Talk:The KLF discography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former FLC The KLF discography is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
A summary of this article appears in The KLF.
This article is part of WikiProject The KLF, an attempt to improve and expand coverage of The KLF and related topics.

Talk to us. KLF-related Articles in need of attention.
This article 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
To-do list for Talk:The KLF discography: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Implement suggestions from the Featured List candidacy (which may necessitate splitting some material out), redesign to suit the image-free format, update to reflect current standards (several discogs are now featured), and resubmit to FLC
  • Improve lead, and probably merge in the text which was previously the intro to the chart performance section
  • Look for Billboard and UK Indie/Dance chart data
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Rename to KLF Communications?

At our featured list candidacy a very good point has been made about the relevance of some of the sections of this article to a discography. When writing down each section and why it's here my conclusion is that KLF Communications (or KLF Communications and Publications) would be a more fitting title. Comments? --kingboyk 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

erm, don't you think you were a bit presumptious moving the page? I mean you only suggested it a day ago, that's hardly long enough for comment. My comment is that there should be an article at discography (one reason is that WP:MUSTARD says there should be) and I don't think it matters if it has extra releases that are not records (I'm sure there is a precedent, e.g. Factory Records). I feel the KLF kommunicators should be in their own page, creating a list of minor characters is perfectly legit and what we're encouraged to do. Then the list of KLF kommunicators can have sub-headings and hence they can be wiki linked from other articles, and it seems that the presence of the list of KLF kommunicators is the major objection to the page (aside from the cover images).
my main problem with the move is that KLF Communications, because of the capital letter should only be used for the KLF's label/organisation - if you want to make a page that acts as a discography but contains non record items then that should be at KLF communications. cheers Drstuey 12:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I wrote it and have done most of the work, so I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be bold and move it, and I'm a little surprised at your tone! I wanted to see how people felt it looked with the new name, and seeing it with the new name is a good way of focussing minds. It's very easily moved back, after all. The capitalisation is intentional, being the name of the label. We'll have a discography entry in the relevant categories, by way of the redirect.
So, you think the personnel stuff should be split back out. What about the article name? Would you mind putting your opinion about these two points into the Featured List review please? --kingboyk 12:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Funnily enough, what Stuart suggested is pretty much what we have as of the time of writing... :) --kingboyk (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Is the Help track considered notable enough to receive a mention? I'd feel that way, although the rename to KLF Communications would get in the way. Possible "Selected Compilation appearances" may be suitable? Me677 13:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we'll hold off on that suggestion until the FLC is out of the way and we know where we stand? I suppose it ought to be in there somewhere. --kingboyk 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
sorry if you thought there was a tone in my post, I said you were presumpious in a friendly way, honest. I have posted at the FAC discussion page. Yes I do think the kollaborators should be in their own page, but I didn't contribute to any discussions saying to include them in the discography did I? The name is difficult I admit, is there a precendent from any other groups? I think KLF communicators or KLF kollaborators from a KLF fan perspective, but they are not very encyclopedic. - Drstuey
I'm leaning towards dumping the collaborators list altogether, but if you disagree I'll farm it out to a new article. Please let me know.
WRT the name, I'm inclined to leave it here. KLF communications looks messy (as though we forgot to capitalise), and it's only slightly incorrect because of the late-years release of material on other labels - something that can be addressed by adding a note to the article. It seems to me to the best compromise name we have available. Convinced or not? :) --kingboyk 13:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review

The status of this article on the Good Article list has been questioned by several editors. Please see the relevent discussion at Good Article reviews if you wish to add something. The goal of this discussion is not to reject the article, but to see it improved to meet the standards of a Good Article. If you intend to improve the article, please join in the discussion at WP:GA/R. If the article cannot be brought up to standards, it may be delisted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

