Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RfC: Possible alternative to current singles discography tables

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should any of the following singles discography tables be considered an acceptable alternative to the current predominant format (example) and be implemented in a discography style guideline? Heartfox (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Option 1: title and year columns are switched

Year	Title	Peak chart positions										Sales	Certifications	Album
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
2019
	"First Single"	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—			1st Album
	"Second Single" (with Another Artist)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
2020	"Third Single"	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—			1st Album
	"Fourth Single"	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—			2nd Album
	"Fifth Single"	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
"—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory.

Option 2: title and year columns are switched; album column moves in between them

Year	Album	Title	Peak chart positions										Sales	Certifications
			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
2019	1st Album	"First Single"	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
		"Second Single" (with Another Artist)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
2020	1st Album	"Third Single"	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	2nd Album	"Fourth Single"	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
		"Fifth Single"	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
"—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory.

Option 3: album becomes row-defining element; title and year columns are switched

Album	Year	Title	Peak chart positions										Sales	Certifications
			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1st Album	2019	"First Single"	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
		"Second Single" (with Another Artist)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	2020	"Third Single"	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
2nd Album	2020	"Fourth Single"	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
		"Fifth Single"	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
"—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory.

• Support any of these 3 as an acceptable alternative to the current WP:DISCOGSTYLE, and all three are better in terms of readability and MOS:ACCESS than what is generally done with these tables. (I personally think the tables at Taylor Swift singles discography is a mostly unreadable mess, and is YA example of why I don't trust WP:FL ratings.) Option 1 is the most likely to gain support, while Option 2 is actually the better way to do it. Option 3 is actually the best of all, but it's the least likely to gain support... So I support any of these three formats, while noting that Options 1 or 2 are better than how WP:DISCOGRAPHY tables are done currently (e.g. again, see the example provided), and would put WP:DISCOGRAPHY tables more in line with the general formatting of WP:FILMOGRAPHY and 'Awards' tables which usually list year first (i.e. providing more consistency across different WP table formats), and thus make 'Year' the "row-defining element" of the table. I would certainly support WP:DISCOGRAPHY doing the same with their tables. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• None The third option is the cleanest, but it should be Title, Year, Album in that order. Because we are discussing the singles, they should appear first, the year the single was released should be next, and finally the album name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Walter, I wouldn't be starting with the albums when we are talking about a singles discography. Richard3120 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz and Richard3120: But what about the comment at MOS:ACCESS about how the table should be organized by most rowspanned to least rowspanned? Option 2 and Option 3 are great examples of how it goes from most rowspanned to least, and a lot of editors have expressed concerns over the current discography tables that are listed at WP:DISCOGSTYLE#Samples. Please see Talk:Olivia Rodrigo#Table for that talk discussion. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Then start with year, as 'Filmography' and 'Awards' tables do (i.e. Options 1 or 2). Consistency. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: Then don't span. The content is about the song, not the year or album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: So would you support removing spans from discography tables as a whole? That way, we’re respecting the guidelines. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If it helps with MOS:ACCESS, but I don't see this discussion cross-posted to the project and I have never read that spans should not be used. In a recent discussion I had there, two key editors indicates it was much less of a problem now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no "requirement" to do anything on Wikipedia, really. This is about maximizing table readability. WP:DISCOGSTYLE does actually say "It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible, so a strict adherence to the guidelines listed above may not always be the best way to accomplish our goals." – does the current formatting of 'Singles' tables actually accomplish this goal?! I will argue pretty strongly that it does not. MOS:ACCESS says "Web accessibility is the goal of making web pages easier to navigate and read. While this is primarily intended to assist those with disabilities, it can be helpful to all readers." Again, does the current formatting of 'Singles' tables actually work towards this goal? And let's not forget WP:Readers first. It seems like WP:DISCOGRAPHY has fallen into a habit of doing 'Singles' tables a certain way "because it's always been done this way", and has never really examined the question of what is the best way to present this information in tabular form. That's really what this discussion is about. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Please tell all the other WP:DISCOGRAPHY editors this then! (I can tell you they won't listen, and will continue to needlessly rowspan.) And the exact same argument can be made about WP:FILMOGRAPHY and 'Awards' tables – that it's about the "title" or the "award" – but that doesn't prevent these tables from generally being organized by year, because that is a logical way to organize these types of tables, 'Single' tables included. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Any of the three examples per IJBall's comment and MOS:ACCESS. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• None A discography is defined as "a descriptive catalog of musical recordings". Professional discographies usually contain information about the recordings with date released, record label, format. I have seen and own several: none are almost exclusively focused on commercial performance. These simply are not discographies. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Care to give a Wikipedia example of what you mean? And care to share your opinion on the excessive and poor use of rowspan in most current Discography tables on Wikipedia? – Because it's the latter issue, and the severe readability problems they pose, as to why we're here... I will also note that Wikipedia is under no obligation to reflexively follow what others do, as per WP:ONUS, etc. – we have our own MOS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Discography" is a "term of art", which is defined as "a word or phrase that has a precise, specialized meaning within a particular field or profession". WP cannot decide that "volcanology" should apply to weather or trees; ensuring that a misuse of discography meets WP:ACCESS does not make it any less fundamentally flawed. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong None, for exactly the reasons given by Walter Görlitz. Option 1 is a list of years (which we don't want/need), Option 2 is the same, and Option 3 is a list of albums (which is every bit as wrong as Options 1 and 2). But the RfC is completely begging the question: why would we change the format from something that works well and has finally achieved an accepted consistency? What "problems" are these proposed options supposed to solve? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @JohnFromPinckney: Somewhere in MOS:ACCESS, it states that tables that use rowspan should have the most spanned element as the row-definer, and then it decreases by span level. Therefore, to respect MOS:ACCESS, we must either change to a year/album-first model of discography (as those are the two most/only discography table elements that are spanned) or not use rowspan at all. If the songs are going to be the row-defining element, then rowspan can’t be used, because songs don’t span across multiple rows. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Doggy54321: You state "Somewhere in MOS:ACCESS, it states that tables that use rowspan should have the most spanned element as the row-definer", but that's not true and is exactly the opposite of what is needed for accessibilty for a screen reader. The item that defines the row has to be unique, otherwise it's useless, and it should be obvious that row-spanned items are not unique, by definition. --RexxS (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

