Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Categorization

Have you seen Category:Discographies lately? I think it should be subdivided differently. I think there should be a Category:Discographies by artist and Category:Discographies by genre. There's already a Category:Discographies by country. This is similar to the way album articles are categorized. The genre ones would be easy enough to take care of (I'd be happy to do them myself). The discogs by artist would take a bot (but better sooner than later). Any opinions? -Freekee (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Megadeth discography

Is possible that members of WikiProject Discographies give some feedback to this list? Regards, Canniba loki 04:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Mariah Carey discography - invitation to discussion

Hello all who read this. If you take a look at the recent edit history of the Mariah Carey discography article, I think you may agree that the recent contentious editing of sales figures and sources counter productive. I have opened discussion item on the talk page, where hopefully some of the issues regarding the reliability of sources can be worked out. Your opinions are requested. Please join the discussion here. Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

German Charts

Hey guys, I can't understand one thing: Why are the peak positions which the albums, singles or whatever had in Germany only listed in such a few discographies? I can't undersatnd it because as far as I know the German music market is the 2nd biggest in the world, and such as of Austria or the Netherlands are much smaller which gives Germany a stronger importance. Would be kind to get an answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.16.220.148 (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[1] is what you'd be looking for, just enter the artist's name in the "Suchbegriff". You may be interested in having a look at MOS:DISCOG#Sources and User:Kww/goodcharts. Thanks, Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

100 featured lists

Our project has reached the mark of 100 featured lists, congratulations for all users that worked on these discographies! Canniba loki 06:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here here! Great job everyone! It's also encouraging to know that standards have continued to improve since day one of this project. Let's keep this up! Drewcifer (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani discography...again

I have nominated Gwen Stefani discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Track-lists in The Beatles discography

We are having a discussion here whether The Beatles discography article should feature tracklistings of the different studio albums. Comments are welcome. Thanks! indopug (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Alesha Dixon discography

Would anybody be able to assess Alesha Dixon discography? Many thanks.Dt128 (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Canniba loki 03:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Dt128 (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:04, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Assessment of article

Could someone please re-assess this article?? Dt128 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? Canniba loki 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to FL criteria WRT length and content forking

See Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Revised criteria III. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...

Just out of interest, how can an article with 38 references be "List Class" as in Duffy discography?? Dt128 (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That is very much a list. Number of references has nothing to do with whether an article is a list or not. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

ah.. I get it... sorry I just thought that since it was below stub class on the quality scale!Dt128 (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Help needed with sourcing on a FLC discography

See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Ting Tings discography/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Limit on charts?

I'm currently planning to work on a discography and noticed that there are fifteen countries in that table, listing the peak positions. My question here would be, is there a set number on how many countries a table should have? — Σ xplicit 05:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

General rule of thumb is 10 charts. The chart for the artist's home country is a must (even if he has never charted), and nine others. I always try to get a good mix of charts where the artist charted high and low; if you only put charts where he charted high, it's an unfair POV that promotes the idea he is more successful around the world than he actually is. More than 10 charts is a bit of a stat dump, and is verging into WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll have no problem mixing high charting and low charting albums and songs. Thanks for the response. — Σ xplicit 05:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Usually it is suggested that the UK Singles Chart and Billboard Hot 100 (or component charts of that chart where the band has had active charting on, such as Modern Rock Tracks) be included if they charted as those two are the most easily sourced and important. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Discography formatting

At Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kronos Quartet discography/archive1, there is confusion over what is the correct format of a discography. The aforementioned discography follows a format not seen in FL discographies that were promoted in the last year or so. Please add your input there so we can determine the consensus. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Music videos

Shouldn't music videos be in italics? For example, Michael Jackson's Thriller (music video) uses the italics as every other film does. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 06:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No love here? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 03:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe Thriller is in italics in this case because the article is about the video itself, not the song's background information and such, which is why there are two separate articles. So generally, "music video" sections shouldn't be italicized. — Σ xplicit 05:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't long-form videos be italicized, and short, one-song videos enquoted? Just like albums vs. songs, books vs. short stories and, of course, movies versus short films? -Freekee (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Candy Dulfer Discography

Could somebody take a look at the Candy Dulfer discography and Candy Dulfer pages please?

