Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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)
If an artist doesn't have a separate Discography page then of course the info needs to go on their main page.Yellowxander (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Discographies

"The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. This excludes EPs, live albums, and singles." I generally agree, but who's to say that a Live album is not a major work? Frampton Comes Alive! is a good example. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's changed slightly, but there was an edit war. I had removed the compilations and one live album (of four) and the editor added it back in because the guideline was vague while the discussion around adding it was not at all vague. We can hammer it out on the project page or here. Overall, I think we, as established editors, understand which notable albums should be listed in the article discography when a complete discography exists. We just need something for new editors to refer to. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The idea is to have something resembling a summary style section. That is, to have a brief summation of important points and a link to the main article with full coverage, rather than an empty section with just the "main article:" link. Generally studio albums are the most essential components of an artist's catalog. That's not to say live albums aren't significant, and there are certainly some historically important live albums, but they should be discussed in the history anyway and of course will be listed in the separate discography article. Exceptions can of course be made via the usual discussion process. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
We all understand what the purpose of the section is. However, we have to make every effort to translate our knowledge to new editors rather than get into conflict with them over what should and should not be included. I currently have one editor who is insisting that excluding live and compilation albums do not accurately reflect a summary of the artist's work. If we codify the guideline, it will help avoid the problem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm having a problem at the Aerosmith page. They have listed in charts studio and singles. I have changed it to the standard format of studio releases in a list but people keep undoing it, saying that charts look better. practically no other pages have this, its just the simple list, all info is on the discography pageYellowxander (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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 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)
  • 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)

Appearances in other media section

Is there any consensus on styling "appearances in other media" section? Despite the use of table, Unkle#Appearances seems to be a mess and I am not sure how to format it. Could it be merged into the Unkle discography article or should it stay as it is? (Same actually applies to Anthrax and The White Stripes. In spite of not being complicated as Unkle article and being written in prose, it seems a bit irrelevant.) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Aerosmith#Discography

So I keep trying to put this into the standard as every other page, listing just studio albums and their year of release, but people keep putting back the charts with sales info and single info too, saying they're used to it like that and it enhances the article, let alone the fact Aerosmith of course have their own discography page for such info. Any help? Have shown them the guideline and they don't care! lolYellowxander (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is still ongoing debate on this almost two years later. I'm in the camp that believes we should have a table with a few more items of info. Aerosmith has an incredibly long discography, and for the casual reader, they are not going to want to scroll through a lengthy discography article like that to see how successful their studio albums were in relation to each other, the label changes, and all that. I like the table that was employed, as it gave basic info like album, date released (including month and date, which is helpful for band that released albums every year in the 70s), record label, and chart performance and sales certifications in the band's home country. We also had a section that highlighted the band's most successful singles (all the U.S. Top 40 singles, which amounted to twenty-one singles, so a casual reader would know what the band's biggest singles were, instead of having to sift through 70 of them). The Aerosmith article, in this format, has been a good article for many years, and much work had been done to get it to where it was at and prevent things from getting out of hand (people adding too much info, etc.). I've already made my case on Talk:Aerosmith, as have other people. In my view, the table the Aerosmith article employed was a significant enhancement over the standard guideline (the bare-bones album & year format), that didn't make the article any longer and allowed the casual reader to know a great deal about Aerosmith's discography, recording history, and the success of that discography (or lack of success), without having to sort through the incredibly lengthy discographies that include dozens of compilations which really aren't all that notable and chart positions for countries where they weren't really that big, and all of that. The detailed info in the discography article is good info for a serious researcher, but it's burdensome for the casual Wikipedia reader. Including just a little bit more info in the discography section of the artist article, in a way that is well-organized and kept to one screenshot helps remedy that. I really want to build a consensus, or perhaps make exceptions. I don't want a never-ending edit war. Abog (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

List of reliable sources

Should there be a list of reliable sources? One like: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? Just a list of sources that can be used for the musicians articles opposed to ones specific for album articles, for example Blabbermouth.net is considered to be good for reviews but in terms of news articles some consider it unreliable. Any thoughts? And should it be in a similar format to the Albums list or in a completely different format? SilentDan (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources could be used as a guideline for what are and are not reliable sources for any music topic. The select few that can only be used for reviews are marked as such anyways, so they could definitely not be used for BLP content. If we were to make a separate list, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources would be a good backbone to it. STATic message me! 05:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@STATicVapor: I agree, should we wait for more users to comment on this subject before we start anything? And would you say it should be its own separate article or listed under a separate section here? SilentDan (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This page does not receive much traffic anymore, so I am not sure how many people would comment. I think it should be its own section in this article, preferably right before the external links section. STATic message me! 18:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@STATicVapor: Fair enough, and sorry to go off subject why is the traffic so low? I mean considering that there are tons of articles surrounding Musicians out there shouldn't this be one of the most important wiki-projects out there? Same goes for Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies, in fact Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style is now dormant, I want to revive this but I have no idea how to do so.
Going back onto the subject how would I/we do this? Should I create tables here and go through them before placing them on the project page itself? SilentDan (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Since this is a sub-article of Wikipedia: WikiProject Musicians (where more people are watching), they would have to have also watchlisted this page, it would not automatically be watchlisted. Since this article has not been significant changed in awhile it is understandable. If no one disagrees, might as well boldy move that table to this article, leaving out all that have notes related to them not being good for BLP content such as About.com and The BoomBox. STATic message me! 04:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@STATicVapor: OK so the tables themselves should obviously be adapted so should the columns of the online and print tables tables be something like this: Publication, Primary focus, Country, Language and website. We don't need Rating System of course and I'm also somewhat confused to as what Back issues mean. SilentDan (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Discography bullet points

