Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style page.

Contents

[edit] Conflicting Styles

As a regular participant at WP:FLC, I've seen a lot of discographies get nominated. There seems to be some differences between current FLCs and recent FL additions with older FL discogs:

  • Aesop Rock discography is missing Peak chart positions for Singles
    • That's because none of his singles charted, as far as I know. Drewcifer (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Should the certifications section of Carrie Underwood discography be incorporated into the Singles table?
    • I think so. There's certainly room for it. Drewcifer (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Are the chart positions of Billie Piper discography in the wrong order? This is the English Wikipedia site, and emphasis should be on English speaking countries, with the artist's home country being first. The order for the albums should be UK, then other English speaking countries in alphabetical order, then non-English speaking countries in alphabetical order.
  • Alice in Chains discography, Dave Gahan discography and many other discogs feature a B-Sides section. Is this necessary in a discography? It seems to be discouraged at the most recent FLC, mostly headed by me but supported by others, in that it is a discography, not a songography. Why are B-sides to a disc being detailed, when album tracks are not?
    • I agree. Drewcifer (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The original idea was that these discographies should be "comprehensive listings of official recordings" – has that been watered down as time's gone by? Grouping these releases together is functional and helpful, I'd argue. If I wanted to know how many acoustic tracks Deftones had recorded, I'd be able to find out without trawling through "What links here" or just searching. You have to bear in mind that the majority of readers won't be too concerned about economy of information. Seegoon (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Per WP:LS##Bold title, the bold title of the Lead Section should not be wikilinked. This appears on many discographies, and there is no valid reason for it.
  • The bold title of the lead differs between discogs, from:
    • "The following is a comprehensive discography of Aesop Rock" to
    • "This is a comprehensive discography of Alice in Chains" to
    • "This is a comprehensive listing of official releases by Billie Piper" to
    • "This is a discography of Carrie Underwood" to
    • "This is a listing of official releases by Depeche Mode" to
    • "This is a comprehensive listing of official releases by Feeder" to
    • "This is a comprehensive discography of Godsmack" to
    • "This is a comprehensive listing of official releases by Goldfrapp"
      • Should "comprehensive" be included? As it is a Featured List, I would think no, because one of the criteria of a FL is that it is complete.
        • The differing bolt titles is definitely a problem, as is the fact that some discogs need to clarify that it's comprehensive. Drewcifer (talk)
      • Is it only a list of official releases? Can non-official releases be included? If they aren't, is it a discography?
        • I agree. I think specifying that they are unofficial is kind of an oxymoron in the first place. If they released it, it's official. If they didn't, it's not. Right? Drewcifer (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Exactly. Saying it's an listing of official releases, and listing the unofficials, and bootlegs would make the lead statement wrong. If we said, "This/The following is a discography of (insert artist/band here), it would probably be okay to list unoffical and bootleg releases. If there are no unofficial releases listed, then it isn't harmful, and if they are, it allows for their inclusion. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Should ""—" denotes albums that were released but did not chart, or albums not released in a particular territory." be given in a key before the table, or after, as it currently is? IMO, it should be before, as a reader will see all these dashes and wonder what the heck they mean.
    • I would argue to the contrary. I don't have a clear reason, I just think it looks better. I'm not stuck on this position though. Drewcifer (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

These are only a few issues I have noticed among the first ten or so FLs. I'm not expecting them all to be of exactly the same quality, but as the FLC process moves on, so too should the already promoted lists.

