Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style/Archive 4

Mixtapes!

Can we please revisit this topic? I tried to bring it up here but it kinda fizzled out. I hate seeing these in discographies — they're unofficial, they're only used to hype up an album release, but there seems to be no clean consensus about whether they should be kept in discographies. Supposedly at one point the style guideline said "no" but now it doesn't? Anyone? - eo (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• In my experience I've never come across a mixtape which has charted (they're ineligable in most countries). Therefore is

==Mixtapes==

• Mixtape 1 (2007)
• Mixtape 2 (2008)
• Mixtape 2 (2009)

not sufficient instead of the tables. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

They should definitely be removed. Most are not officially released and the RIAA classes many of them as bootleg recordings. –Chase (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal. Nowyouseemetalk2me 20:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support, along the lines with what Chasewc91 says. They are not officially released because the are mainly available for free and therefore as a single body of work, they're ineligable to chart. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually, many of Lil Wayne's mixtapes have charted on the Billboard 200, as well as the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums and Top Rap Albums Chart. Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support of removal. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 20:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Mixtapes can chart, ex. Mýa's Beauty & the Streets Vol. 1. Candyo32 21:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't about whether they can chart, it's about whether unofficial albums should be kept. –Chase (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that is my reason why they should be kept. Candyo32 21:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As seen in the Lil Wayne discography, even "unofficial" mixtapes (I maintain my position that all are unofficial) are capable of charting. Our standards for inclusion prohibit unofficial material. –Chase (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Some mixtapes are not unofficial, and sold on the iTunes Store and in music retailers, e.g. Mýa's Beauty & the Streets Vol. 1 and Drake's So Far Gone. Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Mya mixtape, however I would like to comment that Drake's So Far Gone is an EP comprising of selected tracks from the mixtape of the same name in addition to new tracks. It's a separate release from the mixtape and was officially distributed by a major label. –Chase (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Are Lil-wayne's charting mixtapes officially released by his label? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Several are already labeled with "unofficial". As far as I'm concerned, Billboard does not have any rules regulating the sales of bootleg albums and their charts. –Chase (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not saying mixtapes are official or label-supported, charting was just used to support their inclusion. Like So Far Gone when most mixtapes go retail, they are EP's such as Fabolous's recent There Is No Competition 2: The Grieving Music EP. But I think mixtapes are (notable) at least should be able to chart. Mixtapes can also spawn singles and hits, such as Fan of a Fan mixtape and "Deuces." And they are supported some how, as that particular mixtape was by Brown's independent Chris Brown Entertainment. Candyo32 22:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

←The problem I have here is that a notable mixtape is the exception, not the norm. 99% of the ones I see in discographies are unofficial and unsupported by any label. It's also very difficult to discern which ones are "OK" (for lack of a better term) and which ones aren't. Mixtapes may help the careers of some R&B/Hip-hop artists, but who is to decide whether Artist A's mixtapes are more notable than Artist B's? I see a bunch of random titles thrown into discographies, and worse, articles created for mixtapes that assert no notability whatsoever. In the prior conversation about mixtapes, User:JohnFromPinckney had a great comment and I'll quote it here because it pretty much sums things up: "A mixtape would have to be pretty damned notable to be written about in what I'd call reliable sources. For me, it has as much to do with verifiability as notability. What I see ... is a bunch of names being plunked down under the heading "Mixtapes", invariably unreferenced, but when there is a reference, it goes to some hip-hop blog or hot-rapper-gossip-scene-download-and-listen-NOW site. In that sense, mixtapes represent some list of random strings of words alleged to comprise a title." - eo (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as the Chris Brown scenario is concerned, I think that "Deuces" (the song) is notable. However, this does not automatically make the mixtape it comes from notable. There may be a legitimate push from his label and management to popularize the song (and obviously it is working, as it charted quite well), but I don't think this automatically means a separate article should be made for that mixtape, or that it should be included in his discography. In the case of "Deuces", one can purchase it legitimately as a stand-alone single, not as part of a mixtape. - eo (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the removal of Mixtapes from discogs as they can comprise a large part of an artist's works. At least give them a mention. I'm not saying to give them all a separate wiki article. I support the bullet point presentation example by Lil-Unique1, these do not need to have the additional emphasis of being in a table as are the Official albums, singles, etc. —Iknow23 (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the comments of everyone. As long as the mixtape is officially released (i.e. by the artist's label) it is ok to mention in the bullet form. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has an issue with them being listed if they are officially released. But the problem is that most of them are not official. And how exactly would one verify that a mixtape is "official"? Keeping them just because they comprise a large portion is not reason enough. Surely if they are legitimate releases (e.g. purchased legally, physical or digital, in retail locations), then it wouldn't matter if there were 2 or 20 listed. Right? - eo (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Yvesnimmo's comment from the 'other charted songs' discussion, “…A discography, if you take a look at the Wikipedia article as well as Merriam-Webster, is a list of recordings, not releases..." Mixtapes are recordings.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, an official mixtape is release by the artist's own label. But then there are acceptions e.g. Can't Take That Away from Me is an official mixtape by JoJo officially released by Rap-up.com but funded for and directly attributed by JoJo. Surely it comes back to WP:RS? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And as someone else noted in that discussion, for the sake of space we don't list all recordings in a discography, only ones that are notable which are mainly: albums, singles, videos, and miscellaneous non-singles that chart. The majority of mixtapes aren't notable. And even ones that are, many are unofficially released and nearly all could be classed as bootlegs since they use other artists' instrumentals without authorization. There's a reason why RIAA refuses to acknowledge the sales of mixtapes and why they often go on "crackdowns" attempting to arrest the people who produce them. –Chase (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

True, this is Discography, not Songography. Thus 'mere' non-charting album tracks will not be listed in the discog, but they will appear in the Album article track listing. But where would the Mixtape information be located if not in the discog? We don't expect that most of them to have their own article.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As non-notable information is generally not included in articles, non-notable mixtapes should not be included in discographies. –Chase (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:NMUSIC needs updating with specific clarity for mixtapes? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say YES.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that a lack of clarity on modern mixtapes is exactly why they've been allowed to get into the state they're in. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

True! With no guidelines who knows what to do?—Iknow23 (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we decide on those guidelines over hear first and then notify the talk page of NMUSIC before updating. I don't really know that much about mixtapes so I don't feel confident to suggest what establishes notability with them. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that much about them either, except that artists in some genres use them extensively. I'd say to drop an invite at the NMUSIC Talk to join the discussion here.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Official mixtapes should be included. Unofficial mixtapes should not. It's usually fairly easy to tell the difference. Officially-released mixtapes form a significant part of many hip hop artists' output these days (e.g. Chamillionaire - his mixtapes have received coverage from the New York Times and MTV among others), and many are virtually indistinguishable from studio albums in terms of content and quality - it's just a different method of getting the music out - and they often get released commercially, either in physical form or as legal downloads, after their initial 'mixtape' release. I don't see the discussion of whether or not they can chart as relevant, nor the question of whether an individual mixtape is 'notable'. We don't exclude works in any other artform from articles about the artist because they don't appear in some commercial chart, and we don't exclude other albums from discographies because those albums are not 'notable'.--Michig (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more explicit about how to tell the difference between official and unofficial mixtapes. All the ones I see look just like some fortune-cookie phrase some IP editor came up with before adding it to the discog without reference citation or edit summary. If I Google for it and the artist's name, I may well find it mentioned on a number of download-now Web sites, but I can't discern whether they are official. Hints, please.

