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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to know if the Billboard Hits of the World are okay to use if a position doesn't appear on the Hung Media such as Spain for charts prior to 2003. Also, is Argentina okay to use? I ask because the way it archives is different from other sites and I'm doing this for Chayanne discography on my sandbox. Erick (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I had to do a bit of research before addressing this question, but yes, it seems Hits of the World can be used. However, the only what I know to verify them is via magazine. Lucky for us every Billboard magazine in on Google books. I haven't tried their XML format thingy, so you may be able to archive it that way too.

Looking at WP:BADCHARTS, I see nothing wrong with using the Spanish, Argentina, or any other county from Hits of the World. I would assume Billboard did their research and would not include phony record charts in their magazine. I hope this answers your question.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 08:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes sir, thanks again. Erick (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Something just hit me. Do you think we should include some sort of note if a discog article uses more than one chart for the same country. For example, using Hits of the World for a song that charted in Spain in 2000 and using Hung Medien for a song that charted in Spain in 2008.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, in my sandbox, I reference each cell, but if there's any other suggestion, I'll take it. Erick (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Well some of the chart providers are different companies (like Spanish stuff from Hits of the World is provided by "AFVYE/ALEF MB"). I was thinking something along this line (using the code from sample section and some slight modifications):

Mode 1

Notes

• A ^ Prior to 2003, the Spanish charts were compiled by AFVYE/ALEF MB and published in Billboard's "Hits of the World" section. From 2003 to present, the Spanish charts are from PROMUSICAE and archived by Hung Medien.

Mode 2

References

1. For Spanish albums peaks:

• For Album Title 1: "Hits of the World". Billboard. (Nielsen Business Media). Other citations stuffff....
• For Album Title 2: "Discography Artist". Spanishcharts.com. Hung Medien. Retrieved 2011-01-17.

My personal choice is with the second one, but I'll do with whatever consensus is. Comments are appreciated.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

And maybe if the Argentine chart is used prior to 2010, mention it published in the Hits of the World. On a related note, it's probably important to mention how to access info from the CAPIF site for peak positions since it's different from other sources. Erick (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the same goes for any other country. But make sure to give a shoutout to whoever compiles it. (e.g. AFVYE for Spain, RIM for Malaysia, etc.)
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Madonna albums discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have nominated Load Records discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 21:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have nominated Willowtip Records discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have nominated Dischord Records discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have nominated Pink discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Till 16:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. So far Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles have been written as footnotes rather than as a separate column because of its low significance compared to other charts (e.g. 50 Cent Discography). However, putting it like that for Glee would be a very massive chunk of text as there are 64 singles like this. I would like to clarify whether there should be an NA and grayed out box for the Bubbling Under section when it has charted on the Hot 100. Maine12329 (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have nominated Rihanna discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Till 16:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I have nominated Ashley Tisdale discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Till 08:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Foo Fighters discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Till 08:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I have nominated List of unreleased Britney Spears songs for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Till 00:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Jessica Simpson discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Till 01:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Sophie Ellis-Bextor discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Till 01:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Powderfinger discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.