Some of them, I think could be taken to WP:FLRC. I'm not about to do that, as I think now that there is a Project dedicated to these lists, the members should attempt to make the changes. However, before I do anything, I think a consensus needs to be made here. (Note that the FLC reviewers often look to see what a WikiProject's style guide is as they review.) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good points all around. I would definitely like to organize some sort of retro-spective discographies sweep kind of thing for exactly these reasons. Drewcifer (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also noticed that Gwen Stefani's discog features no chart positions.. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed that one a while ago. I've been avoiding submitting it to FLR simply because there's no written-down rules for what should be in a discography. But hopefully we'll take care of that soon. Drewcifer (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I was going to bring up the Stefani discog as well. I understand not including any chart positions for albums if none of the artist's albums charted, but an internationally successful singer such as Stefani has had her solo albums chart all over the world. I guess once certain guidelines have been agreed upon the project's members can go through older FL and fixed them up. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Peak Chart Positions in discogs

Discussion taken from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sonic Youth discography on April 25, 2008

As this is the English Wikipedia, I'd like to see the chart positions for English speaking countries be grouped together before non-English speaking countries (both alphabetised), with the band's home country first, and the World charts if available last. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think UK/US should come before all other English-speaking countries in the charts. These are the two most important markets in terms of marketing, sales, promotion, media coverage etc. indopug (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually guys, the way I've always done it is the following order: home country then descending by chart success. So, take for example David Hasselhoff. I would argue that the two most important countries as far as his chart performance goes are the US (his home country) and Germany (where he's practically worshiped). Perhaps (and I don't know this, but let's just assume for the sake of argument), that Hasselhoff has charted very poorly in the UK. Should the UK came before Germany? I would argue no, since it would be a logical mistake to put Hasselhoff's popularity in the UK before his uber-success in Germany, simply because the UK speaks English and Germany speaks German. Does that make sense? Drewcifer (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I was opposed to the idea of chart listings even having a set order as per Matthewedwards; its unnecessary at best and at worst, well, the Hasselhoff case. I mentioned about the US and UK only because I was afraid Matthew's suggestion would become a standard requirement for all discogs. I think the columns are fine in any order after the first 2 or 3 most important ones. Also requiring the nominators to now shift around the columns might cause inadvertent errors. indopug (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Surely for us to put forward what we think as the most important is verging on WP:NPOV? As pointed out by User:Kollision at the current Bloc Party discog FLC, WP:CHART say it should be the artist's home country, followed by all others in alphabetical order. My suggestion is that as this is the English language Wikipedia, we put the English langage charts in alphabetical order after the home country, then list the non-English language charts in alphabetical order. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussion taken from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Bloc Party discography on April 25, 2008
The general consensus at WP:CHART (a MoS guideline) is that the home country comes first followed by all other charts in alphabetical order. I think this is the way it should be as it is not only clearer to follow but also more NPOV. - kollision (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with that theory, although I think it should be refined to alphabetise all English language charts before listing foreign language charts (alphabetically again) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Didn't realize there was an MOS on that. Well I guess that takes care of it, no? Drewcifer (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It does insofar as basic alphabetising, but what about my suggestion for putting Eng lang charts first? I don't mind if it's not done, as long as a consensus is agreed upon. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
If there's a MoS on it, then okay. But I still think preference must be given US and UK, and in cases such as Hasselhoff's, Germany. I don't think the order of chart placement even remotely affects WP:NPOV; I mean, come on! Besides, its supposed to be Neutral point of view and not No point of view; for most Western pop/rock acts, the only charts a reader really wants to see are the US/UK ones; if we have to stuff one of them all the way to the back, it severely reduces the usability of the article for readers. I don't think we should go around changing the order of FL discographies' charts; its too much work over a trivial issue and can very easily lead to errors creeping. As for further segregation into English and non-English speaking countries (because this the English Wikipedia), I'm not sure I understand you at all. indopug (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the most logical and non-anal way to go about this is to a) make this a suggestion rather than a do-or-die requirement, and b) don't rock the boat and just go by the MOS on this one. Drewcifer (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what has been decided at WP:Charts, especially since its a MoS guideline. The artist's home country is placed first and then followed by all other charts in alphabetical order. No point in going against it. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with above. English speaking countries should not be prioritized. This is implying something about artist success, which is an NPOV issue. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of sections and subsections

