in this case, it's not, and Mayast is in the right.

However, I do have one tiny problem with all of this: Are any of these songs actual singles? I cannot find anything that proves that any four of these "singles" were released, outside a few spins on the radio. They're not on iTunes, nor Amazon, nor available to stream on Spotify, nor are they part of the band's discography on their website! The only single I could find, actually, is "Pressure", released August 12, 2013 in the United Kingdom! Apart from that, I can't even find any source to prove a single release. They probably were released to radio as promotional singles, but even then, it could easily had been a promo release of the EPs they were spinning on the radio! Apart from the album version of "Sex", which is a promotional single, I can't find any credible source of any single release of the original "Sex", "Chocolate" and "The City"! It's also can be noted that on their respective Wikipedia articles, the alleged release date of the single is the same date as the EPs they were featured on were respectively released. That, in itself, decreases the reliability of these articles.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 10:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@RazorEyeEdits: Thanks for reply. I'm not sure what is the difference between the Amazon link for "Pressure" you provided, and these Amazon links: The City, Chocolate and Sex, plus other songs from the EPs are also available as a free download on Amazon. As these songs have charted in several countries, and received quite a lot of radio airplay, eg. on BBC Radio 1 or here in Poland on Eska Rock (especially "Chocolate" and "The City"), I would say they are promo singles. But let's assume that you are right: should they [EP version of "Sex", "Chocolate", "The City"] be listed as "Other charted songs"? And the album version of "Sex" as promo single?

— Mayast (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the UK Singles Chart article: "The full chart contains the weekly top-selling 200 single recordings in the United Kingdom, based upon combined record sales and download numbers." UK Indie and SCO are compiled by The Official Charts Company too, and Irish Singles Chart is also based on sales. So, wouldn't "Chocolate" and "The City" qualify as singles then? But only released digitally?
About iTunes: I think that a few weeks ago there were more releases from the band available there, but some of the EPs were taken off iTunes. I would guess that's because all four EPs are going to be released on a second disc in the deluxe edition of the debut album.

– Mayast (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that the Amazon links you provided are actually part of their respective albums and Eps! "The City" has the artwork from IV and reads "From the Album IV" and so on with the other two. Assuming this is a single, that would mean that the rest of the EP: "Haunt //Bed", "So Far (It's Alright)" and "Fallingforyou" are singles aswell. "Pressure" is a single because it was released separate from The 1975, not part of it. As I've said before, it could easily had been a promo release of the EPs they were spinning on the radio, not an actual promo, unless you can prove promo copies of the song exist, in which, unfortunately, I could not. Also, songs can, and have, charted on the strength of digital downloads. This is why you might see alot of non-single songs on charts such as the Billboard Hot 100 and the UK Singles Chart.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 13:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place I should put it, but I was browsing through all of Imagine Dragons' songs on wikipedia to find whether or not I had missed any (I think they're amazing, but that's beside the point here). Fact is, one of their songs that I recently found is called 'clouds', from 2010, and it's not listed anywhere. Should it be?
86.81.124.236 (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"Clouds" unfortunately didn't appear on any of Imagine Dragons' releases, so it wouldn't be listed here. If there was an article like List of songs recorded by Coldplay for Imagine Dragons, it might appear there, but unfortunately, no such article exists. Nor does it need to be created, so don't get any funny ideas! ;)

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 09:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think it doesn't need to be created? ;) If I had more time and there was a demand for an article like that, I might start one. I find them especially useful with artists who have a lot of B-sides and rare songs, so that you wouldn't have to go through all the singles to find a particular song. That's why I've recently created List of songs recorded by Arctic Monkeys. — Mayast (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We are currently discussing developing better style guidelines for discographies at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Dormant.3F. For example, creating a standarized list of chart abbreviations, as in some cases different abbreviations are used in different discography articles (eg. NL and NLD for Netherlands, or IRE and IRL for Ireland). Another idea is to use the same abreviations (for countries) in the certifications lists, instead of certifying bodies, and link them to their respective certifying bodies. For example, "UK: Gold" instead of "BPI: Gold". Everyone interested in these topics is welcome to join the discussion. — Mayast (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone who is familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines on discographies take a look at the charts section of the Crystal Fighters discography. Some of the charts cited look rather strange, and don't appear to be the usually accepted ones on Wikipedia (do we normally accept the NME charts for the United Kingdom?). Skinsmoke (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, NME is not accepted, so I deleted it. I tried to clean some of the singles charts, but maybe someone who is more familiar with Belgian and Dutch charts will help — eg. which Dutch chart is better and should be displayed as NLD, Single Top 100 or Dutch Top 40? Anyway, you are right and the article needs cleaning up — Mayast (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