- I've added a missing album to the discography page which was mentioned on the artist's page. Is there a way to avoid this in the future? - Do the singles need to be on her main page? - Should the albums where she has a guest appearance be there? I mean, is it important to know on which album she played on one track? Not a hostile question, just curious :) ZombieCow (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much that can be done with inconsistency. Just make sure all her albums are listed in both articles. If there is a separate discography article as there is in this case, the singles shouldn't be listed in Candy Dulfer. Guest appearances are fine to list in her discography. — Σ xplicit 21:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Discography section on the Candy Dulfer page should only include studio albums, so the live and compilation albums should be removed. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look at my recent changes on Candy Dulfer discography please?

I know that I forgot to add the chart positions, but I will add them later.

Where should I put the collaborations in the infobox?

Should the ref be where it is? or where should I place it if it is incorrect? --ZombieCow (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave the article a bit of a copy-edit. For further information of the infobox, a look at Template:Infobox Artist Discography should help. Feel free to ask any further assistance. — Σ xplicit 21:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Merzbow discography

I'm considering taking on the Merzbow discography and attempting to bring it up to Featured List standards, but I require some advice and guidelines before I start as this is possibly the single most difficult and complicated discography to do. I definately do not want to start working on it with one format in mind, only to be told later that it is incorrect. So, how does one handle 17 pseudonyms, 300+ albums, an untold number of miscellaneous tracks, and a dearth of sources to cite from?--Remurmur (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This one looks like a formidable foe, I look forward to seeing what you can do! My main piece of advice would be to split it up into something more manageable. The article is titled Merzbow discography, so stick to just Merzbow. All the aliases aren't aliases of Merzbow's, they're aliases of Masami Akita. Everything else might be better suited to individual discographies, or maybe a blanket Masami Akita discography article which covers everything other than Merzbow. Obviously no matter how you break it up, the lead would need to clarify the scope of the list, and provide links to any other separate but related lists. Beyond that, I'd rearrange things by format (album, ep, compilation, etc), rather than by year. Then I'd put everything into tables. I don't know that much about Merzbow, but I'm assuming the guy hasn't really charted anywhere, so you may be able to skip that part of what most discogs include. So you may want to take a look at other discogs that skip that. So style-wise, Nation of Ulysses discography, The Make-Up discography, or Lightning Bolt discography might be a few good places to start. Drewcifer (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I quickly decided that the traditional formatting for discographies would just not work well in this case, so I implemented a sortable table system. I'm stuck on how to handle the rest of the list though. Box sets are a particularly confusing aspect, especially the 50-disc Merzbox. And I'm not even sure if stuff like the appearances and compilation tracks should be kept; they'll be such a pain in the ass to organize...--Remurmur (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

More eyes needed at discography FLCs

Hi all, if you have time, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Duffy discography/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Devin Townsend discography/archive1? We need more eyes, especially with regard to sourcing and content. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

DVD's vs. Video albums

Why are video album sections continuously called "DVDs"? A DVD is simply the format in which a video album is released, just as is a VHS or the newer Blu-Ray discs. I never understood this; to me it would be the same as naming studio album sections "CDs". Does anyone have an explanation for this? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe they are incorrectly named and should be changed to Video albums. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Production discography proposal

No production discography has yet achieved featured list-class. I propose the following layout. I am uncertain however if Allmusic would be able to adequately source credit column. Please share your signs of support, oppositions or any questions or suggestions you have about it? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC) {{TOCyears|startyear=2000|endyear=2009|side=yes|center=yes|align=center|nobreak=yes|refs=yes}}

Year	Track(s)	Performer(s)	Album	Credit
2000	"Sweaty"	Jodeci, Timbaland	Diary of a Mad Band	co-writer, co-producer
2001	"Bring on Da' Funk" "Time and Place"	Jodeci	The Show, The After Party, The Hotel	co-writer, producer
2007	"All Day"	Aesop Rock	All Day: Nike+ Original Run	producer
	"Keep off the Lawn" "Catacomb Kids"		None Shall Pass
	"39 Thieves"	Aesop Rock, Timbaland		performer, co-producer
	"Citronella" "Five Fingers"	Aesop Rock		writer, co-producer
2008	"Give Me Love"	Grayskul, Missy Elliott	Bloody Radio

Ambiguity

Currently most discographies have this addendum:

"—" denotes albums that weren't released or were released but did not chart.