What do people think the order of sections and sub-sections should be in? Some discogs place music videos with/close to Videos/DVDs, some place music videos near Singles, some place compilation albums and live albums with/near Albums, others don't. Is there already an established way, or does it need addressing? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always kind of ordered things on a case-by-case basis. Not the most rule-savvy way of doing it, but do you really think we need to specify a preferred order? But, if you pulled my arm, I'd say the order should be: Studio albums, live albums, EPs, video releases, compilations, misc, singles, music videos, appearances on compilations/soundtracks. Drewcifer (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think we have to have something set in stone, but some sort of consistency across the project would be a good idea, I think. Like a Project MOS. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
In the discogs I've worked on I have always ordered them this way: Albums (studio, live, compilation, etc.), EPs, Singles, Miscellaneous, Music videos and then Video albums (DVDs, VHS, etc.) -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] What not to include

Why is "Non-musical releases" included in the list of things not to put in a discography? -Freekee (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My intention was to avoid the inclusion of things that have nothing to do with music. For instance, Nation of Ulysses had a zine. But it wouldn't behoove a discography to include something like that. I would also argue that something like Some Kind of Monster wouldn't belong in Metallica's discography, since that would belong in a filmography. Drewcifer (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
My first thought was of spoken word recordings, but what about interview discs? I think you'll need to be more specific about videos and such. Wait a minute... no videos? Oh, you just mean no documentaries. Which would also preclude the interview disc. So we only want music and video music releases. Um, why not any recorded output by the band? Artistic output only?
Next question: What about single songs that were originally issued on compilation (or soundtrack) albums? Like, "The Perfect Drug"? Should there be a place in the discog for songs like this? -Freekee (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point about spoken word recordings. All of Henry Rollins spoken-word releases, for instances, should probably be in his discography. Maybe I'll see about rewording that. I suppose I was intending to focus things to be a by-the-books discography, which is usually defined as a list of musical releases only. But perhaps a slightly broader definition would be beneficial here. As for the Perfect Drug versions, I would argue that that should be included, basically since NIN had their own release of the song, specifically credited to NIN and featuring only that song and other NIN songs. Drewcifer (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but which product, exactly, should be listed in the discog? -Freekee (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say the "Perfect Drug Versions". But as the NIN Discog currently has it is fine: it says "Perfect Drug" with a link to the single's article explaining the details of the release further. Drewcifer (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, right, that one was a single. Okay, bad example. Hmm, I can't come up with any. But let's say a song does exist that only appears only on compilations that feature songs from multiple bands? Is there a place for such songs in discog articles? -Freekee (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea, in a "Appearances on compilations" section, or something like that. Plenty of discographies have them. But the important thing is that the track being included is original to that compilation, not just some already-released song that's been thrown onto some soundtrack CD. Drewcifer (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen that sort of listing before. Makes sense, though. Thanks. -Freekee (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discogs

I don't think discogs should be a recommended external link, for the same reason that it is frowned upon to cite using IMDb; it is user generated content, and suffers from reliability problems. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An External link is different then a source of information. External links don't necessarily need to be reliable. Drewcifer (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Surely if the the wiki discography is comprehensive and reliable, the only external links required are to band/artist website? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If an article were comprehensive and reliable, no external link would be needed at all. ;-) -Freekee (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sortable tables?

Every once and a while, someone asks in an FLC why the tables aren't sortable. So my question to you all is, should they be sortable? If not, why not? If so, why, and to what degree?

My argument is that they should not be sortable, since many basic table functions such as rowspan and colspan don't operate correctly in a sortable table. I've brought up this technical shortcoming at the Village Pump before, but to no avail. So until the day comes when they can coexist, I'd prefer to leave them unsortable. Drewcifer (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CHART

Should WP:CHART, part of the WP:MOS be followed here when dealing with Peak Chart positions? It states that the artists' home countries be first, followed by all others alphabetically.

My personal preference is home country first, followed by English language charts (alphabetically), followed by foreign language charts (alphabetically), ending with Worldwide chart. The reason being is that this is the English language Wikipedia, and most users of it will be wanting to look for their country's chart before, for example, Finland's.