There's got to be some element of taking clarity into account though... if the first thing you see in a table is "non-album single" and then "2019", for example, I don't see how this is going to be clear to the average reader. Surely the first thing you want to see is the name of each single. Richard3120 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's not just that – the two columns that editors insist upon rowspanning aren't even adjacent to each other, which makes the readability even worse when rowspan is used. We can actually potentially drop this if WP:DISCOGRAPHY would just agree to never use rowspan in their tables, ever – but we all know that will never happen. So Options 1 or 2 are the next best answer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• It doesn't "work well" – many 'Singles' tables are basically unreadable. (And "consistency" is not greater importance than "readability", no matter how you slice.) As usual, the only people who think these tables "work" well are Discography editors themselves, which is incredibly frustrating because a substantial portion of Discography editors are apparently incapable of not using rowspan horribly... And I have yet to see anyone make a convincing argument as to how 'Years'-first is so "horrible" for Discography tables while simultaneously being just fine for Filmography and Awards tables. Bottom line: This seems to be a case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in the true sense of the term – nothing has ever "convinced me that their actions (in regards to these tables) are right". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• IJBall, you say, many 'Singles' tables are basically unreadable, which astounds me. Can you give, say, three examples of such unreadable tables? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we just turn this around – prove to me that Taylor Swift singles discography is the most readable way to present that information? And, no, I'm not going to pull out more examples, because everybody here knows that most Discography tables are formatted exactly the same way as the Taylor Swift article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Most discography tables are not formatted this way. Here are four discographies are the formatted in the most common way: The Beatles discography Led Zeppelin discography U2 discography Stryper discography. The fact that it's much better is also an improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 06:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at just the 'Singles' tables, which are always the problem – Stryper discography is actually 'Year-first', exactly what is being proposed here in Option 1 – of your 4 examples that's the best one, but it's a smaller table without the 'Sales' column. Of the other three, the Beatles (not surprisingly) is the next best one because they don't rowspan the 'Album' column there, but I would still say that table is difficult to read overall, and I still don't think that's the best way to present all of that info in tabular form (maybe there isn't a really good way to present all of that info in a single table? I don't know...). AFAICT, the other two article examples there have 'Singles' tables have the exact same issues that this whole proposal is about. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No, Stryper discography fails MOS:DTT by a long way. The tables in there need to be re-written with the identifying title marked up as the row-header. That's not negotiable. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I can't prove that that's the best way, as I'm no scientist, and what we're doing here isn't a rigorously scientific activity. I'm just an occasional, volunteer editor of Wikipedia, who likes to see info clearly and consistently presented. Which brings us back to the beginning: now that you've (repeatedly) mentioned Swift's discography, can you explain what you specifically don't like about it? In what way is it unreadable? I can't suggest improvements if I don't know what you see as broken.