I was just wondering, isn't this quite a significant distinction? Obviously it isn't going to matter for the likes of The Beatles or Michael Jackson, but wouldn't it be significant for acts whose sales have dramatically changed over time, or vary dramatically between countries? I understand that in many cases we simply won't know which of the two it is, so we need to be able to introduce that ambiguity to make the information accurate, but other times we will know that something was released and didn't chart. Wouldn't this information be useful? 82.13.161.114 (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Discography FLCs

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dream Theater discography/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Devin Townsend discography/archive2 need eyes desperately. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming question

I have a question for you discography experts. There currently is no article for the band Union Station, merely a disambig that brings you to the page for Alison Krauss. However, I plan on creating that band's own page somewhat soon. Union Station is to Alison Krauss what The E Street Band is to Bruce Springsteen. Springsteen has a successful solo career, and members of the band are notable and famous independent of Springsteen, but they often put out content credited as "Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band". In rhis example Bruce Springsteen discography exists, and credits albums they put out together, while The E Street Band merely has a subsection in the article. However neither of the musician articles nor Bruce's discography are featured, so it's unclear if this is the standard. The best featured-quality example would be Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor (Reznor, NIN, and the NIN discography are part of a featured topic). BOTH Nine Inch Nails discography and Trent Reznor discography exist, with all content Reznor produced w/ NIN only under the NIN list.

Taking all of that in, what should Alison Krauss discography be named? I personally feel like I could move this page to Alison Krauss and Union Station discography, use it for both Krauss' solo albums and the AKUS albums, and that would be fine. How about you? Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If both are notable enough for their own articles (Enough releases, etc.), then they should both exist separately as Alison Krauss discography and Union Station discography. If Union Station don't have enough releases with that band name, then the discography should stay a part of the band's article. The Alison Krauss discog should only contain her solo releases, with the possibility to mention the band-related releases in the Lead Section or a See Also section. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Union Station doesn't release albums on their own, ONLY w/ Krauss. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So only under the name 'Alison Krauss and Union Station'? Then I would name the discog: Alison Krauss and Union Station discography. And have a separate one for her solo work. I think it wouldn't be too much of a bother either way you go but. I just think if she's done completely separate work with a band, then they aren't technically the same artist, are they? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 01:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the answer you're looking for, but I would say that, first of all, there should either be an article about AKUS, or a section in Krauss's article about the band. I'm curious about who's in it, how it formed, and all that. Second, I don't see the need for an AKUS disog page. Maybe if the band had its own article. -Freekee (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured lists on the main page

I recently started a discussion about nominating featured lists for the main page, and wanted to know if perhaps some of you more active list editors would consider contributing to the discussion happening there. ---kilbad (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

BPI Website

There could be light at the end of the tunnel: I've just received an email from the BPI to say that the certification database should be back online in the next couple of weeks. The delay has been due to extra testing they're doing for some additional search options that there will be. --JD554 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's back[2]! Let's get those FL noms flowing! --JD554 (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"No matches found. Please try a keyword search."--Canniba loki 15:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to work fine for me. Have you tried the "Show search help" link? What are you trying to find? --JD554 (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessments needed

hey, could anybody please assess Jordin Sparks discography, Mika discography, La Roux discography, Booty Luv discography, Gabrielle discography, Noisettes discography, Taio Cruz discography and Pixie Lott as these are all currently unassessed. Many thanks :) Mister sparky (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

