Discographies NA‑class

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.

Archives

no archives yet (create)

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

Here is the intro version that I believe is good:

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

Here is the IP's preferred version:

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

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

Have you tried to merge the texts into a new one?--Canniba loki 15:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The IP user's version (or "preferred version" as I'm unsure if they wrote it or not) is the better one because it is more accurate. The intro Caden believes is the better one is riddled with inaccuracies: TFF are not a synth-pop band they are a rock/pop band (Depeche Mode are a synthpop band), they signed in 1981 not 82, Mad World was their third single not second, Change was their fourth single not third, the stuff about the minor singles from The Seeds Of Love is not relevant, etc. I've read the discussions between Caden and the IP user (in the edit summaries and on Caden's talk page) and the IP user asserts that there is too much of an American bias towards Caden's preferred version. Considering TFF are a British band and not American, s/he has a point. Whereas Caden's preferred version is incorrect, there appears to be nothing wrong with the IP user's version. It is concise, the right length for a discography intro, is not filled with unnecessary details but it does includes relevant details that cannot be seen in the discography tables themselves (such as the change of TFF personnel in the 1990s and the reformation of the original line-up in 2000). And above all else - it is 100% accurate. Kookoo Star (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you the IP? Or not? Caden ^cool 14:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Caden, no I'm not the IP but I do have an extensive knowledge of British pop music. Also, it might have been beneficial (not to mention good faith) for you to have invited the IP user to this discussion so that they can state their opinions. Kookoo Star (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Good faith? Um, I'm sorry but couldn't because the IP uses multiple accounts to edit from and therefore I could not give them a shout. I covered this in my diff above in my original post. On a side-note I disagree with your previous comment in regards to this thread. Thanks anyway. Caden ^cool 07:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well you seem to have been able to communicate with each other so far (even though both of you could have shown a little more civility towards each other). I was going to recommend placing a message on the article's talk page directing the IP user (and everyone else) to this discussion but I can see that you did that earlier today. Unfortunately the tone of the message basically continues the incivility and is deliberately misleading because you are trying to paint the other user in a negative light simply because they disagree with you. Whilst I don't necessarily agree with IP editing (it costs nothing to make an account), there is no rule against it. As for my previous comments above, you're entitled to disagree but it still won't make you right - your version is still filled with incorrect information. Perhaps you need to leave this to people who have a greater knowledge of the band than you do. Kookoo Star (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Caden. I think your best bet is to see if you can agree on how to add valuable and pertinent details from your version to the IP's preferred version. I say this because it appears that some of your points are erroneous, and because some of your grammar and punctuation is a little off to be the framework of the lead. However, I think your version has some important elements that the IP ignores, which makes his version worse than yours. For one thing, citing the first UK hit, "Mad World", but not citing the first U.S. hit, "Shout", seems to take a UK-centric tone. And, considering that the U.S. followup, "Everybody..." was equally successful if not more so, it deserves mention as well. Of course their home country success is very relevant for a UK act, but U.S. success is several times more sales, airplay, publishing and concert revenues than demographically comparable success in the UK, and in fact, after their first album, a good portion of their work seems to have been more successful in the U.S. than the UK. The IP version inaccurately spends more text on lesser successes. Chart success is not the end-all, be-all, and of course to the artist, the works are often equal. For the reader, they may know less about the lesser successes, but a fan shouldn't write about lesser successes at the expense of the greater, as if they're making up for the attention the hit received. I'd observe that you don't need to specify every chart peak and every single, particularly lesser ones, but that the IP focuses on albums at the expense of their singles. I would suggest something along the lines of:

This is the discography of the British rock band Tears for Fears. Formed in 1981 by Roland Orzabal and Curt Smith, the duo signed to Phonogram Records in the UK and released their first single the same year. It wasn't until their third single, "Mad World" (1982), that they scored their first hit, and their Platinum-selling debut album The Hurting (1983) was a UK number one. Their second album, Songs from the Big Chair, was released in 1985 and became a worldwide hit, establishing the band in the US on Mercury/Polygram Records with back-to-back number-one Hot 100 singles "Shout" and "Everybody Wants to Rule the World". After a third Platinum-selling album, The Seeds of Love, and its international top-five single "Sowing the Seeds of Love" in 1989, Smith and Orzabal parted company. Subsequent Tears For Fears albums Elemental (1993) and Raoul and the Kings of Spain (1995) were effectively solo albums by Orzabal. However, the duo reformed in 2000 for a new studio album, Everybody Loves a Happy Ending, which was released in 2004/05, returning the band to the UK Top 40 with the single "Closest Thing to Heaven".