On the Belgian charts, my understanding is that "Ultratop" is acceptable, but that "Ultratip" is not, as these are merely predictions of what may in the future make the actual chart. Not sure about the Netherlands, as I get confused between the various Dutch charts (and so does everyone else, by the look of things). Wikipedia:Record charts seems to suggest that both GfK Dutch Single Top 100 and Dutch Top 40 are acceptable. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Having just looked over Lil Jon discography, it contains all of his material recorded as part of his group "Lil Jon & the Eastside Boyz" (not sure about the lower case "the"). I'm not sure that this should be included in the same discography, as Lil Jon & the Eastside Boyz is in fact a totally separate, single musical group and not simply a collaboration between two different artists (i.e. Jay-Z and Kanye West), as is suggested by the listing of some singles as "with the Eastside Boyz". The confusion appears to come from the fact that Lil Jon has included his name in the group title (i.e. if they were simply known as "The Eastside Boyz", we'd simply have "The Eastside Boyz discography" with no problems). Virtually every reference in a quick internet search suggests that "The Eastside Boyz", as it were, have barely released anything notable as a separate group and released all of their material with Lil Jon's name in their group title. I'm considering moving this data to a separate discography, titled "Lil Jon & The Eastside Boyz discography", as there is enough content to allow for the move, but I'm interested in what you think first before I do anything. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain the thinking behind having the live albums listed separately to the studio albums? When consulting the discographies I find it awkward to have to consult two different lists in order to see what was happening chronologically. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Would there be any objection if discographies were changed so that studio albums and live albums were listed together, but in a sortable wikitable, so that readers could look at the albums chronologically, or by type? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As an example, see Johnny_Cash_albums_discography#1960s. The albums can be sorted by name, by release date, and by type (studio, live, collaboration, compilation, etc). For some reason, the sort by chart position is not working properly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think sometimes studio and live albums can be listed together in one table, especially when an artist hasn't released many recordings. However, I think that in most cases the current discography tables format (as seen in WP:DISCOGSTYLE#Samples), with clear separation of different types of releases, is the best. If we would generally put studio and live albums into one table, why shouldn't EPs be included there, too? And singles? I would say that a discography article like that would be a total mess. Also, I find that sortable table missing full release dates (not just the year), and it wouldn't work well with a larger number of charts (for which a max. number is 10), as it's already wider than the standard table. So, if you ask me, I would oppose a change like this. — Mayast (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Could you explain why you feel that Live and Studio albums should be separate. What, for you, is the importance difference between them such that they need to be listed separately? I understand the need to keep information focused, but it seems also important to present information in a way that readers can easily access it. By separating Live and Studio (and in the case of Cash, various other categories have been included - Christmas and Gospel albums are listed separability for example), readers need to cross reference two or more tables. In Cash's case I can see an argument for having separate lists for record companies - during the Sixties his current work was released by Columbia, while at the same time, Sun were releasing albums of material he had recorded in the Fifties.

The release dates in the Cash sortable table example are unchanged from the static table, though the full dates could be put in. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The basic difference is that studio albums contain new material, and live albums usually don't. I would rather have studio albums and EPs in one table than studio+live albums.
Anyway, I kinda don't understand the need for changing the way that albums are listed right now. But if you strongly feel that releases should be organised chronologically, what about an additional section at the end of discography article, that would be called "Chronology"? Where you could list all the albums, EPs and singles in the order of their releases? — Mayast (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I found topics on Charts in France forum about sales in some countries and full sales Top 200 in France... (now I can't found link...). Where this peoples get it? Or other forum [www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=96139&start=100 UKMix]. Eurohunter (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Scale the Summit discography