User:Indopug's preference is home country first (I think), followed by the US and UK charts, then all others alphabetically, with the reason that the US and UK music industries are the most influencial.

I think a decision needs to be made because of conflicting advice at WP:FLCs. What is other users's opinions? Do you agree with any of the above, or have even another idea of presenting the order?

WP:CHART also says do not use component charts. These are mostly used by Billboard in the US. Should we include them here? If so, depending on the different style/genre of songs an artist records, they could have a many different songs only appearing once on each component. Should the Hot 100 (for singles) and Hot 200 (for albums) be the only ones used? What about if an artist's songs do not chart on the Hot 100, but do on a component chart? Should they then be allowed? Again, this is something that has recently come up at a couple of WP:FLCs. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am curious to know if WP:CHART is applicable at all for discographies. Just looking at the chart table at CHART makes me believe that it is tailor-made only for song and album articles. (see "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and Adore) indopug (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think so. The first sentence says "This page gives some guidelines for using and displaying record chart information in music-related articles. ". Peak chart positions would be "record chart information", and disographies are definitely music-related articles, so I can see the sense in applying it here. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Adore displays its chart information much like a discog page would. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It might say its meant for music-related articles, but have they actually considered the unique case of discographies? Consider the wording of "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart.", clearly that indicates a suggestion for single-song charts, not a table with twenty singles (like in a discography). How would that statement be used when one song on the table has charted the main chart while another has not? As for Adore, I am sure I have never seen anybody bring up CHART at FAC, so... indopug (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Why have bias just because "this is the English language Wikipedia"? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a number of discussions going on here, so let's try and split these things up Drewcifer (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC):

[edit] Chart order

There seems to be a consensus that home-country should come first. There also seems to be agreement that the majority of other countries should be alphabetically listed by their English-language names. Below are the two points that seem to be contended. Please provide your opinion below each point.

  1. Should English-language countries be given priority (after the home country) or should they be alphabetized along with everything else?
  • I would go with alphabetizing everything regardless of language. First, this opens up a can of worms as to what defines an English-speaking country: if you take a look at this category you'll see this isn't as obvious as a definition as it seems. Second, it makes things much much simpler to just alphabetize everything, from the viewpoint of both editor and reader. Third, it gives what I see as biased emphasis to some countries. Drewcifer (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I see your point, but English Wikipedia is more than likely going to contain more discogs from groups from the US, UK, IRE, AUS, NZ etc, than from FR, FIN, PO, JP SWE etc. Grouping them doesn't give bias, it provides the reader with really-ease-of-use instead of just ease-of-use. Looking at Red Hot Chili Peppers discography as a random example, grouping US, AUS, IRE, NZ and UK together makes sense because the majority of visitors to that article on en.wiki will be from those countries, not FR, , NLD, GER SWE or SWI. It also makes it easier to compare chart performances in the countries, for example if I was a NZer, I'd want that column closer to the US's to see how the release compared in my country to the home country. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. Where to put aggregate charts such as World Charts or EU charts: immediately after home country, alphabetized with everything else (presumably by EU and World-wide), or last?
  • I would go with putting them last, since they already act as kind of a summary. Worldwide charts would go last-last, while EU charts or any other less-then-worldwide charts before Worldwide in alphabetical order. Drewcifer (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Component charts

To what degree should component charts be included in discogs? Below are some potential solutions. Feel free to add to them.

