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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If that's true, it's rather shocking, and we should most certainly look at all our sources for discrepancies. I wonder how many of our Featured Lists are incorrect. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly an issue, and probably something that is long over due. After taking a look at the Everyhit.com, I'm afraid I can't find any indication that it is reliable. I'm still investigating the others though. Drewcifer (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I have never found (yet) incorrect chart info, only incomplete; how about changing it to "'—' indicates that the album did not chart in a particular territory or that the chart information at source may be insufficient? As for everyhit, I am more akin to believe it to be accurate. I compared the chart history of Blur at everyhit with an Official English chart books preview i found at GoogleBooks and it was completely accurate (for the Top 40). Of course that doesn't conclude anything, but it'll be interesting to check everyhit's accuracy for obscure bands in the 60s and 70s. indopug (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a mini-break through with this problem. The IFPI maintains a list of chart sites here. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that the sites in the list can be considered reliable, since a reliable 3rd party uses them as source of information. The important thing to notice is that they link to the Swiss site HitParade, which in turn operates all of the other country chart sites that are so popular in discographies. Drewcifer (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Since Silver/Gold/Platinum/Diamond is merely an indiciation of sales, I'd say they should be ordered by the cumulitive sales, as indicated by the certification awards. So, as far as the RIAA goes, if 300,000 sales equals one gold award, and 1 million eqauls a platinum, then 1 platinum is more then 3 golds. I'm making those numbers up, but that's how I would do it. At the moment, I'm working on a List of music recording sales certifications, which should (soon, I hope) indicate what each award means for purposes such as this. Drewcifer (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be ok with listing by sales or total number of certifications. Either would work pretty well with me.Odin's Beard (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea for the Discography WikiProject was mine, and I proposed it at the WikiProject Council. Since then, nobody's told me anything about it being created, and I feel sort of left out. Oh, well. I'll work on the WikiProject page's aesthetics. Happy editing! – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 19:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to the guy who edited the intro, it's not that I'm narcissistic, it's just that I think I deserve some credit for coming up with the idea, that's all. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 04:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Who cares who's idea it is? No one's claiming ownership. Besides, myself and at least one other person seemed to have come up with the idea on our own as well, so it's a pretty moot point really. Drewcifer (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess that makes you only a little narcissistic. But seriously, nobody gets credit. Wikipedia is not the place to work, if you want credit for your ideas. But we'll consider this thread your claim to have thought of the idea, and it will be forever stored in the archives. -Freekee (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's idea something is on Wikipedia means practically nothing. Wikipedia is something people contribute to on their spare time. If it were a job, I'd completely agree with you about credit and all that. However, since it's not, it's up to you to stay informed with what's happening regarding articles that are topics of personal interest for yourself.Odin's Beard (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm being (understandably) hounded for charting information to go into the Boredoms discography, but am having a really hard time finding anything. Does anyone know where to get this information? Any help would be greatly appreciated. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 13:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the information can only obtained through a paid membership to access the archives of Oricon, in Japanese.  :( --hamu♥hamu (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hamuhamu, I don't suppose you have a paid membership? =) Drewcifer (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My life would be so much easier if I did! I think it might be worthwhile to hit up some major contributors to Japanese-artist discogs that do have really complete-looking data. Maybe they'll prove me wrong! :) Ayumi Hamasaki discography, Hikaru Utada discography, B'z discography. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

This was a Featured list candidate and the archive can be found here. I am asking for help from some of you guys to bring it to featured list. I have already done a lot of work to it and would just like some extra help to finish it off.

If any of you could help that would be great.

Thanks,

--TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I began editing discography articles about a month or so ago, one of the biggest problems I've seen is finding credible sources to back up sales figure listings. Many articles list sales figures for an album that are basically estimations based on how many copies of album have been shiped based on RIAA or BPI certifications rather than have actually been sold. Much of the rest of the articles album information, chart positions, and certifications are much easier to find.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at this proposal and express your support or objections. Keep in mind we currently have no guidelines for Discography summary sections whatsoever, so this would at least be a start. Also keep in mind this would not affect discography articles themselves, only the summary sections in the musician's primary article. Kaldari (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered this template ({{Discography list}}), which seems to be pretty much contradictory to most of the style guidelines that have been agreed upon so far. I've seen some discographies here and there that used this style, but I just now realized it was a template. As it stands, no FL discography is in this format, and the current style proposal goes against the style as well. I thought I'd bring it up because it seems a little problematic that a template is being used that is so contrary to "standard" discography style. The main problem being that the template is used in over 200 articles, so it's not just a matter of deleting the template. Any thoughts on this? Drewcifer (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey all, just a heads up. I've never been able to find this project in the Wikiproject listings. In fact, I'd previously searched for it and gave up, assuming there must not be one. I found it today, just by luck, when it was linked in a discussion at the WP Biography/Musicians project. Maybe someone more experienced than myself could figure out how to get it listed so interested parties can join us? :) --hamu♥hamu (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)