Just a quick thought, would it not be beneficial to have the list of albums numbered instead of using bullet points? That way it's easier to distinguish what number release each one is. Just a thought like, maybe it's not best to do so but I don't see why not. SilentDan (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Overlinking

I would like to add a section, much like that in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Personnel, that indicates how to link instruments and which to link. How does linking electric guitar to the lead guitarist help us understand that role better? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I prefer linking. You and I may be knowledgeable about music, but rock band roles aren't obvious to everyone. I had assumed it could be done at an editors discretion, considering how many GA and FA articles take the approach. 21st Century Breakdown, Smashing Pumpkins, A Perfect Circle. It's also how I've handled it with just about every music article I've created, rewritten, or maintained in the last 7 years, and I don't recall anyone opposing it's as baffling strong as Walter here. Either way should be fine. Sergecross73 msg me 10:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh my WP:OSE. You certainly know that featured articles usually only follow prose and references, not manuals of style so essentially you're arguing against the project which I pointed to above. So you're admitting to breaking a guideline for the past seven years rather than explaining why you've broken it. There's no reason to link to common terms is there? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Its not "OSE" when it's comparable situations in peer reviewed articles like GA/FA - at that point, it's an example of a precedent. To suggest such a thing isnt considered in an GAR/FAR is ludicrous. I'd again like to remind you that over linking is a subjective call, not a black and white one, and the fact that you're just now proposing this addition shows that I'm not breaking anything. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
It is other stuff exists. Many article correctly apply OVERLINK such as the Beatles#Members. Overlinking of common terms isn't a subjective call. No one is coming to the Smashing Pumpkins band article thinking to themselves, "hey I want to read about that instrument that that one guy from the Smashing Pumpkins played, but can't for the life of me remember what it's called" and file their way down to the members section to see, oh, it's a guitar. That's the argument that must be made in relation to "in the English Wikipedia, of all the 800,000 links added ... in February 2015, the majority (66%) were not clicked even a single time in March 2015, and among the rest, most links were clicked only very rarely" which is referenced at OVERLINK. I could see if it were a kazoo, uilleann pipes or other less common instrument, but to suggest that people need to be linked to a guitar, drum or "singing" is a stretch. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect. Referring to similar situations in peer reviewed content is a valid argument. It'd be OSE if I pointed to some random stub-class album article or something. Beyond that, I think you overestimate the musical knowledge of your everyday people. I don't believe the ten year old growing up listening to Justin Bieber know much about the bass guitar. We write for her as much as anyone else - Wikipedia is written for general audiences. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is correct. I have been involved in multiple peer reviews and they do not focus on MoSes. You're pretty cynical and your argument flies in the case of the 66% of unclicked links. By extension of your argument, said tween would likely not be reading about the Smashing Pumpkins. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
No, but they may reading something like Shinedown, (the origin place of this dispute) who is one of the few relevant, crossover hit rock band in modern times. And my argument isn't that it should be mandatory to link them, but that it should be an acceptable option upon editorial discretion. I'm only against a blanket ban on it, as you've suggested here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Not really likely. Bieber fans, by your definition, are not interested in anything else and are ignorant.
I too am looking for wording that common terms, such as guitars, drums, keyboards—including pianos, synthesizers, organs, etc.—and yes, even bass guitars, should not be linked, while other instruments should be linked using editorial discretion. We should only be linking to relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully. This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question. Alternately, we should be linking to articles with relevant information, articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions/phrases and even [[[:proper name]]s that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers. Common musical instruments really fall outside of that range of criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't see a bad part in linking. Worst case scenario is they go unclicked, a scenario with zero net loss, as it did not take up any space or clutter things. If one person clicks on it, there's a net positive. Nothing to lose, only something to gain. Sergecross73 msg me 23:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I just quotes the MoS for linking, and so you're disagreeing with that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, this is a subjective MOS guideline. There's wiggle room. It's not like the MOS guidelines for section capitalization, where its capitalized correctly or it's not. "Common" is not a binary (one or the other) value. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
We should only be linking to relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully. This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question. Alternately, we should be linking to articles with relevant information, articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions/phrases and even proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers. Common musical instruments really fall outside of that range of criteria.
That was the guideline. Now how do we make that guideline work with this guideline? There is no wiggle room in that question, and whether you think a music reader needs to know what a guitar is to understand the role of guitarist is immaterial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The average readers of WP articles are not Justin Bieber fans, but deemed to be someone a little older and a with a little higher standard of education. Guitar, drum, keyboards—piano, synthesizer, organ – are so banal in music articles that hardly anyone wandering onto a musical group article would ever click on these. Such links, typically bunched together in a sea of blue, are almost the archetypical overlinked terms, and I have no doubt that these ought to be zapped on sight. -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The linking of common instruments is worse than useless: not only does it dilute the linking system (readers tend to ignore it when it there's a sea of blue), it makes the reading experience bumpier, and looks messy to the synoptic eye. Tony (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Discographies