GA delisted, discussion can be found here. Giggy Talk 01:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Strange. It was a list when it got approved. If lists aren't eligible how can it be "brought up to standard"? (rhetorical question as I guess it can't). Also, nobody thought to mention you were looking at a butchered version after somebody had removed the images (despite them having fair use rationales).
That's not to say I disagree with the decision (standards improve, and this probably doesn't cut it any more), just the way it was reached seems a little bizarre :) --kingboyk (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I think I have to throw in the towel when it comes to fighting for the images to remain here. I've tried, but if I continue I'm open to accusations of edit warring. I remain adamant that it's "fair", morally and legally, to use them here (and of course we all know that The KLF could care less) but I seem to be in a minority on this one. If anybody else wants to challenge the removal, it would seem that the fair use police live at Wikipedia:Fair use review. --kingboyk (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment from blocked user obsessed with our use of supposedly his scans moved to WT:KLF. That's not the topic. (Although I do wonder at the coincidence of the fair use police swooping again just after his previous nasty little intervention?) --kingboyk (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Featured discography

50 Cent discography was recently given Featured List status. It looks very dull to me because of the lack of images, but it has a lot of chart placing data and references. Overall, it's not hugely better than this article I think. Comments? --kingboyk (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani discography is also Featured and again, imho, not hugely better than this article. It's mostly formatting. --kingboyk (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting this to Featured List standard

Objections from last Featured List candidacy:

  • Presence of images (only the vociferous regulars complained about this, but as above I've conceded defeat)
  • Formatting sucks once images are removed
  • Not focussed on one topic:
  • Formatting of references. Matched The KLF, which of course is Featured, but it may be worth looking at current best practice as I know things have moved on a lot since I first started using the ref tag.

In addition, we (probably I as it's awfully quiet around here) need to give the article a copyedit and look for ideas and to see what the current standard is by examining some of the recent featured discogs. --kingboyk (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting issues and data needed

I'm not sure whether:

  1. To include tracklistings of albums, as in this edit. Since 50 Cent discography and Gwen Stefani discography both omit them, I'm inclined to do the same.
  2. To have a seperate section for chart data, with some introductory text, like here or whether to integrate it into the albums and singles tables as I've started with this edit. Most of the albums didn't chart, some of the singles did, and I have data from more than a handful of countries. 50 Cent's discog has this data in situ; Stefani's has it in situ for singles but strangely the info is missing for albums. I guess that points to having it in situ.

I'm also in need of chart data from the UK Indie Chart/Dance Music Chart, if that is available (?), and a reliable source for Billboard data. Can anyone help? --kingboyk (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:Kingboyk:
I notice you wish to possibly use the Gwen Stefani discography, although I would opt for the 50 Cent discography. If I had seen the Stefani one at FLC, I would've objected due to the fact it doesn't list album chart positions. Newer discographies tend to have a neat infobox summarising things, such as the one that can be found at Nine Inch Nails discography. I'd take a look at all the discographies that are featured, and either opt for one or a mixture of things. I wouldn't include track listings. As concerns chart data, the best guy to ask I would say is 17Drew. Hope this helps. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Pretty much what I thought. I'll take a look at the NIN discog, and also drop 17Drew a line. BTW I'll have a precautionary save to make in a moment if you want to check out progress so far. I also have a lot of chart data for The KLF to add in (not The JAMs as most of the records were limited pressings and they only charted in UK indie/dance charts if at all). --kingboyk (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The infobox wouldn't be suitable here. This isn't a complete list of everything they ever released (I've just added a footnote about the exclusions; we have to remember this is a general encyclopedia) so the stats would be somewhat skewed (and hugely difficult to calculate anyway, because they kept remixing and rereleasing the same songs over and over, and reused the basic catalogue numbers too e.g. KLF004X, KLF004Y etc.)
I've been looking at those other discogs and they all have one or more sources which the casual reader could question (in such cases, the citation should be explaining to the reader why the source is authoratative). 50 Cent discography uses several sources which are blatantly not reliable sources! Do the FLC people not check these things?
I also have to say that Gwen Stefani discography is far from impressive.
The old KLF Communications article with images still looks nicer to me than these tables with no emphasis on the album title and no colour, and I don't consider chart data to be essential to a discography (a list of records); so in a way I feel like I'm wasting my time but what can you do... (It looked more like this when it first went to FLC last time.)
Anyway... how do you think it's shaping up? Looking like Featured potential or am I wasting my time? --kingboyk (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can anybody find a better citation template than {{cite press release}} for the KLF Info Sheets? (They were mailed out to fans - like an informal fan club I guess - and presumably to the media as well.) --kingboyk (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found Billboard data (hopefully complete) at AMG; have also found data for Aus and several European countries. The only painful ommission now is UK specialist chart data. --kingboyk (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Still painful because the JAMs stuff is a sea of "did not charts" (I don't care because of any vanity, but because it looks a bit ugly). I know that "Whitney", for example, charted on one of the specialist charts as The JAMs recorded an impromptu music video for it. I'm pretty sure (without going back and reading the article) that "All You Need Is Love" did too. I'll go check those articles later in case I've missed some sources. --kingboyk (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certifications