Further to the issue of ethnocentric POV (I don't mean that as harshly as it sounds), I note that the singles chronology is based on their UK releases, with "Mothers Talk" preceding the U.S. #1s rather than following them, and suggest that if you're interested in beefing up the information about this band and its singles that you research and add a U.S. singles chronology beneath the UK chronology.

To that point, the discography chart table requires a separate row for the "Mother's Talk" charting in the U.S. as it was a completely different recording of the song that charted in the U.S., and the charting was two years later than the UK charting. As such, it's not technically the same single and so needs its own row, and a footnote for explanation. (And, of course, if the NZ charting was of the U.S. version, that should be moved as well.) Incidentally, I sympathize with you Caden—while anybody can edit, and registration isn't a requirement, IP editors can't expect the same level of discussion and patience as users who are willing to identify themselves as being the same person from one edit to the next. Their work should, however, speak for itself. Abrazame (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Both the NME and the BBC describe these releases as singles[3] [4]. It also seems to meet the dictionary definition[5]. Needing to chart isn't how a single is defined. --JD554 (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I personally don't have the slightest idea what that template is for. It was created in 2006, so I'm assuming it went with the now deleted {{Infobox album discography summary}}. Perhaps it can be deleted under {{db-subpage}}? — ξ ^xplicit 22:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not in use, probably no-one even knows what it is (I invite a hang on) so I have tagged it with the above. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 22:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work, the template has already been deleted. Thanks. – IbLeo ^(talk) 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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

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

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

What does everyone thing about the Bubbling Under charts used in Hot 100 on discographies. The chart is an extension of the Billboard Hot 100, but I have seen conflicts in users saying that it should be used, and other saying it should not. Candyo32 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's only an extension of the Hot 100 if the track hasn't reached the Hot 100, if it has already charted in the Hot 100 then it isn't eligible for the Bubbling Under chart. I would only include it if the artist hasn't significantly charted on the Hot 100 or one of the more important genre charts. --JD554 (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If the artist's discography has a list of singles with a column for the Hot 100 chart positions, then I see no problem with using the column to indicate it's bubbling under position if that is where it peaked, such as 107 for a bubbling under peak of #7. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The would be incorrect, the Hot 100 only goes up to 100. --JD554 (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It should NOT be used in discographies. The Bubbling under chart is similar to the Heatseakerz Chart and we don't add HeatSeakers on top of the Hot 100 do we? Its called Bubbling Under Hot 100, we dont have a Billboard Hot 125. Also these charts positions are in 99% of cases not verifiable. Billboard.biz shows if they have charted but not at which position. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

All songs that peaked on the Bubbling Under chart are 100% verifiable through 2008 in Joel Whitburn's 12th edition of Top Pop Singles book. As a reliable source, the book lists these positions as 101 and so on. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If it were a really reliable source, it wouldn't list them that way. It's a separate list. A different chart with a different name. And doesn't it have a separate methodology (apart from exclusion once it's been on the respective Hot 100 chart)? Or are the main chart and its Bubbling Under determined by identical means? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would assume the methodology is the same with the exception you noted. Because the book is listing all hot 100 and bubbling under chart peaks, that is still the best way to distinguish the position on these charts; otherwise, you will always have to have a footnote explaining what reaching #1 on Bubbling Under means. All that being said, I have no problem with Bubbling Under chart positions not being included at all in chart tables or discographies. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Joel Whitburn knows better than that if he does indeed allege that the Bubbling Under chart is a straightforward extension of the Hot 100. Simply put, the Hot 100 features songs that have not yet peaked and are rising. And the Hot 100 features songs that may have already peaked and are falling. The Bubbling Under chart features songs that are not thought to have peaked, yet which have not been so well-received that their sales and airplay points justified an appearance within the top 100. And only those.