Based on this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NF_(rapper)&diff=prev&oldid=849692331

First, I thought if a discography article exists, we don't use one in the article. That
Second, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) § Discographies is a circular link with the section hatnote at the target.
There are no formatting guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies

As for a supposed standard,

The term, "non-album single", is not the start of a sentence so I assume it should not be capitalized per MOS:CAPS. I could be wrong there.
Why should we use {{n/a}}? It's short for not applicable, but the album title is applicable, even if one does not exist. No need to fill a table up with formatting. We should not use colour to signify a different state. Prose are enough. At least it's not italicized, as I have seen a great many anons and new editors format it as Non-album single".

I recognize that this applies to more than just musician articles as the formatting and capitalization will apply to discography articles as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Death and legacy section

Where would this section fit in the order? From inspecting featured articles, sections for deaths that have their own articles are placed as "Significant events" and placed below Musical style and Personal life (as in FAs Jimi Hendrix, David Bowie, Aaliyah) while those not particularly unusual are just placed as a subsection of Career if given a heading at all (as in Camille Saint-Saëns, Elvis Presley). For XXXTentacion in particular before getting into an edit war with User:CoughingCookieHeart, the article has its own death article in a merge discussion at the moment, but even after a close either way this still seems ambiguous. Additionally, the Legacy section doesn't seem to fit in dead center of the article before Personal life etc. 93 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

  • @93:, I'm happy you brought this up so we can figure this out. Most pages I've edited in the past where the subject is deceased like Lil Peep, GA Bob Marley and Fredo Santana either put death after career (as in Marley's case), personal life before death (as in Santana's case) or musical style before death but made sure personal life was the section following death (as in Peep's case.) I was just going from my best instinct and it'd be nice to get some third party support so thanks for making this. CoughingCookieHeart (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm looking at The Police, and I see that Legacy is placed before Musical style, and I thought that odd, so came here to check, but note that Legacy is not indicated in the guidelines. A legacy section is useful as a summary of an artist's career to date, regardless of if they are dead or not. While there is a tendency (usually due to WP:RECENTISM) for articles to have a Death section, this is generally not appropriate unless there is some notability regarding the death (as with John Lennon), so death would usually be dealt with in the final career section (as in George Harrison). I observe that the details regarding the death usually come under the career section - either as part of the final section (and could be mentioned in the sub-heading as with George Harrison) or as its own sub-section. Looking at examples, if there are both Career and Personal life sections it appears to come at the end of both - Elvis Costello, Elvis Presley, Madonna (entertainer), The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, George Harrison, John Lennon. Based on what I have seen, I will add the following to the Article guideline (if there is disagreement, please revert and ping me so we can discuss further): Death - if the artist's death is notable, and there is enough material, a separate section may be created and placed at the end of the career section(s); otherwise, the artist's death is dealt with in the final Career section, and may be mentioned in the title as in "Later life and death". Legacy - a section summarising what reliable sources say about the impact and importance of the artist's career to date. This is commonly placed at the end of both Career and Personal life sections if there are both. SilkTork (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

When are citations needed within the discography?

Greetings! There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies#When new discography additions cannot be verified (WP:V).

Your contributions would be highly welcome! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

When should significant compilation albums including some new songs be included on artists' main pages?

The guidelines currently state that "[l]ive and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be included." My guess is that compilation albums generally should not be included if they are merely new combinations of previously released songs or "best hits" albums. However, sometimes compilation albums are very significant and merit inclusion on a main page. For example, the Beatles' album Magical Mystery Tour is included on the Beatles main page even though that album includes the previously released songs Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane, which were recorded during the studio sessions for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. So, is there an exception for compilation albums that are particularly significant? Or perhaps they are included when some content is new even though some of it was previously released and recorded for a different album? It seems that some Wikipedia editors believe that compilation albums are never allowed on an artist's main page if there is a separate discography article. So, any clarification on this would be appreciated. The use of the word "generally" in the current draft of the guidelines leads me to conlcude that some reasonable exceptions should be allowed, but I've encountered Wikipedia editors who - some rudely, some politely - are quick to undo any edits which add compilation albums. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2019sci-fi-fan (talk • contribs) 02:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

When there's no discography article. Discussing it is always acceptable, but an entry should not be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Should the guideline be changed to remove the word "generally"? I think including that implies that there are sometimes when a compilation album could/should be included. 2019sci-fi-fan (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines/Archive_2&oldid=1098496088"