BPI's website has details on all albums / singles that have been certified, and is the official source. Type in KLF, and the relevant information comes up - for example. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RIAA's searchable database indicates that the KLF have been awarded two gold discs - one for a single, the other for an album. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Is this considered vital information and if so where am I gonna fit it in? --kingboyk (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The BPI site isn't the search box on the front page. You have to click "Statistics" and then "Certified Awards", to be presented with another search box. Results:

  • 3am Eternal 1991/Silver
  • White Room 1992/Platinum (+ silver and gold, platinum is presumably higher?)
  • Justified 1991/Silver

It's somewhat puzzling that the Timelords' "Doctorin' the Tardis" appears not to be listed despite being a number one. Makes me wonder if the sources which say it sold a million copies are somewhat exaggerated :)

RIAA has gold for 3am and The White Room. Looks like that represents sales of 500,000 each!

I'll get and add this info to the articles on the recordings themselves, but as stated above I'm not sure if and where the info belongs in this article. Perhaps as an extra section? The problem, of course, is that only a small minority of the releases listed actually got a certification. The gaps in chart data aren't so bad because at some point we may be lucky enough to get the data for the indie and dance charts, but these sales certs are likely to be final... --kingboyk (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abandoned/announced and unreleased projects

I'm not sure what to do with things like:

  • The Black Room, an album started and not completed. Currently prose after the albums table.
  • The White Room (film), a road movie not completed but which has been given at least one public screening
  • The unreleased (and possibly unrecorded) Pure Trance singles, for which sleeves were pressed
  • The "Deep Shit" comic and flexi-disc, which was announced but never released

Currently these things are omitted but in the way they're important parts of The KLF story so I'm guessing I'll have to put them into their own table. --kingboyk (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. The problem is knowing when to stop. On the one hand, we have things like "Deep Shit Part 3" (a year later than the planned and aborted comic book and flexi disc of "Deep Shit Part 1"), 6 copies of which were actually pressed up (and MP3s circulate). But Lazlo also lists (albeit in another section) such projects as the "Pure Trance" album, which presumably never got close to release as some of the singles were never pressed up (possibly not even recorded). I don't know whether to consider this stuff out of bounds or not. I chose to exclude them when the article was first written so maybe I should stick to that editorial decision. Thoughts? --kingboyk (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Decided to go with it, looking pretty good I think. --kingboyk (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I might have been wrong about The White Room getting a public screening. I thought it was shown at an NME Film Festival; although I've established that the NME did have a KLF screening I can't verify that this film was shown. All I can find a reference to is a private screening to potential investors. Therefore, I shall list it only in "Unreleased". --kingboyk (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waiting for the Rights of Mu

Include or not? Thought to be semi-official when first released; consensus now is I think "probable bootleg" (as opposed to "definitely a bootleg", which I've defined as clearly out of scope). Currently in the list but should it be? --kingboyk (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music videos

I don't have an adequate reliable source for The KLF's music videos, so I am omitting that section. There's a commented out placeholder within the article body; if at some point in the future a source becomes available I will add the information. --kingboyk (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty much done

Pretty much done, if anybody would care to comment (or answer any of the points above, in particular re certifications/gold discs).

If not, I guess I'll have to send it to FLC and let them do their worst. --kingboyk (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)