As to the four discogs provided by Walter:

The Beatles' is challenging because it lists two, not one, album per single; it lists 13 charts, more than the suggested limit of 10; it shows A-/B-side titles, but provides nasty double listings of peaks separated by <br />. Also, a lot of the songs don't even show the year released, because of rowspans (e.g., rowspan="19" for 1964) so I have to vertically scroll a lot just to see them.

Led Zeppelin's discog is easier for me to grok, mostly because it's smaller (vertically) than The Beatles', and also confines itself to 10 charts. I dislike the fact that the year is in the first column (which may be why Walter pointed to it; it's the most common form, even when it's not WP:DISCOGSTYLE-conform), and I am irritated by the micro headings on the Peak columns (75%, in contravention of WP:ACCESS).

The U2 discography is the best of the bunch for me, although it, like the other three, uses rowspans. That's the only beef I have there, except for the rows in the 2010s table purporting to provide "Total top ten hits" and "Total number-one hits". Those rows should be removed.

The Stryper discog is non-conformant to WP:DISCOGSTYLE and the entire page needs reworking.

Those are things I don't like about those discogs, and I'd love to see us do away with rowspans for the years (including in Taylor Swift's discogs), but what you don't like remains unclear to me. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or deprecate rowspan use. As much as it is most stylistically pleasing to have the title of the singles presented first in the discography table, we must commit to making the project accessible to all its readers, including those with disabilities. It is very easy to argue against these changes, especially when they have remained in place for years, but that's a privilege we hold as fully able-bodied people. Wikipedia must be be easy to read and navigate to as big of an audience as possible. This is not a hill worth dying on and we should be willing to compromise—because our experience on Wikipedia will remain the same. This can not be said for those living with disabilities.
  I support option 1 because it is the closest to current practice and has the song title closest to the beginning of the table. I firmly oppose options 2 and 3 simply because it doesn't make sense to put the album name ahead of the single name in the section about a musicians singles. I would also support deprecating the use of rowspan in discographies if that's how readers expect the information to be displayed. ƏXPLICIT 01:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense. I am very much opposed to option 3 as I don't think it would make the table very easy to follow to anyone, but if MOS:ACCESS has to be the priority then option 1 would be by far the best option for me. Richard3120 (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Support option 1 as causing the least friction and some improvement, but honestly as a screen reader user I'm so used to the way the tables are already formatted that it really doesn't matter to me. Graham87 14:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• • Changing !vote to support no change; see below. Graham87 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Graham87: as a screen reader user do you share the same concern as RexxS below with regard to the "table mode" in option 1? Heartfox (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Yes, I do now that I've read the discussion below ... I hadn't thought of it that way. Graham87 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose all. Screen readers are able to work in "table mode" which allows the reader to navigate up and down columns as well as back-and-forth along rows. To facilitate that, they are usually able to read out the row header and column header before each data cell. On the current Taylor Swift singles discography #2000s table, a reader might want to read down the Sales column. This is what they would hear for the current advice and each of the three options (reference: HTML Tables with JAWS):

Comparison of screen reader outputs, first four rows

Current advice	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
"Tim McGraw"; Sales; US: 1,600,000 "Teardrops on My Guitar"; Sales; US: 3,000,000 "Our Song"; Sales; US: 3,400,000 "Picture to Burn"; Sales; US: 1,700,000	2006; Sales; US: 1,600,000 2007; Sales; US: 3,000,000 2007; Sales; US: 3,400,000 2008; Sales; US: 1,700,000	2006; Sales; US: 1,600,000 2007; Sales; US: 3,000,000 2007; Sales; US: 3,400,000 2008; Sales; US: 1,700,000	Taylor Swift; Sales; US: 1,600,000 Taylor Swift; Sales; US: 3,000,000 Taylor Swift; Sales; US: 3,400,000 Taylor Swift; Sales; US: 1,700,000