When a song moves from being the 90th most successful song in the country to the 100th most successful song (loosely speaking), it is listed as #100 on the Hot 100. But when a song moves from being the 90th most successful song to the 101st most successful, it doesn't enter the Bubbling Under chart at #101. Instead the most popular new release that hasn't made the top 100 is listed first on that chart. This is because the Bubbling Under chart is neither technically nor in name simply an extension of the next 10 or 25 or however many places, it is a discrete chart with a different set of criteria, and placement on it should not be construed simply as that many spots below the 100th place on the Hot 100.

It's reasonable to note if a single appeared on the Bubbling Under chart and later debuted on the Hot 100, because it imparts the information that the song wasn't a hit immediately upon release, but once a song has placed on the Hot 100, the song's peak on Bubbling Under is irrelevant and should never appear in a table. As JD554 pithily notes, the Hot 100 only goes to 100. If they wanted to call more than 100 singles "hot", they could expand the chart and rename it, but they don't, because they're an industry tool to promote new releases and their criteria is geared toward kicking out lingering hits and keeping the chart, and the business, fresh. Every single on the Hot 100 is a "hot" hit, and every single that is not on the Hot 100 is not on the Hot 100.

The problem arises, however, when a casual, distracted, foreign, ADD, easily confused or lazy reader sees a peak of #7 and takes it to mean that the chart is suggesting that this was the seventh most popular in some format or genre in some place or other. There are readers who just like to look at the pictures, or the tables, and who either just skim or don't read at all the text. So I would argue that Bubbling Under the Hot 100 peaks, even when there is no Hot 100 appearance, should not be noted in tables, but rather (with appropriate context, and a link to a page explaining the chart further) in the text. If pressed, I would say that, rather than putting the number plus 100 in a table, there should be only an asterisk or symbol in the table with no number, with the post-table explanation of the number peak on the different chart, and the link to the page about the chart. Abrazame (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Four full paragraphs, which will be too long for some people, but you covered it exceptionally well. You exactly describe the position I take on the matter, excluding the difficulties of verifiability. You should come around here more often, so you don't have to reply to four-month-old posts. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that Bubbling Under peaks are perfectly fine for representing the performance of a song that did not enter the Hot 100. It can be considered an extension of sorts, which explains why the Whitburn book lists such positions as 101, 102, etc. However, we should be careful with the way we present them. Notice in the Lady Gaga discography, which was recently promoted as a featured list: all Bubbling Under peaks have a notation beside them, explaining that (for this example, using the song "Dance in the Dark") it reached 22 on the Bubbling Under chart, comparable to 122 on the Hot 100. As long as all Bubbling Under peaks have notes directly beside them with an explanation that they are comparable to said positions on the Hot 100 (but not equivalent), I oppose the removal of them from discographies. –Chase (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I was told that the Billboard magazine no longer publishes such positions in the physical magazine but only online. I'm not sure if this is the case or not. I question the logic of adding 25 positions on top of the Hot 100... it is confusing for readers. The Bubbling Under is a specifically different chart with scarce information available. I just don't see the need for its inclusion on discographies which are supposed to represent the MOST important and significant chart achievements. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 04:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. BU is not comparable to a position of over 100 on the Hot 100. IT is nonsense to state that a song has charted in excess of the chart positions available on the chart itself! It is not an extension of the Hot 100, but as others have mentioned above, a different chart than the Hot 100. The BU has its own numbering system (1 - 25) and adding 100 to it is misleading and improper.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I noted some chaos about reference sources for both, certifications and chart listings of tracks. There are some indirect links when the table header references to some recording industry association. However for instance for german Media Control Chart the data base can not being verified without memberchip. There are alternative sources that are used in some cases, e.g. http://www.musicline.de/de for german charts. This link seems to be quite frequently used for german chart listing but often messes up the chart tables. Also for certification it would help having some kind of standard links instead of cluttering the table with individual references. I would suggest to move some of the repeated appearing links somehow into the template or creating other standard elements in the template to help editors to standardise the discography tables, without the need to follow long reference link sequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.174.129.57 (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Record Retailer (first, as the canon of The Official Chart Company)
• NME
• Record Mirror
• Melody Maker
• Disc
• Also the aggregated chart Pick of the Pops was widely followed.
• Others existed such as Mersey Beat etc.