And about the chartiness: We do indeed include/exclude non-single songs based on their notability, a large factor of which is chart success. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about excluding 'songs' from discographies, I specifically mentioned albums. A discography is a list of releases by an artist, not a list of songs. We don't exclude any physically released albums or singles from discographies simply because they are not separately notable - they are still noteworthy (if only more editors knew the difference). Official mixtapes are generally either (a) promoted or mentioned by the artist themselves (e.g. in interviews), (b) made available via download sites such as iTunes, Amazon, etc., or (c) get covered by reliable sources, such as the regular review of mixtapes that MTV puts out on its website (somehow I can't see MTV including fan-compiled collections in their articles). Sometimes it's very obvious that mixtapes are official, e.g. Chamillionaire's Mixtape Messiah series. Unofficial mixtapes are often disowned by the artists in interviews. If we really can't be sure about individual mixtapes after making an effort to find out then I'd say leave these out of the discography until evidence is provided that they are official.--Michig (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Example...Gucci Mane announced Mr. Zone 6 mixtape and 'pressed up 100,000 copies to give away'—Iknow23 (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed statement of consensus

While I've got my hammer and chisel in my hands, ready to enshrine our well-reasoned consensus into a clear form on the Style page, I thought I'd put in whatever we decided about mixtapes. Since the topic still appears a bit murky to me, I'd like to write out my proposed changes here first, to avoid what I expect would be extra edits, reversions, disarray, etc., on the main page. First, then, here's my assessment of our results:

Assessment

1. It seems that we generally agree that official mixtapes would be acceptable for listing, although they're unlikely to chart, on the principle that official albums and singles automatically get listed – they're considered notable – even if they flop and never chart.
2. With only one user dissenting (so far), we tend to agree that unofficial mixtapes should be kept right out of discographies. (For purposes of Wikipedia, of course, unreferenced is about the same as unofficial.) Leaked, bootleg, disowned, fan-made and just plain non-pedigreed works would be excluded.
3. The pain in the neck is figuring out what's official, but we're ready to "assume non-official until proven official", namely with references to solid, reliable sources.
4. Aware of the fact that mixtapes are rarely referenced now and will be often added without refs in at least the near future, we are prepared to be hard in demanding solid refs for new additions once we amend our guideline. (I suggest we individually reference what we can, but for the rest, we tag existing mixtapes lists with {{Citation needed}}, using the date= parameter, and after a month or two we can delete still-unreferenced mixtapes without remorse.)
5. We expect that charting of a mixtape would be an astounding, rare event and so we agree a table would be inappropriate (and give them an implicit importance they don't deserve, as I believe some editors opined). A regular bullet list of titles with reflinks is what we'd like to suggest in our guideline. We'd show a year after the title, but no other info.
6. Similar to our agreement about a separate "Other charted songs", we believe an "Official mixtapes" section, separate from the "Albums" section, is what we want to require. Hey: I just made that up! Do we really believe this? Comment below, please.
7. Although invited once on their Talk page, not much involvement by the regulars at WP:Notability (music) is evident, nor has any activity on the guideline page there appeared. It seems we want some clarification added to the WP:NALBUMS section, but we don't have that yet. I think we will have to instigate a real discussion over there (not just pointing here), perhaps providing a draft edit for them to study and discuss. Question: Are we ready to try drafting a change to this page even without any elaborations over there? Or is inactivity there a progress-killer for us here? Also please comment on this below. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on assessment

Please note your satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the above assessment and register your response to the questions. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm a little late, but I don't think mixtapes should be separate from the albums section. Unlike "other charted songs" compared to single releases, official mixtapes are released. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Chase. I'd pretty much given up on this effort. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Chase. Mixtapes are albums. Could we also mention the label releasing the mixtape? Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Draft edits

Okay, so I haven't worked up any change proposals yet. When I do, they'll be here. OTOH, maybe I'm waiting for your comments above... When I've got some assurance about what we want (and I have time), I'll start on figuring out what needs changing to suit our consensus. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on draft

Please note your satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the above draft edits. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Bolding of title

The style guidelines say not to bold the title, yet MOS:BOLDTITLE encourages the bolding of simple descriptions. Most of the project's articles open with "discography of (artist)", so per the MOS, wouldn't that be bolded as a simple description? Now granted, not every discography opens that way, but this is in regards to those that do. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That part of MOS has a [clarification needed] tag on it. The same section says If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface. so there is clearly a problem here. I guess the clarification is needed to understand what a "simple description" is in this context. For now, I'd stick with the clear instruction, not the unclear, tagged, slightly unclear "suggestion". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this a guideline or not?

As an FLC regular, the indefinite "proposed" status of this page is quite frustrating, as I see numerous discography editors quoting it almost as policy. Can music editors please decide once and for all whether or not this "guideline" has consensus, so that the rest of the Wikipedia community does not have to be kept guessing? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Let's. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget this is a Wikiproject guideline, not the WP:MOS... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What the heck's that supposed to mean? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

FLs follow WP:MOS, not Wikiproject guidelines, even though the MOS seems to be inherently unstable and subject to change and sudden implementation at a moment's notice. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should wait for the translation, but I'll respond anyway.

1. I am well aware that this is a proposed guideline, and not part of the MoS.
2. I cannot guess why you would think I did not know or remember that.

   My point was more directed at Dabomb87 than at you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

   Ah. The indentation led me to think otherwise. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

   Mea culpa. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

3. This page has been waiting to be part of the MoS for quite some time, now, and I would be in favor of seeing that happen in my (wiki-)lifetime
4. If it were part of the MoS, would you be a happier editor? Or a happier reviewer?

   I'd be happier if it wasn't suddenly rolled out across existing featured content, especially after what happened with WP:ALT. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

5. You seem bitter that the MoS has changed once (more often?) than you were ready for. Is that what you mean by "at a moment's notice" above?

   No, not bitter that I wasn't "ready" for it, just that the featured list community (besides the two here at DISCOGS) were not invited to participate in this process, nor given a chance to express how ridiculous the new table formats appear to most readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

6. The content of WP:ACCESS took a rather long time to work out, as I understand it; certainly it hasn't been conjured up at a moment's notice.
7. The MoS on Wikipedia is, if I'm not mistaken, also part of the wiki. It's changed by wiki process. Is that something for which you are not prepared? How should improvements be implemented, then, if you have some other preference? What course of action do you suggest to see that discographies (as a specific example) meet the accessibility requirements for the site?

   Again, inclusion in the discussion would have been helpful. These changes affect featured lists directly. Did anyone not consider dropping a note off at WT:FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

8. WP:ACCESS is part of the MoS, so if you feel better ignoring this page, you can go right on to the implementation. The tables on this page are really just examples worked out to comply with WP:ACCESS, to make it easier for discog authors to consistently follow the MoS.
9. I don't believe anyone is suggesting the discog WikiProject usurp control of WP or FLs or anything else, beyond recommending what ought to be in discographies and how it might be presented. The presentation suggestions ought to intersect closely with WP:ACCESS, part of the MoS (I know, I said that already), and I think they do that well. This project's work ought to be in alignment with the MoS. Don't you agree?

   Yes, all "style guides" should be alignment with MOS, absolutely. But rolling changes into existing featured material which render them more accessible to a few and much less accessible to many is the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Does any of that move us forward? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's one of the problems I still have with Wikipedia. After learning how to edit, preview, revert, contact individual editors, use templates, and lots more, I still am not clear on how to get a consensus on some non-trivial topic such that nobody will come along and say, "but we didn't know". What billboards do these invitations have to be plastered across to satisfy everybody (and still get some results before we die), and how am I supposed to know which ones they are? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the changes involve lists, then it would have seemed appropriate (to me, at least) to involve the featured list community. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a list of communities, and some explicit guidance about which ones to consult for what kinds of issues?
• I didn't know you were a separate group; I thought it was all pretty much the same bunch of folks reviewing GA/FA articles about music as those who create/edit articles about music.
• Beyond which, I figure (still*) that the "featured list community" isn't particularly more important than, say, the Vegetarian WikiProject people (assuming there is such a project). Every group WP-wide has to make lists and non-list articles, don't they? There's nothing hidden or discog-only about WP:ACCESS. Now, I don't believe we tried to solicit vegetarians or physicists or butterfly scientists or fans of The Simpsons, either, but they all have to do what we discog-heads have been working on (and I rather had the impression we were running somewhat behind the others). Or maybe I'm suddenly in a group of avant-gardists, and I didn't realize it. I've never been at the forefront of anything before.

*Please don't take offense at this; it's partially my resistance to dividing up WP into little fiefdoms where some special rules apply, in addition to believing that the Battleship WikiProject has to deal with WP:ACCESS as much as anyone else. I'm sorry you weren't specially invited earlier. We could have moved this discussion (and the process) along more expeditiously. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've attempted to start a centralised discussion at WT:FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Table captions: short and efficient

Hi. In this guideline, table captions are way too verbose. They are supposed to be simple and efficient. I asked advice to an expert recently, and he said that "making a table caption is just as obvious as making section headers: it's exactly the same thing. In fact, so similar that it's instinctive, and lots of Wikipedia users have been doing it successfully for years relying on their instinct alone".

"List of singles, with selected chart positions and certifications, showing year released and album name" is way too long. It was written thinking too hard about what a blind user might expect, believing that there is a significant difference between they way an average user and a blind person use a table. Truth is, there is not that much of a difference, at least not when the table is accessible. Instead, simply imagine that there is no section header before the table, and that the user jump on the table without reading what was written above. The user wants a table caption, onyl to know quickly what the table is about. If the table caption is too long, it doesn't play its role efficiently. There are lots of possibilities. But you don't want to have a table caption that would take longer to read than figuring out the content of the table all by yourself. Here is a few possibilities:

• "The Prodigy singles and peak charts"; "peak charts" are relevant in the caption because it is the main content of the table.
• "List of The Prodigy singles" would be OK too, but "List of" may well be self-evident and unnecessary.