I challenge any of the supporters to explain how the screen reader user gets the required information when reading down the Sales column with any of the three suggested options. The item that uniquely identifies the row is the title of the single and that has to be the row header. --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you RexxS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

And, again, this isn't just about "screenreaders" – this is about all readers. MOS:ACCESS is actually for everybody, which it makes very clear. So, again – prove that you guys are presenting this information in the best, most readable way possible for all of our readership. Because if you believe the current format of Discography tables with rampant use of rowspan (in non-adjacent columns) is the best, most readable way to present this information, then I have a bridge to sell you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@IJBall: Yes it is about screen readers. Any crappy layout can be read by sighted readers, but we have an obligation not to exclude the visually impaired from our articles, and you should be ashamed of lending support to proposals that obviously makes the experience worse for them. MOS:ACCESS is there to ensure that all readers get a good experience, and that doesn't mean sidelining a disadvantaged minority just to add whistles and bells to please the majority. You have an obsession with removing rowspans, and 10 years ago, I'd have been with you - see User:RexxS/Accessibility where I demonstrate the effects of rowspans on the Lynx (browser), a standard used by the RNIB at the time. But those days have gone, and the majority of screen readers in use will cope with rowspans, and you're letting your fixation with rowspans cloud your judgement about more important accessibility issues. Screen readers won't cope with marking up the wrong row-headers, though, and you've offered absolutely no argument why we should degrade the experience of already disadvantaged users any further. I'll ask you again: looking at how the three tables you support would change the way a screen-reader would voice Taylor Swift singles discography #2000s when in table mode, how can you possibly maintain that they are acceptable alternatives from an accessibility viewpoint? --RexxS (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And now you are deliberately misrepresenting my point – don't put words into my mouth. I never said we shouldn't care about screen readers – in fact, I've been one of the people fighting for our screen-readership on this for the past decade. My point is that the fact that screen readers can now in many cases handle "bad rowspan" use doesn't absolve of us from the obligation to actually present tables that is readable to our entire readership, including those that don't use screen readers. And, no – a "crappy layout" in many cases cannot be read, or at least not be read well, by "our sighted readership" – so why the hell are we throwing them under the bus? "How can you possibly maintain that they are acceptable alternatives from an accessibility viewpoint?" – Option 1 is basically the exact way that 'Filmography' tables (which are considered accessible) are now formatted (with the exception of the rowspan use in the last column, which 'Filmography' tables don't do)... Again, the other option is, as suggested by others, is to keep the current format of these tables after completely deprecating rowspan use in them to maximize readability for everybody, but nobody ever seems to want to embrace the simplest option. Or maybe these tables are just shitily designed from the get-go and should be totally redesigned from scratch. But your "solution" is to keep throwing our entire readership under the bus to accommodate an unhealthy rowspan fixation of the editors of a single WP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

What a collection of blinkered nonsense. When you support proposals to make the experience worse for screen readers, you demonstrate your uncaring attitude to them. I'm happy to support your efforts to improve readability for the majority, but never at the expense of making it worse for the already disadvantaged minority.

And yes, any crappy layout can be read by sighted readers, but your preferred tables can't be read usefully by screen readers. It's not a difference of degree, it's the fact that they can't tell which single or album is being referred to in table mode if we follow your flawed suggestions. I've demonstrated that above, and you've failed to address the obvious issues shown.

The only people you're throwing under the bus are those using screen readers, but you've backed yourself into a corner and can't bring yourself to admit it.

Option 1 is not "basically the exact way that 'Filmography' tables (which are considered accessible) are now formatted". It's anything but. Option 1 is purely replacing the title (the unique identifier) by the year, which is useless to let a screen reader user know which row they are on. How on earth can you maintain that anyone hearing "Teardrops on My Guitar; Sales; US: 3,000,000" gets the same information as hearing "2007; Sales; US: 3,000,000"? The same goes for Option 2, and Option 3 is even worse, proposing to replace the single title with the album title, which would fail to uniquely identify any of the first five rows in Taylor Swift singles discography #2000s.