  1. All applicable charts should be included.
  2. No component charts should be included.
  3. Component charts should be included only when a release did not chart on the primary charts.
This is what WP:CHARTS currently says, but I'm confused as to how it would apply to a list of releases. If "Album 1" charts only on a component chart, "Album 2" charts on a component chart and the main chart, and "Album 3" charts only on the main chart, which release do we favor? Do we include the component chart since one album charted only on that one chart, or do we discard the component chart since the artist has charted on the main charts? Drewcifer (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem with the Foo Fighters discog was that 5 or 6 component charts were being used and they pushed the tables off the right side of the screen (for me anyway, on a 21" at 1024x768). If they were allowed, I can foresee this happening on a number of discogs. It also gives a biased representation of US charts, when every other country only has 1. Note though, that the UK has indie, R&B, rock and dance charts (see the UK's BBC Radio 1 chart website). (They're also printed in the weekly Broadcast magazine, so it wouldn't be unfeasible to include those also, but no current Featured discog does. Finally, nothing at discogs states we have to include every single chart that every release has charted on, and if Hot 100/200 is already there, perhaps there is no need for the component charts. Even though I raised this, I should say that I'm not too concerned whether or not they are used. My main concern is consistency amongst all the discogs, and ease-of-use. I don't think having to horizontally scroll to view a table is a good thing. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Matthewedwards&site=localhost count · email) 20:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point; I find that too many people believe that for "comprehensiveness" we must include every chart. Completely unwarranted; a comprehensive discography should have every important notable official release by the band. Regarding the number of charts, the issue of aesthetics should also play a part: do not clutter the table and do not make so wide that we need to scroll. As for the US mainstream and modern rock charts' inclusion, it is important to note that most popular rock bands do not make it to the Hot 100. Hence, these two bands detail most singles of a band, while a presence on the Hot 100 can be considered as an indication of mass acceptance, not just from fans of the genre/band. For example, consider [[[The Strokes discography]], where only one of their singles charted on the Hot 100. Removing the mod rock charts would suggest that the band was mostly unsuccessful in the US, which is clearly not the case (per the mod rock charts). indopug (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This is definitely a tricky situation. Should we just say that component charts should be included if a release only charted on that particular chart, even if other releases charted on the main chart? So, in my above example with Release 1 2 and 3, since Release 1 only charted on a component chart, the main chart and component charts would be included for all three? I'm not sure if I see anyway around that. Drewcifer (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to handle WP:Charts

I think it is clear that WP:CHARTS needs a major rewrite, not only does it cover a very limited type of article type (and seems to ignore discography articles), but also it doesn't seem to cover the points mentioned above (order of charts, aggregate charts, and component charts). Drewcifer (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If a decision is made here on how to handle what WP:CHART says, then that doesn't have to be mentioned. There is the possibility that we could make or raise potential changes on the talk page over there, though. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
CHART seems to work fine for song articles. Instead, why not strengthen MOS:DISCOG for the discography specifics; and include a mention at CHART that "this pertains only to song articles for discography-related information go to DISCOG"? indopug (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable solution to me. Drewcifer (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bootlegs

Just curious why bootlegs are not allowed -- Bootleg recording has an article, and there are articles with lists of bootlegs, such as The Beatles bootlegs. Just curious.Editor437 (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Because as those two articles say, bootlegs are unofficial. I could cobble together an album of songs and put it out there, but if it's not endorsed by the artist or record company, it's not part of the official discography of the artist. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, but that may be confusing bootleg recording with piracy. Bootlegs are not, generally, reorganized albums of already-released songs (which would be piracy), but collections of other material not officially released. So, not just anybody can cobble together a collection of songs -- you have to have the recordings, which are not available commercially. At any rate, such recordings, especially of major artists, seem notable and worthy of inclusion in a discography, so long as they are marked as suchEditor437 (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC).

Bootleg can mean alot of things – everything from outright piracy to leaked material – but in nearly every case (a few exceptions aside), they are unofficial, and therefore aren't part of the artist's discography, aka, list of official releases. I suppose I could imagine a case where an artist is particularly well-known for having a ton of bootlegs for whatever reason, so perhaps a seperate "List of bootlegs" article might be in order. Or if there are any particularly notable bootlegs (When the Whip Comes Down comes to mind), then you can always mention it in a See also section, like Nine Inch Nails discography does. Drewcifer (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Bootlegs (recordings of independent origin is a clearer term) are not usually officially endorsed/released by the band. Discography articles deal with what is official released. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Not to be contentious, but who says discographies deal with what is officially released? Has there been a consensus formed on this point? In my interpretation, a discography is simply a list of recordings - I don't see why they need be "official." This rule does not follow the standard in the arts -- if I provide a list of ""writings by Edgar Allen Poe," I'm giving you the whole list, not just the published works, or the works he intended to reach the public.