Those would be fine, it's not that complicated. Repeating the headers in the caption is redundant for blind users. If they want the main column headers read aloud, they can ask their screen reader to do so easily since the table is structured with scope="col/row". They simply want an efficient table header, no less and no more.

In cases where the table is hard to understand visually for sighted users too, table captions may become slightly more descriptive to fit the needs. But again it's trivial, and you'll know it yourself when the table caption is not descriptive enough or instead not concise enough. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to mention: there still is the redundancy issue. Some users believe that table captions are redundant with section headers. It may seems like it in the case of discographies, because every table has its section header. But from an accessibility point of view, a table caption is always necessary. And table captions are semantically associated with the tables, which is useful for machines like search engines, reuse of content and such. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

See if you're happier with the current version. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's much better. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sortable music video sections

When the new style was implemented, several discogs such as Kesha discography and Kelly Rowland discography, as well as Fantasia Barrino discography used sortable music video tables. They are used now on the current FLC Chris Brown discography and an editor has brought up why. Can someone comment on the matter or explain?

Kesha's used rowspan so I turned the sortability off. I'll comment at the FLC now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Certifications shown on Discographies

Is it LAW that to put a certification up on somebodies discography the country the certification is from must also have chart positions shown? I understand why this makes sense if the album/single in question has MANY certifications but what if there are just a few? I've noticed that most discographies usually have 6 certifications max per album and that they are usually countries that have the chart positions up too which is awsome but for albums/singles with say 5 certifications total doesn't it make more sense to put them all up than leave a few off just because the chart positions arn't shown on the discography page? E.G Adele discography where her new album "21" has been certified in the UK, Germany, Canada, Belgium and New Zealand but the albums Belgian position isn't shown, doesn't it make more sense to put the certification up until there are 6 certifications from countries that have positions shown which can replace it? Sorry if i'm rambling but it frustrates me because as a fan of certain singers/bands i'd rather see some certifications than none. --Duphin (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

it's a discography, not a fan page. including it purely on the basis that it's certified is the reason why they're not all included. it's meant to be an unbiased selection. if you want to know full details of a release, thats the reason for the album/singles individual article. Mister sparky (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes i am a fan but that has nothing to do with it, i visit Wikipedia to learn about things so if an album is certified somewhere it's more informative to see that information.

If the album has MANY certifications then i can see why the rule works and stops the discography getting cluttered etc but in case where the album has only a few it makes more sense (to me at least) to have them all up and then when/if the album is certified in one of the countries with charts shown then it could replace the previous certification. --Duphin (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Album cover images

i know quite a long time ago discography articles used to include album cover images, and these were all removed at least 2yrs ago. recently have had another user trying to add an album cover image to an FL discography. i have been removing it, being called a vandal and don't know what i'm talking about. have things changed, are they now allowed? opinions please? thanks. Mister sparky (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NFCC and WP:IG, your vandal. --Malconfort (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

yea i'm aware of those lol. but is there anything specific with regards to discography articles? i know there used to be, that's why the album cover arts were all removed. but things change very regularly on here.Mister sparky (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There should be absolutely no non-free media in discographies - just a free image in the infobox. It is outlined here - I've just set up a shortcut: WP:NFDISC. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks, thats exactly what i thought. but i still get called a vandal for removing it. the issue is at Pet Shop Boys discography. Mister sparky (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see - it's a free album cover. Well, generally discogs only have an infobox image, so other images are just clutter. I am watching the article now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 11:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely clutter and adds nothing to the article. It's also way too large, and just because it is a free image doesn't mean there is an obligation to use it. It simply does not belong there. - eo (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC nearing end

Wikipedia talk:Record charts/RFC has been relatively unattended, and I would like to hear more voices.—Kww(talk) 18:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Same question, ten months later...

Is this actually still being discussed as a possible guideline? I see no evidence anywhere of that being the case, and if that's correct, can we please remove the tag? It seems to be causing some confusion for some editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what it is either (although I still lean on it as if it were still misidentified as part of the MOS). By "tag" I assume you mean the "guideline" mention, not the "dormant" thingy. Wouldn't merely removing the tag leave it in limbo? Personally, I'd like to see this thing either adopted or deleted (preferably the former).

How shall we proceed? Wait for discussion to happen here (I expect it won't, even with personal individual invitations)? A posting at the Village Pump? A separate discussion (or announcement of this one) at WT:FLC (not to repeat the mistakes we made earlier)? How can we move ahead? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. It is a Wikiproject guideline so it ought to be members of the project who get involved and agree on it. It ought to involve FLC too as this "guideline" would appear to assist in the production line for featured list candidates; not many people will be bothered to follow DISCOGSTYLE without FLC in mind. All that concerns me really is that folks at FLC are being told to follow DISCOGSTYLE when there's not (and never has been) a consensus to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FONTSIZE

Please be aware that the manual of style regards the use of deliberately forcing smaller text as inappropriate. I see the use of html tags in your examples here, such as <small> which I suppose does not necessarily meet with the expectations of MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked and found this markup on the catalog numbers in the sample Albums table. I guess some people thought the smaller text would be better for these, perhaps because catalog numbers are kind of gobbledygookish and hard to read. I'd accept them at full 100% size, if that's the consensus, but I think others will dislike that too much.

In any case, I consider the ca. 75% produced by the <small> markup to be too small, and would prefer markup (if these are to be made somewhat smaller than normal) like <span style="font-size:85%;"></span>, with the size at 90% (as with country col headings and legend footer) or 85% (as in the "featuring Ricky Nelson" example) at the lower limit. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Singles sales

Perhaps I'm being dense, but albums table given here has a "sales" column (along with certification) but the singles table doesn't. Why the inconsistency? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Addressed in Fundamental philosophy of the Samples section below. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Row spanning

Just a query really, why do you intend to "rowspan" the album (for multiple singles from a particular album) but you don't "rowspan" the year of release for singles released in a single year? Have you consulted anyone commensurate with WP:ACCESS about any of this? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This one's a bit nasty. As you probably know, rowspan and colspan cause problems for sorting (to put it mildly) and, I think, don't help with accessibility much either. When we talked about these revised samples (with User:Dodoïste, User:RexxS, User:Jack Merridew and (I thought, but am no longer sure) User:Graham87, all accessibility-aware folks), I think we ended up coming to the consensus that (1) we're kind of stuck with rowspanned "Peak chart positions" for now by dint of very wide usage, (2) colspans are problematic but much-loved on WP discogs, so that we show non-spanned examples but allow spanned usages on actual articles, and (3) we might best achieve some improvements regarding multi-cell spans in a future battle, but for now a fair compromise means letting go on this point. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"—" denotes releases that did not chart.

I think this should also include "or was not released in that territory" as "releases that did not chart" implies a release actually happened in every territory in the table. It should be also be noted that for a "release" that didn't chart in any territory, it must be individually referenced as the chart references will clearly not cover them. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point, and I thought that both possibilities had been in there together in earlier versions, but I'm not finding such. I guess I've just seen it in live articles.

I'm inclined to word it as "denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory." Actually, I'm not so satisfied with the word "that" in the sentence, but "a" or "the" don't strike me as ideal, either. If I don't get negative feedback (fairly soon) on my recasting above, I'll just change the examples.

BTW, while I'm here: this legend in the footer implies we should not add dashes to Certifications columns where no certs have been awarded. I have, however, seen dashes added to discogs in that case. Any opinions one way or the other? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a general philosophy to avoid completely blank cells. Admittedly, now the en-dash has a specific meaning in this case, it cannot be used to denote None... But a whole lot of "None"s could be overwhelming too. Not sure at the moment... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why something like {{n/a}} could not be used, either for instances where a record was not released in a territory, or for releases which did not chart, or both? --Stemonitis (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That template is all but undocumented, but I take the expression "n/a" (or N/A as the template outputs it) to mean either "not available" or "not applicable". For recordings not released at all in a territory, no charting is expected, so "not applicable" might be a close match. However, the confusion with "not available", as for Canadian Country songs, or songs from 1950 which may have peaked on a Cashbox chart, or even new songs which surely charted but can't be listed because Billboard revamped (or crashed) their website again, is too great. (Besides which, I don't much care for that caps-on-gray-background look.) Still thinking... — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Would "'—' denotes a title that did not chart, or was not released in that territory." cover this? — Status {^talk_contribs 21:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I use on my WP:FL's: "—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart." The use of "territory" has multiple meanings and was opposed on the use of Kesha discography, thus country is more appropriate. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• "—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart. Sounds good to me. — Status {^talk_contribs 10:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Chart abbreviations

There's often some debate over the correct abbreviations to use for a particular country's chart. This guide should state how this is done. For instance, is Germany GER or DEU, is Denmark DEN or DAN? The Netherlands NDL or NLD? Where do editors go to find the right answer? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We currently say, "Column headers for chart positions should be an English-language abbreviation of the chart's country of origin, not the name of the individual chart." I guess that means that, for Germany, Denmark and Switzerland, we "have" to use "GER", "DEN", and "SWI" instead of "DEU", "DAN", and "CH" or "CHE". "NDL" is just plain wrong, but I have seen "NET" (and "NED") for Netherlands chart indicators. We don't actually specify what the "right" English-language abbreviation to use is, and I'd rather not see a list added to the page.