Personally, I'm happy to discourage the use of rowspans, but these proposals are about replacing the unique identifier as row-header with another, useless field, and my objection to that remains unanswered. You still don't understand that not everything is about your pet crusade, and while you remain fixated on that, you'll contribute to throwing the disadvantaged minority under the bus, without ever understanding the actual issue here. --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And you seem more concerned with throwing around insults than in actually crafting a solution to this issue. If the (best) solution is to deprecate rowspan use in 'Singles' tables, you should have led with that. In fact, WP:DISCOGSTYLE actually does this right, but 'Discography' editors never bothered to formally implement it apparently, and its editors have been roundly ignoring it anyway. But the issue is getting all Discography editors to sign on to that, if that is the answer. If you can get that to happen, the proposals in this RfC become moot. Again, the main question here is – "How to best present this information?" (for all readers). That should be the focus. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned with making sure that callous disregard of the problems faced by visually impaired readers gets shown up for what it is. The best solution is nothing to do with rowspans; they are an irrelevance; you're the only person obsessed with them. The current guidance meets MOS:DTT, which the alternatives don't, so there's no problem to find a solution for. The guidance at MOS:DTAB enjoys site-wide consensus and editors ignore it at their peril. Just as I did in 2010, when these issues first came to light, I'm more than happy to explain how we can best meet the accessibility guidance for tables, and I'll even explain why we do it that way to anybody who is willing to learn. I'm also prepared to take admin action (or file an ANI report whenever I'm involved) in order to maintain good accessibility practice on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@RexxS: could you please explain exactly what admin actions you would take? "Admin action" can mean anything from protecting a page to blocking a user indefinitely, and the latter would most definitely get you de-sysoped real quick. Please clarify. As well, I would be interested to learn your viewpoint on what you explained in 2010, as I’m always happy to learn more. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@RexxS: let’s try this ping again and hope that it goes through this time. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: Well, whatever admin action I'd take would depend on the behaviour of the editors concerned. You understand that MOS:ACCESS has site-wide consensus, right? and that WP:CONLOCAL means that no local consensus can override that site-wide consensus? So if I observed an editor repeatedly changing an article in a way that that breached MOS:ACCESS, and another editor was reverting them to restore the accessibility, I'd warn the first editor and invite them to self-revert as a first step. If that didn't solve the problem, I wouldn't hesitate to block the first editor to prevent further damage to the article. If you think that would get me de-sysoped, you really have no idea of how Wikipedia works, and of the importance the community puts on its policies and guidelines, not least of which is accessibility. I hope that makes it clearer to you, and disabuses you of some of the odd notions you seem to have developed. Cheers. --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@RexxS: Ah sorry, I see now that not all the words I typed actually made it onto the final comment. My keyboard glitches like that sometimes. I meant to say “blocking an editor indefinitely without reason”, and that would most definitely get you de-sysoped. As well, I do understand that MOS:ACCESS has sitewide consensus and I also understand that can’t be altered by local consensus, but I appreciate you for clarifying just in case. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 To me, this layout makes the most sense, and I feel it would make sense to most readers too. My problem with placing an album row near the start of a singles table is that it draws a focus to the album (to me anyway), and I feel like non-album singles would not read well on the other two layouts. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 15:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  How does Option 1 make more sense than the current guidance? Option 1 breaches MOS:DTAB and can't be read properly by a screen reader in table mode. Why wasn't the current guidance shown for comparison? --RexxS (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Current guidance

Title	Year	Peak chart positions										Sales	Certifications	Album
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
"First Single"	2019	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—			1st Album
"Second Single" (with Another Artist)		—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
"Third Single"	2020	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—			1st Album
"Fourth Single"		—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—			2nd Album
"Fifth Single"		—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
"—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory.

There is no current "guidance" per se (that I'm aware of?). WP:DISCOGSTYLE has been a dormant proposal since July 2011. The above is not a common example either as usually 1st Album would be rowspanned across three rows, to the first row of 2020. @RexxS: I have two questions: can scope be used in any cell (e.g., the title column in Table 1) while retaining table accessibility, and given your concerns above, would you consider the tables at WP:FILMOGRAPHY problematic too because the first cell, for example, would be read as "1982, Role, Carol Anne Freeling"? Thanks for hopefully clarifying, Heartfox (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Heartfox: the current guidance (without the scare quotes) is included in MOS:DTAB and MOS:DTT and you ought to be aware of it. WP:DISCOGSTYLE complies with those accessibility requirements, but none of the three options you suggest do.