I'm happy to yield on this point if there has already been a discussion and a consensus, but if not I'm not convinced bootlegs need be omitted.Editor437 (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there has been any centralized discussion. So this could serve as it, I suppose. But just to be clear, I would argue that the Beaetles bootleg article is a slight exception to the rule, since the Beatles and their bootlegs are so notable. Drewcifer (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Release dates for singles

How come release dates aren't needed for singles but are for albums? I don't understand. While submitting the Supergrass discography discography for featured list, I got a comment from Drewcifer that said "Stuff like release dates and labels aren't necessary for singles." Why is this? --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Too much detail. Its simply a little too much information that isn't really that important which affects the aesthetics and appearance of the table. Further, many bands have large numbers of singles compared to their albums and overall, singles are less important than albums. Can you imagine how the Singles table of Madonna/The Beatles would look with detailed release information? indopug (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music videos

I've been thinking about the inclusion of music videos in discographies for some time now, as I don't think they're all that necessary.

On nearly every discography we have, most of the music videos listed are exactly the same as the singles, because usually music videos are an extension of the single made only to promote it. As it is, all we do is list the videos and give the directors, and even then the directors aren't always given for each one, or if they are they're never cited. What makes these music videos notable? Usually nothing. Sometimes they win an award or two, or top a Channel 4 poll of the public's favourite, but that should be mentioned in the article of the single rather than being given their own section here.

Only very few times are music videos made when a single isn't released. These are more notable than the videos that are made to promote an already mentioned single, and so I think these and these alone should be mentioned, and could be grouped together with any videos or DVDs the artist has released. If the video has won something, this could be mentioned in the lead as "The promotional music video for 'Single X' won the 'Best Rock Video Award' at the MTV European Music Awards". Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the music videos are somewhat redundant in some discographies (where the table pretty much matches the singles table), but not so much in others (like Nine Inch Nails discography or Sonic Youth discography, for example). So although I agree with you in theory, I think the possibility of exceptions such as those warrant their overall inclusion. But, like I said, I do agree with you in theory, so yea... Drewcifer (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I see it as being similar to ==Other appearances==.. A song licensed from an official albums and included on Now That's What I Call Music! isn't listed as it's already a member of a main part of the discog, but brand new tracks written for a soundtrack or something are listed.
Music videos are simply an extension of the single used solely to promote, but music videos for non-singles are themselves more notable as they are stand-alone things (couldn't think of a better word!)
So what would do you mean by "overall inclusion"? Including all videos even when they match up with the singles section; not including when the music video and singles sections are the same but including all music videos for a discog such as Nine Inch Nails discography; or not including music videos anywhere unless they are separate from a commercial release? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction sentence ("This is a discography of XXXX")

As the title of our discographies are "Artist XXXX discography", is it necessary to introduce the article as "This is the official discography of XXXXX. XXXXX is an English pop music singer. He has released three albums, eight singles, etc etc...." or any alternative? We know this from the title, as well as being uninspiring (This doesn't relate just to discogs, many lists, including WP:FL are guilty of it). How about beginning with something as simple as "The discography of XXXXX, an English pop music singer, consists of three albums, eight singles, etc etc"? WP:LS doesn't insist on a bold title if one doesn't fit, it fixes the problem of wikilinking the bold lead, it reads much simpler, while relaying the same information with less words. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The bolded lead thing makes for an awkward read. Drewcifer (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorporating List of music recording sales certifications