I'd personally prefer using ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 or alpha-3 codes (or either), but that leads quickly to the question of ordering: do we then order by code ("AUS", "CHE", "DEU", "NOR", "NZL") or by English equivalent ("AUS", "DEU", "NZL", "NOR", "CHE")? To me, labelling and ordering by ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 makes the most sense (with a possible allowance of using alpha-2 codes for some or all countries (NL, NZ, UK, US, etc.). That would be better than or current usual practice of using some English indicator and see what survives the reversions. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I personally think that as long as it is consistent throughout the article, it doesn't matter which type is used. — Status {^talk_contribs 11:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Fundamental philosophy of the Samples section

I'm glad people are looking at this page again, and I hope it will end up being looked at and discussed by many more than just The Rambling Man.

In the comments above this section right now, I see a repeated concern about the two samples on the actual project page. The upper table is a sample of albums listings, and the lower table is a sample of singles listings. They are naturally different, not least because they are examples of (what we want to call "preferred") ways to list two different kinds of recordings. Further, they are deliberately taken from two different articles. However, it seems that these differences are causing confusion about how to do discography tables and, worse, may also be undermining trust in the page as a possible guideline for discog editors.

Each table is meant to be just one single example of what that kind of table should look like. Actual column widths should depend on the particular discog the tables are on (see my attempts at explanation in Consensus above). Whether a sales column appears in either table (or both, or neither) depends on the particular discog and the sourced info available. Whether Finland's peaks are used depend on decisions about the individual discog, and is not dependent on the fact that both sample tables happen to have FIN columns.

Do you have suggestions about how we can better explain the variability of these samples, or is the whole concept of the page ill-devised? We could go into detail about column and row heading markup and point to MOS:DTT, for example. The gist of the page is supposed to be what comes before the samples; the samples help (AFAIAC) provide examples of layout and markup which can be copied and adapted individually. There's also the IAR section at the end, which should encourage editors to select and arrange columns as best suited to the individual artist's works. Perhaps that part needs rewording, or relocation? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the IAR should be in the Samples section. There's a possibility new users might just see the samples and follow those 100% and never see the IAR two sections later.
—Michael Jester (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

• I support this page and view that it should be instated as the policy/guideline for discographies. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• As do I, support, this page. — Status {^talk_contribs  21:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
• Please note that for this to be acceptable (and most certainly only every as a style guide, never more), it has to be checked to be completely in adherence with WP:MOS (and to check this regularly given that MOS changes from time to time) or else demanding discographies comply with it at WP:FLC will lead to an unresolvable conflict, resulting in no further promotions of discogs to featured status based on the criteria, specifically clause 5, " It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." I trust those editors voting here have checked that is the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. There are few things I have noticed with the samples section.

How come the format for the Certifications/Sales in the album sample is not the same format as the Certifications in the singles sample? The albums sample is formatted like "Platinum (US)", while the singles is formatted "UK: Gold". I think the two should be consistently formatted. I know that a lot of FLs do it like the singles part but with bullets. Another difference between the samples are the chart headers' widths. The albums sample uses a width of 2.2em while the singles sample uses a width of 3.0em. Is there a reason for this difference? If these two concerns are fixed, I would be happy to support it.
—Michael Jester (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for examining the page. The certs/sales lists are in two different flavors because both those styles have been used, and no consensus has (AFAIK) been formed to prefer either one of them. They should at least be consistent within an article, however. Of cource, having one form for an albums section sample and another form for a singles section sample may mislead folks to think they should be different, and they certainly shouldn't. Do folks here want to define one or the other? What's our preference?

The column widths are different because they're two different kinds of tables (see especially the Title column in both examples). Using different widths was also a deliberate choice to indicate that the width depends on the individual article; editors shouldn't think every discog in WP must use 2.2em columns because that's the one width we used for our examples.

One of the difficulties I have with this page is clearly enunciating what "must" be (use scope="col", etc.) and what is suggested but flexible (width:2.2em with lots of columns, if contents fit, or 3em or 4.5em for fewer columns or where more space is needed). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Personally, I agree on using "US: Platinum" as the way to define the certifications. I feel it would be easier for the reader to understand.
—Michael Jester (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it. — Status {^talk_contribs  01:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This guide claims one thing, but many other discographies are structured in different ways. An example are the country music artists. I don't understand why the sub-genre chart is posted before the main chart in their page. Furthermore, the countries of the peak chart positions, aren't never in alphabetical order after the country where the artist is born. For the albums table, i support this guide, also if would be better to switch the order of the colum of the certifications and sales and in the column of the sales, to explain when the sale posted is refered to retail sales or shipment sales based on certifications. For the singles table, same thing and add that the year would be posted before the name of the single. Furthermore, i propose that for the artists with great impact that have got many and many certifications and/or many albums charted in several countries, in addition to standard page, would be good to creat also two pages of deepening: one for the peak chart positions and one for the certifications and sales, like happens in the Elvis Presley discography, or Michael Jackson discography. After all, we should offer as much information as possible. This is an encyclopedia, no? SJ (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unresolved issue: B-sides / tracklists The section on what should not be included still includes
  "Tracklistings, B-sides, or any other description of the tracks on a release. Remember, this is a discography not a songography, so we're mostly concerned with the release, not every song on that release."
  This highly controversial part of the proposal has been debated in the past (e.g. here) but failed to achieve consensus. If the page is to be promoted to guideline status, this should first be removed, unless further discussion results in a clear consensus. It could be worth considering a modified version which may be less contentious, such as: "Tracklistings, B-sides, or any other description of the tracks on a release which is the subject of a separate article. In such cases the relevant article should be linked." Contains Mild Peril (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody's replied to this point here, and some editors in the current discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music) have expressed support for including tracklistings of releases which are insufficiently notable to have their own articles, I've gone ahead and changed it. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I have several queries, which I will outline below in separate sections. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • (Not so much in response to your opposition !vote, but this's a good spot to ask) I see this page is just drifting along, and while a few of us work on it from time to time, no hearty group discussions about remaining issues are taking place. Would it be a good idea to open a RfC for this? I've never done that, so I'm not sure how or where. I also wonder whether some preparation needs to be made here before inviting others here. But do you think it's an appropriate step? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, however, I have no idea how to do it either.
—Michael Jester (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

More on abbreviations

I've just noticed today in reviewing a discog, that the three-letter abbreviations used for charts are also used for certification bodies. This is confusing. I am not aware of anywhere else that would use the same three-letter abbreviations for two different things. I understand they are linked and I understand they're in different columns in the table, I just think it a little strange, particularly when (in the case of the K-Ci & JoJo discography) SWE in the releases means Sverigetopplistan, a distinctly Swedish entity, but the SWE in certifications stands for International Federation of the Phonographic Industry which is an international organisation. Indeed, in the Katy Perry discography, AUT, GER and SWI all link to the same body (IFPI). While it's clear to the Discog community, this is potentially very unclear to the rest of the reading public. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but don't know what to do about it. Do you have any suggestions (keeping in mind, space is often kind of tight)? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I could think of is abbreviating the organization that is responsible for the certifications. Some examples

US → RIAA;

UK → BPI;

AUS → ARIA;

CAN → MC

The only problem I can think of is when we get to the countries who use IFPI. I'm not sure what we can do about that.
—Michael Jester (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'd support this right away, but the IFPI issue is a pretty big one. — Status {^talk_contribs 11:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The only option I can think of is to have "IFPF" followed by the country name. Examples:

SWE → IFPI SWE

AUT → IFPI AUT

FIN → IFPI FIN

It's long abbreviations I know, but that's all I could think of.

Another abbreviation question is, what about for the sales column? Like right now most US sales are credited to Nielsen SoundScan. Is the abbreviation for this "NSS".?
—Michael Jester (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• That's just far too long. :/ This is difficult. The sales seem fine as they are, the sales are from the US. A lot of people probably wouldn't know that the hell was meant by "NSS". — Status {^talk_contribs 19:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I know the abbreviations, that's all I could think of though. However, until we resolve this, The Rambling Man is going to oppose discogs. I know User:Tony1 wrote an entire page of linking stuff. Maybe we can message him and ask him for help?