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

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

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 8#MOS:DISCOG

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

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

It would essentially come down to the artist/topic but generally they should not be included; it's to do with notability. Under Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#What should not be included it discusses unreleased material and bootlegs, it formerly mentioned mixtapes specifically but this has since been removed. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 23:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Was there a specific discussion that led to mixtapes being taken out of the text? If not, could a discussion or consensus be reached on this to make it less vague? My first instinct is to remove mixtapes from discographies but without specific language/style guideline/policy to back it up, there isn't much to stand on, as I'm sure there will always be an editor who insists that mixtapes are notable enough for inclusion in discographies. - eo (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

personally, i always remove them, as i agree with eric's reasons above. Mister sparky (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A mixtape would have to be pretty damned notable to be written about in what I'd call reliable sources. For me, it has as much to do with verifiability as notability. What I see (and it's my own fault for loitering on rappers' pages) is a bunch of names being plunked down under the heading "Mixtapes", invariably unreferenced, but when there is a reference, it goes to some hip-hop blog or hot-rapper-gossip-scene-download-and-listen-NOW site. In that sense, mixtapes represent some list of random strings of words alleged to comprise a title. If I were going to vandalize WP I'd start adding bogus phrases to rappers' discographies.

It would be great to see a wider consensus here to keep these things out. Anyway, I'd like to see "mixtapes" put back in the What should not be included section. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed some more mixtapes yesterday. Any further word on this? Is there an interest in getting the verbiage put back into the guideline? - eo (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'd say that Gimmetoo has a decent argument in favor of horizontal. One of the things that always frustrates me in a discography article is trying to identify which figure has been changed in an edit, and the horizontal layout helps that. It also groups all the figures from one song together, which I could see would be a little easier to work with. Strikes me as one of those "leave it alone" issues. I wouldn't start a campaign to do it all over, but I wouldn't start a campaign to remove it either.—Kww(talk) 14:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand his reason for horizontal also. I bring it up because if his version is seen by a consensus to be more beneficial, then perhaps many more, if not all, discographies be should modified for the same vandalism-prevention reason. Surely JLo's discog page is not the only one heavily vandalized. If there was one, agreed-upon way of doing things, it would (I hope) prevent any future reverts and undos, that's all. - eo (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Or, consistent with WP:ENGVAR (and direct statements about some disputes like Wikipedia:CITE#Citation templates and tools), everyone could respect the established styles of articles and leave them alone absent genuine consensus to change them, not have small discussions in obscure Wikiproject pages (or worse, user talk pages or IRC) to "decide" what automatic, often buggy, scripted changes to make to thousands of articles until the next group of editors "decide" to make a different set of arbitrary changes. It would be nice if a MOS discussion resolved things, but in practice it doesn't seem to. For instance, "date delinking" had something like a year of discussion on a main MOS page and what appeared to many as a consensus of a lot of editors, but that didn't prevent "reverts and undos" and a lot of fuss. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why so contentious? I'm not sure what point(s) you're trying to make, but I'm reading a bit of snarkiness in your reply, which I don't understand. It seems that you want people to respect established styles of articles, implying that you suggest nothing be changed anywhere ever. Then it seems that you'll accept change, but only when there's genuine consensus. But I don't see how genuine consensus can be developed or identified if you forbid discussions. I get the impression you're fundamentally against and centralized style or content guidelines, and would just like to do things your way. Is that a accurate reading of your position? (I think it must not be, but I can't see a plausible alternate conclusion.) Please correct me. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Horizontal method used throughout IMO, contrary to the 99% which use vertical. Much easier to see vandalism (as well as simply understand a previous edit). --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 01:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd never thought of going horizontal, since (a) all the articles I've ever edited were vertical and (b) I have no imagination. It even took me a while to perceive the benefits of the horizontal format. Calling it a "vandalism deterrent" is a bit misleading; I'd be surprised if any vandals were deterred. But since neither vandals nor experienced editors are reliable about mentioning which song is now #3 in Finland (which they usually won't mention either), the checking of edits is a real PITA.

I've just tried adding the horizontal form to a couple of large-table, active-artist pages I work on. It's too early to tell how it'll go over, with me or other editors, but it could help.

