Talk:Van der Graaf Generator discography

This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.DiscographiesWikipedia:WikiProject DiscographiesTemplate:WikiProject DiscographiesDiscography articles

Progressive Rock

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New live album

An article should be written on the new live album from the recent reunion. The name escapes me now though. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Box

This is definitely a compilation by any reasonable definition, so I've moved it back. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't change anything about it, but I still think it's ludicrous. Almost half of The Box was never officially released before: 6 out of 10 songs on CD 1, 5 out of 6 songs on CD 2, 1 out of 8 songs on CD 3, and 3 out of 10 songs on CD 4. Is the definition of compilation album: an album of which all the songs have never been released on any other format? In my definition a compilation album is made up of tracks that have been released before. Mark in wiki (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what else can you call it? It's not a studio album, because it doesn't consist of tracks that were put together at the time of recording with the specific purpose of creating an album. My definition of a compilation album is obviously a lot looser than yours. A compilation certainly doesn't have to consist only of previously released tracks, it is just a collection of songs (usually from different eras/periods) that have been brought together for some specific purpose. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for a new lay-out of the discography

This is an idea for a new lay-out. Please let me know what you think.

Cover	Date	Album
100px	Sept 1969	The Aerosol Grey Machine
100px	Feb 1970	The Least We Can Do Is Wave to Each Other
100px	Dec 1970	H to He, Who Am the Only One
100px	Oct 1971	Pawn Hearts
100px	Oct 1975	Godbluff
100px	April 1976	Still Life
100px	Oct 1976	World Record
100px	Sept 1977	The Quiet Zone/The Pleasure Dome
100px	Jan 1982	Time Vaults
100px	April 2005	Present
100px	March 2008	Trisector
100px	March 2011	A Grounding in Numbers (UK: #143^[1])

Cover	Date	Album
100px	July 1978	Vital
100px	June 1994	Maida Vale
100px	March 2007	Real Time
	June 2009	Live At The Paradiso

Personally I think it's quite nice and clear and not so much text-based as the discography was. But do covers get used on Wikipedia discography articles at all? Mark in wiki (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. You're not allowed to use album covers in discographies. The applicable guideline is Wikipedia:NFC#UUI. --Viennese Waltz 14:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I was afraid of that. Thank you for your reply and for the link. Mark in wiki (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/110326cluk.txt

VdGG as a commercial enterprise?

This latest revision of the page saddens me. Mostly because the addition of chart succes seems to imply that succes is relevant to art. I feel it is an enormous simplification to reduce art to a mere contest of who has the most fans or who wins the most money. In my view commercial succes is an uninteresting factor when it comes to assessing art, and if there is a place to mention or discuss it, it should be the article about the band, not the discography. But maybe this is Wikipedia-policy, which is why I didn't simply undo the edits. Also, I only see columns for UK, DE and NL, when it is obvious that in the case of VdGG if you really need to say something about commercial succes a column for Italy would be the most important one. Which is discussed in the article about the band of course. Now to me it is just an ugly collection of dashes. Also, the inclusion of the album title a certain single was taken from, implies that VdGG was a hit-machine, which it was not. Furthermore I have tried to restore all information that was lost in the revision, such as dates. Mark in wiki (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the page to what seems to be the standard layout for discographies on Wikipedia. The chart columns don't necessarily mean that commercial success is the most important factor - I don't think it is, anyway - they are merely pieces of information that people may be interested to find out. As for the lack of column for Italy, that is because I was unable to find a source for the chart positions - this site, for example, seems to suggest that none of their albums charted in Italy! The inclusion of the albums that singles were taken from is again standard for discographies on Wikipedia, and is not meant to suggest that the band was a hit-machine. Hope this clears everything up! «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.zobbel.de/cluk/110326cluk.txt

[1]