Also, according to Rambling Man, the US in sales figures needs to change as well because it's confusing to other users. I know people won't know what "NSS" means, but probably not a lot of people (outside of music) will know what "ARIA", "IFPI", etc. are either (referring to the certifications).
—Michael Jester (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, that sounds good. I see how it correct with certifications to use IFPI because that's who certifies them, but the sales are the sales. SoundScan reports them, yes, but the sales are not from them like the certifications are from IFPI. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. US it can stay than. Back to abbreviations, for the countries who use IFPI, why don't we just use that country's abbreviation and link to IFPI country name. Example:

FIN

GRE

BEL

If a country does not have its own IFPI page, it can be unwikilinked. Example: AUT, would just read AUT.
—Michael Jester (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Rough example used from Jennifer Lopez discography:

Certifications
RIAA: 3× Platinum ARIA: Platinum CRIA: 5× Platinum SNEP: 2× Gold RIAZ: Gold SWI: Platinum BMI: Gold

ABC order or same order as chart positions? — Status {^talk_contribs 21:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, for Canada, we should probably use their old name (CRIA) for releases prior to when they changed their name. — Status {^talk_contribs 21:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

After trying it out with JLO's discography, "IFPI SWE" doesn't look too bad at all. — Status {^talk_contribs 23:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've officially applied this to Jennifer Lopez discography. What do you guys think? — Status {^talk_contribs 23:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I really, really like it that way. It looks good on my laptop and I looked at it on my phone. Adding IFPI doesn't seem to add too much space. However, I think it should be home country certification first followed by all others in alphabetical order.
—Michael Jester (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. :) We should ask some more people to see what they think of this. — Status {^talk_contribs 10:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement and makes the situation a whole lot clearer. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can get used to this, too. I suppose there will be others who don't like it ("it's different") or are not edified by the abbreviations, but that's what wikilinks are for. Shall I change the style page, then? If it turns out to be much despised, we can always change it again; it's a wiki!

Now, about those column heading links for the chart peaks: some go to charts (US), some go to country articles (NOR). Is this okay for those cases without specific chart articles? (I have to go check to see if we actually lack articles on any of the charts we usually list.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, since we're in a section called "More on abbreviations": do you fellows care to weigh in on the subject discussed up in Chart abbreviations? Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's true, people will probably just say they don't know it because it's different. I say we go ahead and change it. I think the headings should always go to the chart. I'll comment on the chart abbreviations later. — Status {^talk_contribs 11:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Trouble

We've made this change in, what, four discographies now? I'm happy with it, but it looks strange and wrong to people (especially those not watching this discussion, which is about 7 billion people), and they tend to revert to protect/repair the article. This happens especially when the trendy editor making this fashionable change fails to include an edit summary *ahem* mentioning even a trial of a discussion on the Talk page of a "failed proposal", much less "per MoS/discographies".

I'd like to at least incorporate the consensus above into the WP:DISCOGSTYLE page so that, official style guide or not, it can be pointed to in edit summaries and (more) people will begin noticing the change. But how to go about it? I think we might need to provide a full list of providers with links, in alpha order as we like them, so editors can just copy the work. I guess in the Per-release section's #8 I'll add a note of explanation about alpha order by provider (following home country's provider), with a pointer to the example list. What do you think? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that a full list of providers would be nice.
—Michael Jester (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm working on such a thing. Except, there are potentially about 56 cert providers, and I don't see an advantage in swamping the page with a gigantic table of all possibilities. I would prefer a compromise between "a full list" and the 10-15 I was kind of envisioning. So I'll leave out Bulgaria, Ecuador, India, Latvia, Philippines, etc., leaving a still-long table of 30 (or fewer) to provide models for at least 96% of the time. If we see lots of Bulgarian or Indian certs, we can add those to the table too, and in the meantime, editors can probably work the special cases out for themselves. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, using only the "main" certifications seem fine.
—Michael Jester (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

See what you think now. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again John, you are awesome. It looks really nice.
—Michael Jester (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

John, good job. One thing struck me. If the Russian certification agency doesn't even have an article, is it actually notable enough for inclusion? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Man. Da, is problem with Russian cert apparatus. In WP:GOODCHARTS, there's a site listed as a source for albums certs (although nothing for singles certs, nor charts of any kind), but that page doesn't attempt to list providers anyway. I think I added Russia to the table because I was working from my list of most-populous countries, and Russia was right up there, and I'd seen Russian chart listings on a few articles recently. But you make a good point; we probably don't need it cluttering up that table if it won't get used more than, say, Bulgaria. Begs the question, though, of whether we ought to have an article for NFPF. And don't they certify singles (I mean, albums only)? And if so, is there no reliable publisher of same? Ah, so many questions. Deleting Russia from table. Is good. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Canada check

I'm looking at Canada to come up with a recommendation for a certs abbreviation. Currently, certs come from Music Canada, but they were called CRIA until quite recently. A note from Status earlier in this section suggests we use "CRIA" for older certs, "MC" for awards since the name change. I'd really like to avoid this, because it's harder to explain and we then need to know the exact date of the name change (July 8, 2011? July 7?) as well as the date of each award. I'll go with consensus, though.

I see by the way, that Jennifer Lopez discography uses CRIA throughout (awards from 2001–06) and K-Ci & JoJo discography uses MC even for old works like Love Always (1998). How important is it that we use two abbreviations for Canada? There were apparently the CRMA before 1972, BTW. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I used MC because that's the source I used. I noticed JLo's discography used the CRIA website. However, it seems their database is down, but MC's database has all the information. I guess it might have to depend on which source is used.
Michael Jester (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Page updated to show provider abbreviations for certs

Well, I've just updated the page to show abbreviated providers rather than countries in the certs columns of the sample tables. I also added a big section on what to list for certifications, and how to link and order the provider abbreviations. I'm afraid this will be too long for many, but I wanted to provide clear descriptions. I think this is especially important since it is a bit different to what editors are used to.

The table of providers is by country, kind of, but initially ordered by provider. I did it this way so that it's easy to see the order the certs for any given recording should be in. Of course, all of the columns are sortable, so users should have no trouble finding the country or determining display order.

The table has 26 countries, out of about 56 possibilities. If someone needs to add an Argentinian cert (because their artist is South American and she's huge in Argentina), then they can probably go to the List of music recording certifications mentioned after the table and determine that CAPIF is what should be added. If you think there are still too many countries in that table, please say so here and we can decide which to cut; I figured it's easier to remove them than add them.

I left Canada as CRIA, although I'm agreeable to changing it (I might convince myself to change it to MC anyway). I've used IFPI DEN, although I'd prefer IFPI DNK in keeping with ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country codes (Switzerland's not "right" that way, either). I also added a few other notes to try and clarify the samples and their purpose. I have not done anything about sales figures or any abbreviations there yet.

As usual, comments welcome. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that Canada's abbreviation should be changed to MC, just because that's what it's called now. For the countries like Denmark and such should follow the ISO code. (I never even heard of the ISO until you linked it just then lol.) The first sentence on WP:Featured list criteria states "A featured list exemplifies our very best work". By using ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 (and alpha-2 for some countries like US, UK, NZ, etc.) we're using official abbreviations, not just something we translated or made up. I was reading Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Led Zeppelin discography/archive2 and a user stated that using "GER" was "wrong". So that's two cents.
—Michael Jester (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sales figures

Given the fact we now see old hits (e.g. Elvis, The Beatles, The Goo Goo Dolls, Rage Against The Macine) getting truly significant hits, should we actually ensure that sales figures for singles and albums have an "as of" date associated with them? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. One way that's possible is using {{ref label}} and have a footnote explaining "Sales figures exact as of date." IMO the table may not be big enough to have an "As of..." inside it.
—Michael Jester (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tried two different ways, let's try to gather a consensus so we can work this out. If anyone else has another method, please post it.

First, I have used the (As of...) in the table. Two examples I used it in are Shaquille O'Neal discography and Robin Thicke discography. An example table (just using the Sales column):

Sales
US: 1,000,000 (As of 2011) AUS: 50,000 (As of January 2010) CAN: 250,000 (As of March 15, 2009)

However, I'm am not sure if the footnote goes after the sales figure, after the date, or both.

Second, I used a footnote using {{ref label}}. The example I used it in is K-Ci & JoJo discography. An example table (just using the Sales column):

Sales
US: 1,000,000[A] AUS: 50,000[B] CAN: 250,000[C]

Then, later on down in the Notes / Reference:

• A ^ United States sales figures for Album Name as of 2011.
• B ^ Australian sales figures for Album Name as of January 2010.
• C ^ Canadian sales figures for Album Name as of March 15, 2009.