I don't think we ought to change all articles, as too many people would hate it, for too little gain. I think horizontal is okay to leave when found, and I expect I might add try converting certain articles to horizontal in the future. Of course, when I do that, I'll be sure to provide a clear edit summary of my intention, which eo may well have missed from Gimmetrow on Jennifer Lopez discography. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, he said that horizontal was "needed here" [9] but did not explain why until he undid my undo [10]. That's why I asked my original question here. - eo (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

John I don't think it was as much deterring vandalism as making vandalism easier to see by other users. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 03:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I've noticed it's a common trend to bold the titles of albums in discographies, and this is even done in many of our current FLs. I was recently looking at MOS:BOLD, and it states that text should only be bolded when it's the title of the article or a synonym, in table headers, in definition lists, or if it's the volume number of a journal article. Album titles do not meet any of that criteria in discographies, which is why I would like to propose the removal of this format. –Chase (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I friggin hate the bolding and for a long time I was waging a losing battle by removing it wherever I saw it, however I would always be thwarted til I admitted defeat and gave up. But if this can be put into style guidelines, I'd welcome and support it! - eo (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

hello,

I have a question: are there any sites, which shows all informations about the music video, i.e. director, producer, acts, cinematographs, make-up-artists,...? Thanks-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Vevo.com generally includes most of that information, but some editors don't like that site as it's generally not accessible to people outside the US. –Chase (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Well, that's a surprisingly interesting question. The article in question is Blind Guardian discography, which, I notice before actually reading any of the content, has its own unique table style. It also shows 19 different charts in its Albums table, far more than the limit of 10 preferred for discographies.

The article is currently a Start-class article for this WikiProject (it's of List class in the WikiProject Metal). I checked the Quality scale and saw that Start means (among other things) "The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing." Well, the current version has lotsa refs.

Drewcifer3000 was the one who called it "Start", in May 2008. Drewcifer3000 appears not to be around to ask directly, but no matter. In May 2008, the article looked like this. Look ma! No references!

Mostly, I think it just needs reassessment, as it looks like about a "C" to me. It needs some charts pruned out of it, and a whole lot of styling work. What else it may need for a higher class may be seen by studying the Quality scale, which I'll leave to you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There's actually several problems.

• The lead needs to describe the releases in detail and be an overview of the list per WP:LEAD. An example of a proper lead for a discography could be seen in Eminem discography (which, at 5 paragraphs, is longer than the 4 paragraph maximum, but you get my point) or Lady Gaga discography. Both of these discography articles are featured list class, the highest possible quality class an article in this project could get.
• Tables contradict our style guidelines. Use the tables at WP:DISCOGSTYLE.
• Studio album table has far too many charts. Cut it down to a number closer to our recommended 10.
• None of the references are properly formatted.

Fix these issues and the list should be closer to FL standards. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

In my opinion it would be best to include the compilation album in the Discography section of the main Weezer article, with a brief annotation such as "(Compilation)" or "(Compilation album)". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. I created "Studio Album" and "Compilation Album" subheadings in the discography section, and started a thread in the talk page for any discussion about the issue. Angryapathy (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I have noticed on the Green Day discopgraphy article that many of my recent edits have been removed. The edit that I was most frustrated about was the singles section being reduced to just 10 country charts, which included the removal the band's chart positions on Canada's Alternative chart. I'm upset about this because this was one of the charts which the band had their most successful peak positions, including several #1 and #2 hits. I feel it should be shown on the article to recognize the band's large success in Canada. I'd appreciate an explanatory response as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.32.237 (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Template:Infobox song list has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox artist discography. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

hello,

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

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

hello,

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

I have nominated Aesop Rock 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.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I started a discussion about a template for automatic certification citation here. This might be relevant to this project just as much, so feedback (on the other location) is much appreciated. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Ashlee 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. Novice7 | Talk 12:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Talk:Weezer in order to reach consensus regarding whether the Weezer album Death to False Metal is considered a studio album, if anyone would like to contribute. Angryapathy (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the Lightening Bolt discography for deletion as I think it doesn't meet current standards of a Featured List, articles are typically reviewed for 2 weeks. Afro (Talk) 16:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Bloc Party 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.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Wilco 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. Afro (Talk) 05:46, 21 January 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)