On the one hand, it is a list to me, but on the other, I find it has too many article qualities to be a list for me. So which one is it? LazyBastardGuy 03:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Rock music group discographies and 3 similar categories, all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated by me for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeking input as to how this article can be improved. If you have time, please come here and drop me a line. Many thanks. LazyBastardGuy 20:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatcha Gonna Do with a Cowboy was a duet between Chris LeDoux and Garth Brooks, but the latter artist was uncredited. Should this fact be reflected in either artist's discography, with a footnote indicating that Garth was uncredited? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes. In this case, actual notation within the liner notes is irrelevant; the fact remains that Garth Brooks personally appeared on that song and so his discography should reflect that. Same with that of Chris LeDoux. LazyBastardGuy 16:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated The Make-Up 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. GamerPro64 03:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone just created this Template, but as I understand it, only one of Jackie Evancho's singles was released officially (maybe I'm wrong!). Does the Template make sense? Should it be combined with her main template? You can see both templates, for example, at the bottom of Prelude to a Dream. Thanks for any advice or help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment regarding the migration of {{cite AV media notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. This is a discussion about the deprecation of certain parameters and how such deprecation will effect this project's articles. The discussion is not intended to address technical aspects of the conversion, though if you have questions or concerns about that, you are welcome to raise them. The discussion is here: Migrating cite AV media notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Because there are similarities, your thoughts regarding the migration of {{cite DVD-notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox are also solicited. The discussion is here: Migrating cite DVD-notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

And now considering {{cite music release notes}}. The discussion is here: Migrating cite music release notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see the RfC at Category talk:Filmographies#Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards, with some actors also having discographies. Comments are welcome there. - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone involved in this project take a look at this page? It appears to be completely over the top. Do we, for example, need a complete list of every track that has been included on a compilation album? Skinsmoke (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear how to distinguish singles and promotional singles and there are several doubts in numerous pages. I'll make an example: Thirty Seconds to Mars released their fourth album in May 2013 and topped worldwide charts. Its lead single "Up in the Air" was released in March 2013. According to Wikipedia, the following releases, "Do or Die" and "City of Angels", were released as promotional singles only. These songs reached some notable chart positions and music videos were also released. Now, it's hard to think that since its lead single in March 2013, no more singles were released from a commercially successful album released just a year ago. Several discussions were also born, which left those singles with the promotional status because there are no evidence of a 'commercial release'. But what does it mean commercial release? I find this enough for a commercial release. Can someone help me to find a solution for this issue? Thanks, --Earthh (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this area needs to be clarified. I thought that any single available as a retail release -- whether in brick and mortar stores or online outlets such as iTunes and Amazon -- should be classified as a single, and anything that is only available via "free" download and/or promotional use only is a "promotional" single. But I often see discographies mix these items up. Many simply list the most popular retail tracks in the main "singles" section and the less popular ones in the "promotional" section, even though some of the latter were sold at retail, too, they just didn't perform well. Infamous30 (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Recently, new user Lukejordan02, also editing as IP 86.19.151.163, removed an album from the Led Zeppelin discography saying that it was similar to other releases already listed. The album in question Early Days & Latter Days: The Best of Led Zeppelin Volumes One and Two (2002), has been included in this featured list article for over six years along with the albums Early Days: The Best of Led Zeppelin Volume One (1999) and Latter Days:The Best of Led Zeppelin Volume Two (2000) with no objections. The three albums have distinct release dates, catalog numbers, chart histories and certifications. It is my view that separate releases should have separate entries in a discography and that all releases should be included. Should similar, yet distinct, releases and their accompanying chart histories/certifications be included in discographies? I bring this up here because this editor is making similar contentious changes to other discography articles. Piriczki (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This user is willing to complain about me but is not willing to discuss the matter, I have left a message on his talk page about the matter but has ignored me. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The message on my talk page has been addressed, the broader question here remains open. Piriczki (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Published rock discographies that I'm familiar with (Hendrix, Yardbirds) list ALL official original releases by the artists. Earlier versions of albums have not been removed from discographies because they have been superseded by newer ones (such as Hendrix's Cry of Love or Voodoo Soup which have been replaced by First Rays of the New Rising Sun. These were well-known, charting albums for their time and I don't see a valid argument for excluding them. A encyclopedic discography should be as comprehensive as practicable and this appears to be the current accepted WP practice. If a reader only wants what is currently available or popular, there are many music sites (or Amazon) that can provide them with the highlights. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Recently, new user Lukejordan02 has made, or attempted to make, massive changes to established discography articles such as The Beatles discography and The Rolling Stones discography. One of his changes is the invention of new album album categories which he calls "official compilations" and "unofficial compilations." Apparently, by his definition, "official" compilations are those which are currently available on CD and offered for sale on the artists' web site while others, including albums such as Hey Jude and Hot Rocks 1964–1971, are deemed to be "unofficial" and placed in a separate section of the article. Is there a guideline or consensus as to what album categories should be used in discography articles and how they are defined? Piriczki (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)