Personally, I do not care either way, just as long as one of them gains consensus.
—Michael Jester (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I like the footnotes, but how would they fare on big discographies such as Madonna albums discography or Mariah Carey albums discography. Surely they would go over Z with the footnotes. Or there could be just one footnote per album? And include each content within it. For example: United States sales figures for Album Name as of 2011. Australian sales figures for Album Name as of January 2010. Canadian sales figures for Album Name as of March 15, 2009. The note in the box itself is a bit too messy. — Status {^talk_contribs 10:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've gone and tried it out with Jennifer Lopez discography, and I like it. References should be in the notes though. Looks a bit cleaner. — Status {^talk_contribs 11:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick reply, Status. BTW, I like what you did with the JLO discography. It does seem to be cleaner with the reference in the footnote. For your question about bigger discographies, I guess using one footnote per album would be good. However, we don't have to say Album Name three times. Modifying it to "United States sales figures for Album Name as of 2011, Australian sales figures as of January 2010, and Canadian sales figures as of March 15, 2009" looks a bit cleaner to me.
  —Michael Jester (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• No problem, and yeah; I was lazy so I just posted what you had written in one line. xD I support the use of footnotes to show the "as of" sales dates. — Status {^talk_contribs 14:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I support as well. Should we update the style guide?
—Michael Jester (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure how that could be explained. xD I also think that the bullets should be added to the sales and certification section. Could have sworn they were there in the past. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the bullets too.
—Michael Jester (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I support use of the A,B,C but not the small one underneath, that just eats up space. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think that sales shouldn't be included in the articles and only certifications should be used. The process of citing sales gets extremely messy extremely fast. With only using certifications, that would be a much easier process because most associations have their own official records; it won't be disputed as much. | ^help_dןǝɥ | 23:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How do sales get messy? If they're cited by reliable sources, then there isn't much to dispute.
—Michael Jester (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you're new here, aren't you?

Okay, more seriously: The first fun thing editors like to do is back-calculate supposed sales from the certs, no matter whether the certs are based on shipments or actual retail sales. Then we get the disputes about what constitutes a reliable source; you'd think the record label would be the one best-informed source for shipments of product, but they have a promotional self-interest in inflating sales figures, so we tend to argue about whether to accept, e.g., Sony's figures for Lady Gaga's sales. Is an interview with a record exec or an artist reliable for sales figures? How about all the sites like Rap-Up, HipHopDX and RapBasement, etc.? What to do about entertainer news sites (you know, with the latest gossip about Lindsay Lohan and Rihanna's new tatoo and Nicky Minaj's next tour and Taylor Swift's hot new single) which one suspects are just regurgitating material from promoters' press releases without any vetting? And so on.

Well, I wouldn't be sad to see sales figures banned from tables, even if allowed in prose, but I think they're considered such a basic piece of info that we'd have trouble gaining consensus for removal. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to dissent on the "as of" issue, but I do not see why such notes are necessary. If we have refs, they're usually to dated resources, and that goes for sales figures or populations of countries or whether Sarah Palin is running for president. If we don't have refs then we don't include the sales figures. I don't see the point of The Rambling Man's example about The Goo Goo Dolls et al. Is that supposed to encourage some intermediate sales figures? Like "Don't Stop Believin'" sold 1.25 million as of December 2008, and 4,771,000 copies as of October 2011? If that's what TMR is getting at, I don't think the "as of" note applies to very many recordings. It'd certainly be the exception, wouldn't it? And in that case, it'd fall into the IAR clause of DISCOGSTYLES and wouldn't need to be shown here. It doesn't seem necessary for Jennifer Lopez discography, either. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The point is that sales figures that are out of date are pointless. Sales figures that are precise to the nearest unit are pointless. If the style guide suggests sales figures should be included, they should, like many other statistical figures in Wikipedia that are subject to change (see any number of sports lists), have a point in time when the figures were considered correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • But that doesn't sound any different from movie box office receipts or concert ticket sales or book grosses or chart peaks or certs levels or YouTube views or to whom somebody's married or how many kids they have or what Jason Dolley does when he's not filming or anything else on Wikipedia. We don't have "as of" on every fact we report, even when they can or are very likely to get out of date. If Wikipedia didn't have rabid fans crawling al over it to update stuff, all of those things would go out of date too. And those articles which aren't about Lady Gaga or Barack Obama do indeed suffer in that not-recently-touched limbo. Do you think all WP articles should implement frequent use of "as of" for perishable data, or do you see a special vulnerability in music/discog articles?

BTW, I haven't ever noticed any sales figures to the last unit. I think they usually come in to the nearest thousand. There's one website (HipHopDX, maybe?) that offers US sales figures which all end in ",000", with the informative note that "sales figures are to the nearest thousandths." How's that for statistically significant? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In the cases were statistics change frequently, it is commonplace to see an "as of" . For your interest, the "nearest unit" example was this version of Katy Perry discography which was the one I reviewed at FLC which caused me to initiate this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yoicks, I actually meddle in that Perry article myself. And I just saw a very precise number (106,553 copies in UK) over at the "We Found Love" article. (Edit: I notice that both sources are MusicWeek articles.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions re: certifications

Excuse me if this was already addressed. The guidelines says "Certifications for countries whose peaks are not shown should also be left out of the per-release listing, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE." How about IFPI Europe certifications? Is any chart in Europe enough to include it? Is the European Top 100 Albums required? I'm asking since it seems that by not specifying this, the guideline leaves a gap open, and I think IFPI certifications are in many cases preferable to many smaller county certifications. --Muhandes (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Or perhaps I should say, good can of worms. AFAIK, it's not really clear when we can/should/may use European chart peaks. Billboard's charts and IFPI's awards cover different countries anyway. (Oops, I see that Billboard's European Top 100 Albums has pretty much stopped existing since the end of December. That would mean not listing Euro-certs for future album releases, if we required that chart's peaks before listing the certs.)

Maybe we should have a discussion sometime about when/whether to list the European singles charts with or instead individual European charts. (Well, damn; it seems that European Hot 100 Singles was canned by Billboard, too.)

Okay, now I'm all confused and dizzy-like. Must sit down and rest.

I think I'd reject IFPI Europe certs per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but I'm not sure now. I'll have to think about this some more. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree

I don't support this at all, things were fine the way they were country abbreviations are just fine for indicating association providers and it doesn't make much of a difference. I think we should leave the country abbreviations to give people a better idea of which country an album or a single is certified in, like how would people know that UK = BPI or AUS = ARIA, it will just make things more confusing and over detailed. Hometown Kid (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I'd like to know how many people who aren't aware of the guidelines etc here on Wikipedia (i.e. 95% of our readers) understand that the same abbreviation should mean different things. A basic failing which thankfully has been resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with The Rambling Man on this one. Being a music fan, I understood using one abbreviation for two different things. However, people outside of music may not understand. Also, it's kind of smart to use the provider's abbreviations. We say "an album was certified by the RIAA". We don't say "an album was certified by US", or something similar. If a non-music reader reads the sentence about an album which was certified by multiple providers, the reader may not know which country the provider is in. (That's my two cents for what's it's worth.)
Michael Jester (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Two cents are worth two cents, roughly calculated. Except in Greece, where they have to vote on what two cents are worth. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The readers know that BPI is the British cert provider when they click through to the BPI link (or simply hover over the link and peek in the status bar to see that the URL includes "British"). Or put another way, they know what the provider abbreviations are the same way they knew what the country abbreviations were; they click or hover over AUS and see that it's not Austria, but Australia (or more correctly, their recording industry asociation). And by doing it this new way, they aren't confused because they also clicked or hovered on AUS. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

i also disagree with the certification abbreviation changes. you are correct that probably 95% of editors will know what they mean, but this isn't about editors. the average joe visiting a page will not have a clue. much simpler and less confusing to just have the country. why is there a need to change it at all. alot of thigs are being proposed to change lately and nobody can seem to agree. plus there's no way of "enforcing" any changes as it's just a failed proposal, because there isn't any agreement. Mister sparky (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A different IP wanted to say this, but it was removed. I'm reposting as I agree with his/her sentiments:

I disagree as well, when people see US: Platinum, they read it as "certified platinum in the US" noy "by the US", the abbreviations for the cetification bodies are just confusing. Now, if someone doesn't know what BPI means, they have to click on the link and lose there spot on the page. But with UK, they at least knew that it was coming in the UK. It was fine the way it was, now its just going to make it harder for regualr people to rad discographies. Only someone who knows about the music world will know what that means, and I do, but still secong guess when seeing these abreviations. The average person will know what a country abreviation is more than a certifying body abreviation.

