THC Science

	This page is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.DiscographiesWikipedia:WikiProject DiscographiesTemplate:WikiProject DiscographiesDiscography articles
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

For discussion related to discographies on Wikipedia but not to the project, please use the Discographies Noticeboard.

What this is

As originally suggested by MusicMaker5376 and more or less formalized by Torc2 (read the main discussion thread here) this WikiProject is going to try to put together a plan for discography pages. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool man. Let's do it! Drewcifer (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is such a good idea, especially since there are so many discography lists on Wikipedia now! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys helped me get the D's discog up to FA, so I'm going to try to get at least one other band to that. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's great to see a formalized plan to bring together discography pages! Good work. --Jacob ^Talk 01:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Importance assessment

First order of business: as I was doing random behind-the-scenes stuff to get the project up and going, I came to the conclusion that assessing the importance of discography articles wasn't really necessary, only the class/quality. It makes sense to rate discogs for importance within other projects based on the topic (like how important it is in relationto Alternative Music, or in relation to all of the other articles within the artist's/band's WikiProject). But it doesn't make sense to me to rate an article for importance based on it's type. Same reason that WikiProject Biography doesn't rate for importance on biography-type article, because you can't really say that a person is more important than another person, but you can say that this person is more important in the field of Toxicology, say, then this other person. But I didn't want to make such a big decision without getting consensus for it first. Any opinions? Drewcifer (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

For people who have assessment rating set to show under page title, it's odd that lists are being class rated as anything other than List, as they can't really be anything else. As far as importance, I would say the more well-known the band, or the more successful, the higher the importance. For example, I'd put the discog for Queen above that of Queens of the Stoneage. Epic bands/artists with world-wide fame should be of top importance. Lara❤Love 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Soundtracks

Im stuck on Dr. Dre discography because Im not sure how many soundtracks I should list. On imdb he is credited for 27 soundtracks. 50 Cent is credited for 21 different soundtracks but only 1 is listed on 50 Cent discography, which is a featured. So im just wondering is there a criteria for this? Should I only list the soundtracks where he peforms the majority of the songs? -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would include anything that is referenced by a reliable source (which isn't IMDB). Don't simply follow the 50 Cent discog all the way just because it's featured, consensus amongst the Featured article/list projects can differ, and the criteria may also differ between now and when 50 Cent's became a FL. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Formatting, Style questions

OK. So a few questions that have been raised in my current Róisín Murphy discography nomination:

Should album titles and EP titles be in bold? I have come across both and would like to know what others think.
- I think probably bold is better. It's the main part of the discog and should stand out. --ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•
  @ 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  - They shouldn't be bolded. It goes against MOS:BOLD and it was also discussed at WT:MUSTARD#Album bolding. Spellcast (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Should albums and live albums be placed in separate headers or under a general albums header?

This could go either way for me, but if it is a separate section, I would make it a sub-section of Albums. Same for compilations (if any). --ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Style guidline proposal

I've done my best to write up a style-guidline of sorts over here. Take a look at let me know what you think, preferably on the proposal's talk page. I expect some of the things in there to be a bit controversial, especially since nearly every FL discog at the moment doesn't meet the guidleine for one reason or another. But I hope that's mainly because of a lack of consistency between discographies, not necessarily something wrong my proposed guidelines. Anyways, take a look and feel free to tear it apart. Drewcifer (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Unreleased albums

Should unreleased albums be added to discographies or not? My opinion is that only released albums should be in a discography, since for some articles that I'm working on we know that the artist is working on an album but it does not even have a name yet. Gary King (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My gut feeling would be to include them, since the assumption is that it eventually will be released, and that there is some concrete evidence that it's coming sometime in the near future. Granted, a citation would definitely be necessary. Drewcifer (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Information about albums being worked on should certainly be included in the artist's article (well-sourced, of course) but until the album actually exists it should not appear in a discography. Crystal ballism and all that. The way the record industry works (especially of late) there is no guarantee that an album will be released until it actually comes out. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Would like an opnion on Hoodoo Gurus discography as to what level/standard the article is up to - any suggestions on how it could be improved would be greatfully accepted. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment

Where could one place a reformed article for reassessment. I've put a particular amount of effort into reconstructing the Dir en grey discography page, and I would like some input and if it can be done, reassessment on the rating. Thanks for any help! --Jacob ^Talk 01:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

I have AWB and I'm trying to find out about tagging everything in Category:Discographies with the project banner. Assessment wouldn't be too much fun, but it would be a start, right? Seegoon (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"What makes these sites reliable?"

I've been meaning to bring this up for some time now; what makes websites that we use so frequently in discography articles--everyhit, chartstats, the numerous hit parade charts--reliable per WP:RS? I remember SandyGeorgia pointing out that "everyHit.com is simply an online database of my family's record collection". As for the Hit Parade-affiliated sites (you know those Belgian, Swedish, Swiss... ones) I find them to be grossly incomplete, especially before 2000. For example, while adding Aussie chart info for the R.E.M. discography, I found that australian-charts.com lists only three R.E.M. studio albums that charted (all post-2000 releases). However, R.E.M.: Fiction: An Alternative Biography, (owned by WesleyDodds, who I am collaborating with) indicates that the band has been charting in Australia from as long as 1986! So if the book were never used, we would instead have "—"'s against eight of the band's albums. Also note that we consider "—" to mean that "the album did not chart in that territory"; we do not account for the possibility that our sources are not complete, making us awfully incorrect. What results is a gross under-evaluation of a band's performance in a territory. So can we continue using these sources, willfully knowing that they are ~~crap~~ often unreliable? indopug (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Discographies - and recordings?

Greetings from the Opera Project and congratulations on starting what should be a very worthwhile project.

I see you are bannering recordings (of opera anyway) as well as discographies. I removed one banner thinking it was a mistake (The Record of Singing), but then I thought I should put a note here to clarify the scope of this project. If you are thinking of extending the scope to include recordings there is a lot of useful work to be done on clarifying copyright restrictions etc. so it might be a good idea. Thank you and regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

RIAA gold and platinum singles

I'm fairly new to editing discographies and I'm a little confused on something. In the RIAA certification article, there's a section listing the artists with the most RIAA certified singles and I'm wondering what order they should be put. Should they be listed in the order of how many singles have recieved certification? For instance, Madonna is listed second behind Elvis Presley with 25 gold singles. Is that right or should they be listed in order of how many total gold, platinum, and multi-platinum certifications they have?Odin's Beard (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 I see you are bannering recordings (of opera anyway) as well as discographies. I removed one banner thinking it was a mistake ([[The Record of Singing]]), but then I thought I should put a note here to clarify the scope of this project. If you are thinking of extending the scope to include recordings there is a lot of useful work to be done on clarifying copyright restrictions etc. so it might be a good idea. Thank you and regards. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 04:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
+==RIAA gold and platinum singles==
+I'm fairly new to editing discographies and I'm a little confused on something. In the [[RIAA certification]] article, there's a section listing the artists with the most RIAA certified singles and I'm wondering what order they should be put. Should they be listed in the order of how many singles have recieved certification? For instance, Madonna is listed second behind Elvis Presley with 25 gold singles. Is that right or should they be listed in order of how many total gold, platinum, and multi-platinum certifications they have?[[User:Odin&#39;s Beard|Odin&#39;s Beard]] ([[User talk:Odin&#39;s Beard|talk]]) 12:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)