I made List of music recording sales certifications specifically for the purposes of acting as a legend for certifications, in order to avoid what has happened at The Prodigy discography (look below the first table). Problem is, I'm not really sure how to lead people to the page. Should it be in a little legend underneath tables? Or should it be wikilinked somewhere in the tables? Should it replace the customary link to Music recording sales certification? Any suggestions? Drewcifer (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. At least that way the reader can see what the threshold for each tier is. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Or link "Platinum" or "Gold" or "Silver" to the page instead. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a good solution, but what exactly gets linked? The first certification only? The first time gold, platinum, silver, or diamond is mentioned? And since each body has a different definition of what s/g/p/d means, I think it's a little misleading to only link one or even a few. Personally I'm leading towards a legend of some kind, but I'm not super-sure about that. Drewcifer (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question on order of countries

Hi, I was wondering, is there any consensus on the order of countries in the albums/singles rankings? Some are alphabetical, like this one (descending order) or this one (partly ascending). Other lists like this one are not alphabetical in any way. Which is best? Baldrick90 (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion further up, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Chart order, and MOS:DISCOG#Per-release #6. Definitely the first country should be the artist's home country. Then either alphabetize from A–Z the remainder, or alphabetize from A–Z other English speaking countries as this is en.wiki, and then alphabetize from A–Z all other countries. Finally, end with EU and World charts (if applicable) as these are not countries, but charts from a number of countries. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question on acronym used for the Netherlands

Some lists use "NL", like this one. Others use "NLD", like this one. Which should we use? Baldrick90 (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

NLD doesn't list it as an abbreviation for Netherlands, but NL does. The ISO 3166-1 gives both though: NL in its ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 two-letter codes, and NLD in its ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 three-letter codes.
Either ISO code is correct, so I think as long as the article is consistent throughout, it doesn't matter much. Either all the countries within an article use the three-letter codes, or they are use the two-letter codes, not a mixture of both. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think using the ISO codes is a little dangerous, since it's not always an English-language abbreviation. Switzerland, for example, is CH. But that doesn't make sense to 99% of the people in the world who don't know that, so we go with SWI. I think a good rule of thumb is abbreviate using 3-letters except in obvious exceptions like US, UK, or NZ. That just keeps things simplest. Drewcifer (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Consider me corrected. You make a good point there, so yeah, probably the best thing to do is simply use your head about it and not worry too much. No doubt another user will edit it if they think it's wrong anyway! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps an easy rule of thumb would be to go by the 3-letter ISO unless the ISO abbreviation obviously doesn't match with the English word for the country. In most cases it is the same, so that should be relatively easy rule to go by. Drewcifer (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Track listings

I've been browsing through the preferred discog style info, and was curious as to what's behind the consensus that track listings not be included in discographies. As a WP user, I personally find them extremely useful, especially for releases outside the US, which often go out of print very quickly. They're also great for romanizations and/or translations of non-English song titles. See TVXQ discography as an example. I realize a separate article could be for created for each album and single to accommodate this as well, but wow that's a lot of work! :) I know Ignore All Rules is definitely in effect here and is respected -- I was just generally curious as to the reasoning behind the current guidelines. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For me it's because it's a discography, not a songography. A discography deals with releases. The links to each release can then give the tracklistings. There is no point in re-stating exactly the same information on two pages. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I also think it's a matter of how much information is too much. As the above example illustrates pretty well (TVXQ discography), some of the track listings can get pretty complicated (take a look at "O"-正.反.合., or even more so T). Drewcifer (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Definitely, I totally understand both of your points. Regarding redundancy, yes, plus it creates a greater possibility of content conflicts between, say, and album's article and its listing within a discography. And yes, discogs that include track listings can and often do get extremely bloated. I think what I run up against is that not all albums have (or should have) their own article, and most songs don't (or shouldn't) unless they are "exceptionally" notable. The track listings are valuable whether or not an editor is able to write up the kind of accompanying prose that is expected in a full article. Granted, there are a lot of album and song articles out there that are nothing more than track listings and release dates. :) Thanks for your input! --hamu♥hamu (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To em or to en

There is a discussion on whether emdashes (—) or endashes (–) are to be used in empty table cells here. indopug (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)