I've removed the one part I felt was an ad hominem. --194.176.105.135 (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And in doing so you are allowing an indef blocked sockpuppeteer edit Wikipedia. Utterly regrettable. I don't suppose you'd repost opinions from a blocked sockpuppeteer if they disagreed with your view. And perhaps you could check out WP:RBI too. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Argue the points raised, not the person. --194.176.105.135 (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't give disruptive block-evading editors a chance to opine. Your own behaviour is somewhat disruptive as you knew that restoring it was incorrect. Why would you support vandals and blocked editors? Particularly those who use the block evasion to insult others? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant my points. And I didn't know restoring it was incorrect because, and this is the point I've been trying to make, no edit summary was left. WP:FIES says it so well -- "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit." --194.176.105.135 (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So I left an edit summary that made it abundantly clear that you should not allow a blocked sockpupeteer who insults other editors to voice his opinion. And you undid that edit too. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Kww made a little mistake by forgetting a clearer edit summary when he reverted the sock's post here. He did better when performing reversions of their other posts in sequence (1, 2 3). Now that we've raised such a ruckus here it's probably not appropriate to delete this branch of (actually off-topic) discussion, but, 194.176.105.135, perhaps you would be so good as to strike the sock's comments you reposted here. How's that for a clean way to close off this misunderstanding? If you have arguments of your own to make, you could post them in your own words, with your own sig. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

None of this addresses the fundamental issue that you should not use the same abbreviation to represent different entities. No matter what you think, this is confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This guide claims one thing, but many other discographies are structured in different ways. An example are the country music artists. I don't understand why the sub-genre chart is posted before the main chart in their page. Furthermore, the countries of the peak chart positions, aren't never in alphabetical order after the country where the artist is born. For the albums table, i support this guide ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discographies/style&oldid=455789028 ), also if would be better to switch the order of the colum of the certifications and sales and in the column of the sales, to explain when the sale posted is refered to retail sales or shipment sales based on certifications. For the singles table, same thing and add that the year would be posted before the name of the single. Furthermore, i propose that for the artists with great impact that have got many and many certifications and/or many albums charted in several countries, in addition to standard page, would be good to creat also two pages of deepening: one for the peak chart positions and one for the certifications and sales, like happens in the Elvis Presley discography, or Michael Jackson discography. After all, we should offer as much information as possible. This is an encyclopedia, no? SJ (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The link you posted doesn't show an album table. It shows the talk page. Next, we do not put shipment numbers in the sales box; it's meant for just strictly sales. For the split of certs and peaks, I disagree on that. Looking at Michael Jackson's article, it looks really messy. The combined format now works well, because if a reader wants to know other certifications, they just click on the article.
Michael Jester (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the link was this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style&oldid=454145290

I think that also the shipment numbers would be posted because the value of some certifications in some countries is changed with the time. The combined format is good, but if an artist has got many certifications, is right to have another page for it. A reader that wants read all the certifications, can't open every single album page (especially if use mobile phones or has got low connections). It is comfortable to have a page for the certifications in these cases. For this reason i think that for these type of artists is better to have the classic page with the combined format and two additional links that contains one only the chart positions and one only the certifications. SJ (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I see your point about two different pages, but how many certifications are required to have a new page?

More than 10 certifications at least for three or four albums. SJ (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2011

Okay, if we do that, I have one concern. Of course we have to have the idea that all lists should shoot for FL. How would we be able to meet criterion 2 (lead section)? Michael Jackson's lead does not talk about the contents very well; instead it just talks about certification associations. Writing a lead about album certifications would just be repetitive. It would be like "Album A was certified by X, Y, and Z" written for every album.

For this reason, I do not like have a specific page for certifications.
—Michael Jester (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That page has got the only purpose to list the certifications of the artist and the lead posted, explains only what are the certifications in the page and the rules that adopt. Maybe would be more complete, but this is its function. It's not the classic article for the mixed version, that would be present for ALL the artists (including MJ). Chart page and certifications page are only expansions for the artists with a great commercial impact. SJ (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2011

But we don't need vast dumps of every certification we can scrape up; the principle is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And boy, that Michael Jackson certs page is awful. Random strings of certs in tiny text, next to even more, longer strings of supposed sales, or maybe shipments, or maybe random numbers, also in tiny text, most of which are unsourced. Michael Jester's right; the lede babbles on about how certs work, but doesn't link to Music recording sales certification or List of music recording certifications. The page is unappealing and not trustworthy, and that's for Michael Jackson, possibly the artist most deserving of this kind of extraordinary treatment (more than 10 countries covered, multiple discog pages). I do not think we should move in this direction at all for most artists. At best it'd be Jackson, Elton John, The Beatles, Mariah Carey, and... well, maybe just one or two more. But mostly I think this treatment is ugly both in formatting and philosophy. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well said, John. Pages like that should not exist. It would be very sloppy.
—Michael Jester (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be as complete as possible. Why we should limit the informations? That page has got a list of certifications with sources and every certification has got its sale in the next column (for this reason there isn't the source. It is refered to the certification). The sales in brackets, are sales that don't regard the certifications and are retail sales (for this reason, they have got the source). It's written also on the top of the column, "Certifications sales/(Sales)". However, it's obvious that the page is still under construction and can be done better. SJ (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2011

Take a look at WP:INDISCRIMINATE number three. It says Wikipedia is not "excessive listings of statistics." We don't need "long and sprawling lists of statistics".
—Michael Jester (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, i understand. But, if a certification is considered statistic, also the lists of the awards should be statistics. Don't forget that a certification is mainly an award, that is given to an artist and to the rest of his staff for the sale of a his product. Statistic is a page dedicated to the peak chart positions (that at this point, should be removed from my proposal), but not a page dedicated to the certifications. SJ (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2011

I have to apologize, but I'm confused by what you just said.
—Michael Jester (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Certifications are awards. Charts regard the statistics, not the certifications. However, i edited the discography page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson_albums_discography

Obviously, it is "work in progress". At this point, this page would be deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson_albums_discography_(peak_chart_positions)

Regard the certifications page, it's better to end this discussion.SJ (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2011

I agree 100 percent with Hometown Kid. The average person would have no idea what those abbreviations mean. And although I do like what Michael Jester has done to the discography pages for the most part, I have to disagree on this change. HAving the country (US, CAN, UK, etc.) is just so much more simpler than having RIAA, CRIA, BPI. Again, we have to remember that its not only about us, the users, but about the billions around the world that use Wikipedia as a source. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But then you have to look at FL criterion 1a, which states "professional standards of writing." It is not professional to have the same abbreviation for two different things. I have discussed this with multiple English professors, and they agreed with the aforementioned statement.
—Michael Jester (Talk) 17:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does look more professional, but having the country is simply easier for people who may not know what RIAA or BPI stand for. Everybody knows what US and UK stands for. Maybe we can take this to a vote where we try to get as many people involved as we can to settle this? Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There's my point: you just said it's more professional. Plus, if users want to learn more about it, they either A, read the prose or B, click the wikilink. However, we can take it to discussion if you want. There's obviously not that many members here that will vote (it seems like only a couple people are active on this WikiProject). What's your suggestion?

We get members of Wikiproject: Music and other music related wikiprojects to take part as well. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm down with that. Send 'em a message and let me know.
—Michael Jester (Talk) 03:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wish to reiterate that we should not use the same abbreviation on the same page to mean two completely different things. That's fundamental (and dare I say obvious). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, i am VERY confused about this. I see no point whatsoever to this, Wikipedia is not about being "professional", it's about being an easy-to-understand place for everything the average Joe & Jane can use and easily understand. The point raised about the "US, UK, AUS" system being confusing is absolutely ridiculous, especially when saying that "RIAA, BPI, ARIA" is easier to understand. I'd just like to know what is the point, because this is a big change that is stirring up a lot.--124.169.154.69 (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's about having professional standards of writing. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Right here at WP:WIAFL clearly states "features professional standards of writing." I don't know how many times this will be iterated. Using two abbreviations is no where near professional.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 14:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so while we're at "proffesional standards of writing", why don't we change the name of every single flora + fauna on Wikipedia to its scientific name, so no-one can understand it? "Proffessional standards of writing" should not mean people generally cannot understand the article.--Meluvseveryone (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it's spelled "professional". Secondly, your point is irreverent to this conversation; flora and fauna are a part of a WikiProject Plants and WikiProject Animals, respectively. Thirdly, people will be able to understand the article using the provider's abbreviations; it's clearly explained in the prose.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No need to be a smart-arse.--Meluvseveryone (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Meluvseveryone, I appreciate your interest. You are correct in implying that not everyone will know what RIAJ or ARIA are before coming to a Wikipedia discography. I know I certainly didn't, and I hadn't heard the term certification or certificate or even award in regard to record sales before (although I certainly heard about gold records; The Beatles had several, for example). But fortunately there's a link at the top of the column for Certifications, so I can find out about them. Then I can follow the link (or even just hover to peek at the URL) for ARIA and quickly learn that it's the recording industry association in Australia. I went most of my life not knowing what a ZPAV was, but the context and ZPAV link teach me that it's the industry association in Poland.

