 | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Sections with no replies in 30 days are automatically moved. | [edit] Discography section second proposal Since the original discography section proposal failed to reach consensus and is now hopelessly outdated anyway (it predates the arrival of WikiProject Discographies by two years), I would like to propose the following guidelines for the section instead (based on the practices that seem to be most common on recent musician Featured Articles): Musicians that have released a significant amount of work should be given their own discography articles. These articles should follow the guidelines given by WikiProject Discographies. The discography section of the musician's primary article should link to the separate discography article using the {{main}} template, for example: {{main|Johnny Cash discography}}.
The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a basic summary of the musician's work. In most cases this can done using a simple list of their albums. For example: If a musician has released an extremely large number of albums, it may be better to describe their discography in a prose summary.
For further examples of good discography sections, see U2#Discography or Alice in Chains#Discography. Please indicate whether you support or reject this proposal. Thanks Kaldari (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC) - Support. Since I created the proposal :) Kaldari (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Since it seems to pretty much be the standard now anyway. Perhaps for artists without articles for each album or separate discography pages the record label each was released on could be added in parenthesis. Zytsef (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Please also update and interlink with the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Discographies to reflect any changes or improvements. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have linked between the two guidelines as you suggested. Kaldari (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I have gotten the guidelines from the MOS in the past and these look to be about the same, and look standard. Thanks for making it official. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Qualified support. It makes it a lot neater, but a few questions: 1) What's an example of a "prose summary" for an artist with many albums? 2) What's included? What's excluded? The Rolling Stones, for example, have a lengthy list of studio albums, live albums and compilations, including rarities. And, of course, albums that were released in different forms in different countries. 3) Is the discography summary to include only albums? Grimhim (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm reluctant to get too detailed on what the prose summary should include due to the wide variety of possible content. Take Tangerine Dream for example. In addition to their 100+ albums, they also have a huge band-authorized "bootleg" project (which is included in their prose summary). If you have suggestions for specific wording that's flexible enough, I would certainly be open to suggestions. Kaldari (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think that in musician articles that have a separate discography article, only studio albums should be included in the musician article (no live albums and compilations)-- LYKANTROP 12:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Since there hasn't been any discussion in a couple days, and this proposal seems to be uncontroversial (100% consensus so far), I'll go ahead and add it to the Article guidelines page. Feel free to suggest further refinement of it here. Kaldari (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC) - Support. Sorry to pile on so late in the discussion, but I feel this should be endorsed not only because it meets status quo, but because it falls in line with our general manual of style and will help create some uniformity within musician articles. JBsupreme (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support If a large discography has its own article, it's obviously unnecessary to put like a quarter of the info in the main article. Spellcast (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I support your method, but I think that this method: Metallica#Discography and Slayer#Discography (both featured articles) is even better. What do you think?
-- LYKANTROP 12:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC) - I prefer the years first too, but honestly, both should be fine. Spellcast (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think both are fine as well. I just made the example with album names first to match Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Discographies. Kaldari (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support As I agree with the proposal. However, it does raise the question: exactly which releases are listed? Albums of course, but what about EPs? Singles? Compilations? Etc. Obviously not all of this, but perhaps we should include some sort of recommendation as to what belongs in the musician's article, and what should be left for the discog article. I suggest limiting it strictly to full-length albums, though that may be a little harsh. Drewcifer (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Interviews This page hasn't been active for months, so I'm hoping someone will notice this & we can discuss it. I'd like to create a guideline for using links to interviews in articles. I'm sure we've all seen articles that have several to even a dozen or more links to interviews in the External links section. I tend to cut these wherever possible, because they fail WP:NOT#LINK and WP:EL. Essentially, if an interview has some kind of useful or crucial information that is relevant to the article, then it should be used as a reference and the interview should be linked via a citation. If it's not worth citing as a reference, then it really doesn't have any useful information beyond what the article has already. After all, most notable musical artists have given dozens of interviews over the course of their career, and there's almost no discernible value to listing them all as external links. Basically I envision a guidline like this: Interviews, such as those published in magazines and online music journals, can be valuable sources of information on a musical artist. However, Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and linking numerous interviews in an "External links" section is not useful to a reader. Avoid adding links to interviews in External links sections, and instead find ways to incorporate information from the interview into the body of the article, linking the interview in an accompanying citation. Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC) - Isn't the last sentence a little redundant? I like the idea behind it, but why aren't WP:NOT#LINK and WP:EL enough to take care of this issue? Kaldari (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