La Roux and Booty Luv have an insufficient amount of releases and should be merged back into their main articles. So I have put suggestions at the top of the relevant pages, discuss on their talk pages or here, if need be. Sparks and Mika were already the appropriate Start Class, Pixie Lott is not a part of WP:Discographies; done the others. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also cleaned up what was in [3]. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Noisettes discography/archive1

Hi, I have submitted Noisettes discography for Peer review. I would be very grateful if you could help me out by giving me a few pointers as to how I can improve the article. There are further details at the article's peer review entry. Thanks in advance! - Dt¹²⁸_SpeakToMe 20:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Lists of Songs by Artist

Are we here at Discographies meant to be overlooking Lists of Songs (Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers), also? I am really at a loss as to where i would discuss the pointlessness of them. Any ideas of where to go? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Evanescence discography

would somebody or some people be able to re-asses the Evanescence discography? at the moment it is a B-Class, but having look through it needs to be downgraded fast! hardly anything is sourced, it includes things that it says dont include at MOS:DISCOG etc. it is very misleading for people! many thanks :) Mister sparky (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/The Saturdays discography/archive1

Hi, I have submitted The Saturdays discography for Peer review. I would appreciate it immensely if anyone could help me out by giving me some feedback on the article, ways to improve it, extra things that could be included etc etc. Details at peer review entry. Thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please check out this discussion I've posted at Talk:Music recording sales certification#Based on units SOLD or SHIPPED?

Please check out the discussion and contribute if you know something in particular. I've realized we've been basing alot of discog work on something that hasn't necessarily been figured out, so I'd like to get it address before we keep going too far. Thanks. 19:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

re-assessments needed

hey guys, was wondering if anybody would be able to re-assess a couple of articles.

• Feeder discography and Sugababes discography are both featured lists, but hardly anything is sourced, uses forums for the things that are sourced, and are generally quite poor and really not deserving of featured list status! thanks guys Mister sparky (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Article assessment

hey guys, me again. was just wondering if anybody could re-assess the Phil Collins discography? have been making lots of changes and improvements over the past few days and i know there is still work to be done but just wanted some opinions for improvements and if they think the article is heading in the right direction. thanks :) Mister sparky (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

George Michael discography

haha me again! would anybody be able to assess the above article? it is a start-class at the moment due to it was in a terrible state, hardly anything was sourced, lots of info was wrong and just generally in a mess. but its another discography i've been working hard on to improve its quality and was wondering if anybody could take a look :) thanks! Mister sparky (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Right off the bat 2 lead-related things. First, it's waaaaay too long, consider splitting some off into some kind of history/background section. Second, where's the sourcing for... any of it? Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

yes i know the lead is a bit long, that was top of my agenda for improvements. the sources for the lead are in the rest of the article... it was my understanding that the lead doesnt have to be full of citations if they were already present in the main article, or have i got that completely wrong? Mister sparky (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

shortened the lead and added the citations. Mister sparky (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead is still way too long. WP:LEAD#Length suggests a maximum of four paragraphs (for very long articles). I would have thought two or three would be sufficient. --JD554 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

trimmed a bit more. its now just 3 paragraphs. Mister sparky (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

FLRC delegate election

Hi everyone! I'm just dropping by to let you know of the FLRC delegate election that begins on Tuesday. Being that this project is pretty active in the FLC/FLRC process, it was suggested that some editors here may wish to run in this election, or at least vote in it (voting starts on Tuesday). You may run in the election by following the instructions on the page. If you don't wish to run, please come and vote sometime next week! The election starts Tuesday and ends Saturday. For more information, check out the opening section of the page. Cheers, iMatthew ^talk at 22:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Matchbox Twenty Discography