Wikipedia is about learning and information. Using the correct provider names (even abbreviated) is more of a service to our readers than a hindrance. Obscuring relevant information behind overloaded US, UK, AUS, etc., abbreviations does them a double disservice; they don't find out who's responsible for the cert, and the have to deal with repeated but conflicting meanings hidden behind them. In no case do I think this approach means "people generally cannot understand the article." — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thnx JohnFromPinckney, that makes more sense. I think i'll give this change more of a chance.--Meluvseveryone (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Include Ringtones certifications in discographies

Ringtones are part of discographies for all artists, and are added to records sold. So you must include it in discographies. Silencio faz bem (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. Plus, ringtones certifications have same levels as singles certifications. — 78.127.30.84 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware that we include ringtone charts for any artists. Why would we start?—Kww(talk) 01:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess that I'm just old and out of touch, but... Ringtones? Really?!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

IFPI also includes ringtones sales/certifications. Why wouldn't the English Wikipedia include them? The fact that ringtones sales are low doesn't mean we don't have to add them. Otherwise, we also should stop adding physical singles sales which are also dying. — 78.127.30.84 (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think ringtones should be listed. A ringtone is a piece of merchandizing which is related to the single, but it is not the single and not part of the discography. --Muhandes (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

IFPI includes ringtones sales/certifications in sales lists by artists, and not part of the discography?????????? Silencio faz bem (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ringtones sales are not included in the certification of albums and singles. I don't think they have any place in a discography. - eo (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Putting bootlegs in discographies

At the moment, the guideline is not to put bootlegs in an artist's discography. I've added a few articles on bootlegs recently, and while most are not notable, a handful, such as Elvis' Greatest Shit, Golden Eggs and The Dark Side of the Moo do have enough coverage in reliable sources to have articles (IMHO). I'd be inclined to modify "no bootlegs" to "no bootlegs, unless the bootleg passes WP:GNG and can have its own article". What do others think? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Its very rare for a bootleg to be notable, but DISCOGSTYLE should contemplate these cases.--Neo139 (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Defining 'single'

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) 16:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As this has also been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies I would suggest discussion takes place there rather than in two places. --Michig (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously. A single is usually a song which is independently released from an album. The release might consist of a radio add date and/or a purchase date as a separate release from the main album. This will include a single cover and mayve include alternative versions of the song, remixes or b-sides. A music video might be produced but is not necessary for a song to qualify as a single release! Crucially its important to note what happens from the label/media. Take into account whether there are reliable third party references which call the song a single. I.e. H.A.T.E.U. by Mariah Carey has a video and only a radio add date but no single cover. Yet this is classified as a single because media sources and other coverage referred to it as a single and the label paid for the song to be sent to radio. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Bubbling Under

I was recently looking at artist discographies, and saw that when a song charted on bubbling under, it was put as 1xx (for example 116 for US or US R&B). While I used to think this was right, the recent revamp of billboard charts tells me otherwise. For instance the the R&B/Hip-Hop chart is now 50 positions, so there is no way that bubbling under is in the 100s. Plus a number of songs in the 51-100 portion of the chart last week fell off this week as a result of the new methodology, and aren't represented at all, whereas songs that were on the bubbling under 100 last week are still bubbling under the top 50 this week. For example, the R&B Songs chart takes the top R&B songs from the R&B Hip-Hop chart. Ciara's "Sorry" is at 20, on that chart, but just misses the mark for the top fifty on R&B/Hip-Hop, but is not represented. Instead, it still has to keep its peak of 75 from last week. Rihannas "Cockiness" on the other hand is 25 on R&B and 7, on bubbling under, but in no way can it be put at 57, when its definattely not. Plus it can't be at 107 as there is no positions 51-100. So, I think a note can be made about bubbling under R&B in discographies, but it should not be in columns (see Chris Brown discography, others). The same should go for bubbling under hot 100 as well, as if billboard reduced hot 100 to 50, all 1xx would not make sense either. Thoughts?--138.238.233.1 (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Collaborative releases

I recently created the page Marcella Detroit discography page, but I'm not sure about what to do regarding two releases (Button Fly Blues and The Upside of Being Down) which she did with her band - the Marcy Levy Band. The band is not notable enough to have an article of their own. Right now the releases are placed under "With Marcy Levy Band" sub-section, but I'm not sure if this is how it should be done correctly. I know I could also place them under "Collaborative studio albums" and so on, the problem with that is it opens the way for her work with Shakespears Sister, who were more successful than she was in her solo career.--Meluvseveryone (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the way you did it is right -- except for the fact that if there's only one listing, it shouldn't in table form. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

About compilation albums not done by the artist

Compilation albums that are selections by the artist, all containing songs by other artists are not to be included in the discography page. Am I right? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Singles as a featured artist

Should singles as a main artist and singles as a featured artist be separated into two different tables (like Lady Gaga discography) or should they be merged together in one single table (like Justin Timberlake discography)? Decodet (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Separating the lists seems preferable, as this provides a clear additional parameter of information, without burdening the entire table with another column. If left as is, it could easily confuse readers into thinking that the "Album" associated with the single was one "by" (eg. Timberlake) the artist. –Quiddity (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree but unfortunately there is no guideline about it so perharps we could try to make it happen? Decodet (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Minimal clarifications are best, to Avoid instruction bloat. The MOS:LOW is the relevant guideline, but it points to this page for the bulk of the detail (to avoid repetition and content-drift). I'd suggest adding one or two sentences to this page, along with the Lady Gaga discography link as the main example - that discography is a Featured List, which always helps :) Have a go. –Quiddity (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

always separate. this is a standard practise at most FLs for discographies. it prevebts the over usage of notations to explain which songs come from the artist and which are featured. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd love if you guys could join this discussion in Timberlake's discography article. Thanks. Decodet (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I just invited him to join this discussion and explain his points. Decodet (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As the "ignore all rules" section states, "Every artist is different, and therefore no two discographies will be exactly the same." To say that "main" and "featured" singles should be separated in a style guide would be outrageous; it should be discussed in individual cases. It is completely one sided to say "always separate" because it's "common practice at most FLs for discographies", especially when this style guide specifically goes against such a statement.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

allow me to give some other reasons why they should be separate, the two records are different. Per WP:ACCESS and general editing practises, itdis advisable to keep the number of notes and additional brackets or notations as small as possible.if you've ever used screen reading technology you'll know that it slows the process down when you have to listen to additional notes. Also, the whole point about splitting artist's own singles from ones they're featured on is for navigational purposes. It makes it a whole lot easier to find specific releases or track chronologies from album and single releases. The style guide is supposed to show best practice and most common use. Have on table for all released singles simply doenst make sense in the majority of cases. The only time I can ever see it making sense if if the primary artist had only featured on a small number of singles. But even then I would argue that its better to have separate tables as this also improves the referencing situation. My comment about FL articles was an observation... in personal experience ive not come across one where all singles are in one table. if someone can present an argument as to why that should be the case and singles should appear in just one table I'll be happy to at least listen but so far no one has presented a reason as to why it is a good thing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Support...Two different tables for improved clarity as stated by Quiddity & Lil_℧niquℇ №1. The proposal at this Project page shows the singles table only has featured artists when they are not the same as the artist discog page artist. Please, REVISE the proposal to show that when the discog page artist is featured let these show in a table designed for their featured appearances.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, separate, but it will depend on the discography. Tables with one entry should be avoided. Adabow (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly open to discussing exceptions. For example, I'd say Fergie is one, as she's only released one studio album herself, so separating them doesn't call for much need.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, even with Fergie's case separate tables are better because there are enough singles to warrant it. The current table at Fergie discography is confusing and difficult to navigate. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Upon review of Fergie, I find myself in agreement with Lil_℧niquℇ №1 as this 'difficulty' doesn't really arise in the Album discog portion, but does in the Singles portion.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

How many countries? Should countries of the albums section match the singles section?

Hi there,

How many countries is the standard for discographies? I can see some with eleven countries like Mariah Carey singles discography. I can see that some discographies like Alexis Jordan discography for instance uses XYZ countries to show album success and than different countries for singles. Is that right? Szaboci (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the answer (WP:DISCOGSTYLE#Per-release): "In the case of multiple charts, "comprehensive" does not necessarily mean an exhaustive list of countries and charts the artist has charted on. A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested, using any combination of country, component, or competing charts. There is no set inclusion criteria for which charts should and shouldn't be included, but a good rule of thumb is to go by the relative success of the artist on that chart." :) — Mayast (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)