-
- It might be a little redundant to NOT#LINK/EL, but since we have article guidelines for our specific are of focus (musicians), I thought it would be a good idea to explain specifically how this applies to those articles. I frequently get into discussions over the "External links section as a linkfarm for interviews" issue and have to explain repeatedly how NOT#LINK and EL apply to the issue. If we could summarize it here in our guidelines, then we could show that the project has a particular consensus with respect to this issue. I mean, we have WP:MUSICSTYLE even though it's more or less redundant to WP:DAB, WP:MOS, etc. Part of the point of a project is to streamline particular sets of articles under common style guidelines, applying Wikipedia's core policies & guidelines to those particular article sets. Our guidelines don't cover very much in the way of specifics at the moment. You're probably right about the redunancy...I've reworded it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Fair enough. I support the guideline with the updated wording. Anything that helps cut down EL lists is probably a good idea :) Kaldari (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Seeing as there's been no further comment in 8 months, I'm going to add this wording to the page. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Discography change? Small bone to pick on the discography section...I've seen this guideline quoted by editors who remove information in order to conform with this formatting. In particular, record label and chart information are often removed, even when referenced, for the sake of formatting. I think this is extremely unwise, because it impoverishes the article of noteworthy information and removes claims of notability under WP:MUSIC, both of which, I think, are far more important than consistent formatting. I'd like to see a sentence added saying, "Relevant discographical information, such as record labels, dates of release, chart positions, and sales certifications, should be listed in this section; a table format may be advisable." Chubbles (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC) - Isn't that what discography articles are for? Prior to the guidelines existing here, a lot of people were in favor of listing no discography information whatsoever in artist articles and instead just having a link to the discography article. The current guidelines are a compromise between the people who wanted full tables of information in the artist articles and people who wanted no information at all. Kaldari (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- But many artists don't have discography articles. Is the plan to create separate discography pages for all artists? Chubbles (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. Perhaps the guideline can be rewritten to specifically say that a more expanded style is acceptable for artist articles without separate discography articles. I think that would work. Kaldari (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- How about something like, "For artists without separate discography pages, relevant discographical information, such as record labels, date(s) of release, chart positions, and sales certifications, should be included in the discography section. The use of a table may be advisable to keep the information readable and organized." Chubbles (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I like that wording. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Any other thoughts on this one? Chubbles (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC) - I think the wording is fine, except I would change "should" to "may" so that people don't feel like all the existing discography sections have to be changed. Kaldari (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Album; Discography and album cover image move Question -- I wrote an article on a band, and an editor redlinked their debut (and so far only) CD (just released). So I created an album page. That editor then contacted another editor, who is now seeking to delete both the band page and the album page. Question -- I'm fine with deleting the album page, if I am allowed to move the songs info and the album cover image to the band page. Am I allowed to reflect the album cover on the band page, and the song tracks under a discography section on the band page, if I do so? And also redirect album searches to that page? Many thanks. (flustered and flabbergasted)--VMAsNYC (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] Discography sections not pointing to discography articles If an artist doesn't have a discography article, does the discography section of the artist's page still need to follow these guidelines? Or can it include other things such as singles released, compilation albums, etc? Thanks. Eugeniu B +1-contribs- 01:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC) - If there's no separate discography article, then the discography section of the artist article should contain as much verifiable information about the artist's releases as possible (including singles, EPs, etc.). If the artist's discography is large enough to merit a separate article, then the discography section of the artist article is typically reduced to just a list of studio albums, with a {{main}} link to the separate discography article (per WP:SS). --IllaZilla (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- If the artist doesn't have a separate discography article, feel free to follow MOS:DISCOG (rather than the guidelines here) within the section. Kaldari (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- What I want to know and what I believe Eugeniu B wants to know is if you are able to list the track listing of said releases in the artist article as was done in the One Ok Rock article. Because all of their releases (albums, singles and EPs ) are already listed there. Eugeniu B, however wants to include the track list for the singles and EPs. MS (Talk|Contributions) 01:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Precisely. But I was also interested in what guideline should be followed when there is no discography article. Thanks for answering my question Kaldari. Eugeniu B +1 02:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
|