I could be wrong here, but I don't think the Matchbox Twenty discography was assessed but missed as it was part of the article for the band. I've been updating it and adding sources and more information. I have a dispute over content in the singles charts at the moment, but once thats settled down, if it hasn't been assessed yet maybe it could be assessed. Hitthat (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"The band's previous hit album, "YOURSELF OR SOMEONE LIKE YOU," was eight-times platinum in Australia, quintuple platinum in New Zealand, quadruple platinum in Canada, platinum in the Philippines, and gold in Ireland and Indonesia." From Time Warner/Atlantic Records. Should sort out the awkward line about NZ certs. For it to be assessed, you really need a stand alone article. Feel free to create one, it has the right to one - just you need to write a lead for it. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I'm working on it now, though it may take a few days to get done. Also, where can I find the site with the information about New Zealand certs? Hitthat (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Record charts/sourcing guide is always a good place to start. NZ is run by RIANZ, so you can use http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp for certifications after 1999 I think it is. The chart there has the little images next to the releases on the chart, for example I Gotta Feeling has a little platinum triangle next to it. I also sometimes use the PDF chart reports they do, which can be found easily by doing a Google search: [4]. Not sure if earlier certs have been posted online anywhere. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually meant the one you mentioned in you first comment from the record companies Hitthat (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I didn't post the link, umm... what an idiot. Here. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll post here again when i've got the discography ready to be assessed Hitthat (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it should be about ready now Hitthat (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaving comments on the page's talk. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, its probably ready to be assessed again Hitthat (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

article re-assessment and suggestions needed

hey guys, i was wondering if anybody could re-assess the Gabrielle discography? it is currently just a stub class but i have been working on improving the content, sourcing etc and i'm confident it deserves a higher grade. would also like any suggestions for improvement? many thanks :) Mister sparky (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

DJ Mix Compilations in the infobox

Snow Patrol discography is currently being reviewed for FL. The band released DJ Mix Compilations. Are these considered the same as compilations? It's at least related so I wondered why it isn't under Compilations in the infobox. Is there maybe a parameter for this kind of compilation or should it just be 3 Compilations instead of 1 ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would just leave them in the normal Compilation albums section. There's nothing concrete on this though, so I'm sure you and the reviewers can come up with an acceptable consensus. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

FL removal candidate

hey guys, i have nominated the James Blunt discography as a Featured List removal candidate here Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/James Blunt discography/archive1 because it no longer meets the requirements needed for a featured list. opinions please? :) Mister sparky (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Matchbox Twenty Discography again

I think its about ready to be assessed again; it would be great if someone could do that Hitthat (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles discography

A few editors are trying to clean up this very important page right now, so if possible as many discography-skilled editors should lend a hand. The more experienced editors, the better. Of particular interest is current talk page discussion regarding this project's guidelines and how they apply to the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bing Crobsy Discography

I began editing this based on The Beatles Discography, but that has dramatically changed. So wanting to know whether the format adopted is no longer acceptable? Also, when does detailing the information from a reference book become a consideration for breaching their copyright? Eight88 (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles discography has never followed the guidelines at MOS:DISCOG, it is beginning to get there slowly. As long as you only use references for direct quotes, confirming factual figures or information you should be OK. Lifting passages wholesale generally isn't acceptable, see WP:COPY and WP:COPYVIO for further information. --JD554 (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're best off using the Featured discogs listed on the project page here; I made a point of the Beatles discog ignoring the MOS:DISCOG guidelines on the talk page there, and my exact biff with their methods seems to have eventuated - people using it as a template. Great. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of acharts as a source?

hey guys, at a number of FLC reviews i have come across a few reviewers have point blank refused to accept the use of acharts as a source for chart positions. this puzzles me greatly because it is yet another source listed as reliable and acceptable at WP:GOODCHARTS quote: "No problems have been detected with this archive. While using an official source is generally preferred, using this archive as a convenience link is acceptable." reviewers have also had problems with other sites listed there. what is the point of having GOODCHARTS if, according to flc reviewers, the sources recommended are unreliable? Mister sparky (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Take it to WP:Record charts. There has been multiple discussions there; the main problem with the site is that it doesn't openly publish what its sources are, whereas its contemporary the Hung Median charts (Australian-charts.com, Charts.org.nz, etc) are at least officially licensed. The site also lacks third party coverage from reliable sources, they don't seem to have been used as a source by other sources... what the Good Charts is saying is it appears to be correct, but isn't entirely reliable. So yeah, take it to WP:RC. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting assessment

