-- 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 alot of the other country chart sites that are so popular in discographies. Drewcifer (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

They delete the chart positions. Don't know why. Found it out when they deleted the chart positions for bryan adams and soundgarden on the australian version. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow you at all. Who deleted what when? Can you give us the url of the difference? Drewcifer (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at Soundgardens chart positions her [1]. Before there was chart positions her. I've seen it with my own eyes but now they are deleted. The point is that we need to get these chart positions before it's to late. You can see the chart positions on the Soundgarden discography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, Everyhit is linked to as a reference from the BBC Radio 1 Chart Show's website (at the bottom of the page there). Now, since the UK Singles Chart does not have an online database similar to the US' at Billboard.com and Billboard.biz, it's the closest and (from what i've seen) most correct chart database for the UK Top 40. However, Unlike Billboard, Everyhit does not have permanent links to its search results. Which is a bit of a problem, but otherwise, i'm confident they're a reliable source. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! That's a good one to have access to. Thanks. Drewcifer (talk) 09:02, 7 July 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)

Well, I looked at Social Distortion discography, which uses this template, and is mentioned on the template's documentation. It is completely different to what is currently "accepted" as a discography style (by that I mean The best that Wikipedia has to offer. It might be a long, arduous task, but I think all the articles that use this template should be edited, and then take the template to WP:TfD. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid you'd say that. I think a good first step would be to make a note on the template's talk page. Before going all willy nilly, we may also want to post on the talk pages of articles that use the template, so we can try and enlist the help of the editors of those lists rather then do it all ourselves. Drewcifer (talk) 03:03, 10 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)

Anybody else think it'll be a good idea if instead of alphabetically, we arranged the list of featured discographies in chronological order of gaining FL status (like the good ol' ALM does)? Obvious advantage: we can check for standards of the older ones and cleanup as required. Disadvantage: painful manual labour while rearranging. indopug (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The list is actually getting a little long anyways. So we could split it off into a separate page, throw it all into a table, then make it sortable by name or by promotion date. Drewcifer (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You should sort it such that the "The" in the band's name is ignored: "The Breeders discography" sorts alphabetically with "B". indopug (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What is so bad about using flags in discography tables? I don't suppose I'm going to change anybody's mind but does anybody actually agree with me that there's no real reason why they shouldn't be used? What's wrong with this for example? It doesn't look messy - it's functional and to me is much clearer than writing the country.

I mean if you don't know the flags of the world's major territories then frankly you're an idiot anyway! By the way, before anyone rushes to go and change the article someone's already done it. AcerBen (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that using flags in this manner violates the manual of style for flags. According to the manual, all flag icons should be accompanied by the name of the country. The manual also states that the use of too many flags should be avoided because they clutter the page and become redundant. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I imagine it does violate that silly manual but that doesn't mean it's right. I don't think it does clutter the page! Oh well. *over it* AcerBen (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How will it work for artists who have chart appearances on Genre-specific charts such as the UK Indie Chart or one of Billboard's several, like Modern Rock Tracks? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides that, it's policy. Policies don't get changed because an editor doesn't personally like or agree with them.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are videos in a discography. They don't belong their. They belong in a videography page but insted they are in a discography. Please help me understand this. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Most recording artists that put out video collections or videos of live performances don't do it very often and most don't put out very many to begin with. I don't see videos as being notable enough to really require being placed in a seperate articles from the music recordings. They're little more than further extensions of the recording artists' music anyway.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In the RIAA certification article, there's a list of recording artists with the greatest tally, in millions, that's linked to the same list on RIAA.com. The tally included on the lists, however, for some of the artists don't seem to match for the number they actually have according to the RIAA database. For instance, I just picked out Kenny Rogers at random and went to his discography and checked the certification listed in the database and all the certs are accurate and total 51.5 million but the list on RIAA.com lists 51 million units. I double checked the figures again in the database and they still come to 51.5 million units. I think there are some discrepencies with other artists included in the list as well. My question is what figure should go in the article? The list itself comes from RIAA.com but the figure in the list doesn't match up with what's in the database. So I'm a little confused. Odin's Beard (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The numbers have been corrected and updated. Cannibaloki 23:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a peer review of The Smiths discography and Morrissey discography with a view to taking them to WP:FLC. Any comments would be appreciated. Review pages are Wikipedia:Peer review/The Smiths discography/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Morrissey discography/archive1 respectively. Thanks --JD554 (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)