Thanks I do not see a section to request assessment of an article, so I would like someone to please evaluate Magnapop discography. Thank you for your time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You've done some great work with the cats mate! In return I will help you out with this, but can't right now, hopefully tomorrow. One thing I will say, which is a total bastard of a thing to point out first up - Discogs and MusicBrainz are both user-submitted websites, meaning neither is a reliable source and shouldn't be used as a reference. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure I appreciate the tip as well as the acknowledgment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Roxette disco - reassessment

Could anyone re-assess Roxette discography please ? Article is currently rated 'C', Thanks. Mattg82 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment Procedure

I just signed up for this project and would like to be involved in reassessing discographies. I have found some that I think are rated too high or too low, based on their quality level. I have noticed many people on this discussion page requesting reassessments. But what is the procedure for completing a reassessment? Can any project member do it? And how? If the procedure is described around here somewhere I apologize for being unable to find it. Please point me in the right direction. Thanks. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

While I'm here, I propose a promotion from Stub-class to B-class for Talk:Insane Clown Posse discography. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Go to the talk page, click edit and change it to what you think it should be. Being bold is encouraged, especially in a small WIkiproject such as this. You will learn as you go, people will pick up on things, just do them on a small scale so people notice, but can help you along the way. Generally a B class article will be well referenced, in accordance to MOS:DISCOG and other policies (in-line citations, etc.) and have an extensive and suitable lead summarising the contents of the list. I'm not too sure why people keep requesting re-assessments, I've never really understood the reason behind it - unless they are searching for feedback, which I myself am usually happy to dish out.

I would say the Insane Clown discog is on its way, but not quite ready for B class, or maybe C class. There is a few issues that you should be able to sort out by looking at another discography such as the Green Day discography, which you look to have stolen the first reference from? Lol. kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about with stealing a reference... I was just following links on the Project page and inspected Insane Clown Posse as an interested Project guy. I agree that this discog is probably C-class. Thanks for the advice on being bold... I didn't even know it was encouraged, with so many people sheepishly requesting reassessments! Doomsdayer520 (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at reference #1 on Insane Clown Posse discography. ;) kiac. (talk-contrib) 01:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that's odd. That is a reference I suppose I can fix as a member of the project. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Black Eyed Peas discography

hey guys, have listed the above for peer review here Black Eyed Peas discography would be really greatful of some feedback :) thanks Mister sparky (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Shakira discography

hey guys, you don't think that shakira singles need more References like i added the ref. for germany and france countries but User:Dan6hell66 removed them.why? thanks Ashishvats23 (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani discography

Please comment at this list's FLC, if any of you have the time. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer assessment request

Would someone please be able to assess The Smashing Pumpkins discography? Thanks in advance. Pasta of Muppets (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of reviews from the album infobox

This is a notification of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums regarding the removal of reviews from the album infobox. The discussion has reached consensus to remove the reviews, though is still accepting further input into the matter. We are especially requiring more discussion on what steps to take next. Your input would be appreciated on what is a matter that will affect a lot of music articles. kiac. (talk-contrib) 09:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

MOS:DISCOG

I've been looking at the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style and noticed one thing, in the Article-wide section of Content it states that "Commonly-used links include the artist's or band's homepage and/or links to Discogs or Allmusic." The article then later states in Sources that "Only reliable sources should be cited as sources of information. Discogs, for example, should be avoided".

What is the project's opinions on Discogs? Should it be kept? --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Discogs is not considered reliable, since it's content is user-generated. It therefore should not be used to cite information, since it is not a reliable source. It can, however, freely be used as an external link, as a resource to the reader to find out more elsewhere. Drewcifer (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you know, I was actually looking back at it after I left the above post and before you replied, and that did actually spring into mind as a possibility. Its nice to see that its not so black and white as to whether something can or cannot be included, but more to do with in what manner it is used. Thank you for clearing that up Drewcifer. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 04:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)