Rowspans are irrelevant, although having fewer rowspans usually makes it easier for screen readers in complex tables. However, in these simple examples, it won't make any difference.

The HTML5 specification limits the scope attributes to table header cells, so you would have to make each of the cells in the Title column in Table 1 into a row header and make each of the cells in the Year column into normal data cells. Make yourself a mock-up of that, but I guarantee you won't like how it looks with row-headers in the second column. Why don't you just put the row headers in the first column, which is the obvious, simple, most accessible way to lay out a table?

I agree that the essay at WP:FILMOGRAPHY fails the accessibility guidelines as the year sometimes does not uniquely identify the film. Because modern actors and directors usually make no more than one film per year, the problem is less obvious. But I think it is clear that hearing "1983, notes, Episode Fun House", "1983, notes, Episode The Woman in White", "1983, notes, 3 episodes" in the "Television performances" table is far less informative than hearing "CHiPs, notes, Episode Fun House", "Matt Houston, notes, Episode The Woman in White", "Webster, notes, 3 episodes". Don't you agree? --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please be aware that I have not even voted yet; I'm just trying to gather information to make an informed decision. The only difference I see here from what is commonplace is that rows are not spanned across other spanned rows (1st Album is listed again beginning with the 2020 span). Thank you, Heartfox (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a little kinder to screen readers not to span rows across earlier (in the right-to-left sense) rowspans, so I'm in the habit of splitting them in the way the example I gave does. I'd be just as happy with removing all rowspans, or rowspanning across other rowspans (well, a little less happy). However, I feel that by highlighting a minor accessibility concern (rowspans), it diverts the discussion from the major accessibility flaw of failing to use unique row headers. No RFC closer can possibly ignore the complete failure of the suggested options in that respect. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose option 3: plenty of singles were never released in albums. No change, option 1, and option 2 are all equally fine, says I. Lereman (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lereman: the cells do not require an album be named. For example, it could be titled "non-album single" if the single was not released as part of an album, as most discography tables currently do. Likewise for the sales column in the options above—if there are no sales figures then it obviously doesn't need to be used. Heartfox (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Using "non-album single" to identify the single is probably even worse that using the name of the album to do that. It's not acceptable as the row-header. --RexxS (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• No change. Option 1 may be acceptable, but seems unnecessary. Options 2 and 3 are non-starters for reasons given by others, notably Ojorojo and Walter Görlitz. People struggling with technical issues should consider what is likely to be most useful to most readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Most readers is not the low bar here. We should recognize that if we are discussing a change for ACCESS then accessibility should be our goal and all of the options fail at that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I've looked at a sample of discographies that have been recognised as featured lists. As far as I can see, all of the discographies that have been promoted after the creation of WP:DISCOGSTYLE adhere to DISCOGSTYLE and have a unique row-header in the first column. As a test case for these suggested options, I've nominated Abingdon Boys School discography for featured list removal as it fails MOS:DTAB. The result of that should give a clear indication of whether the community finds those variants acceptable from an accessibility viewpoint. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose all per concerns raised by RexxS and Graham87, who know what they're talking about. Heartfox (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – Are the "oppose all" editors at least willing to reiterate that the WP:DISCOGSTYLE example is how these tables should be formatted, with no 'rowspanning' of the 'Year' column? Because if we can at least get agreement on that – that in fact most current 'Discography' tables are out of compliance with this, and should be changed – that would at least be progress. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Well, I'm willing. Incidentally, the WP:DISCOGSTYLE example specifically (intentionally) includes repeated years to show that rowspanning is not the expected formatting. I don't believe we have any guidance text to that effect, though. I would have no qualms about de-spanning rows when I'm tweaking tables anyway, if I knew there was at least some community support. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going with oppose all. Nos. 2 and 3 are wrong because many singles aren't from an album. Option 1 is showing up as a mangled table for me (in Chrome on Windows 10); the top two non-header rows are shifted one cell leftward, so the titles are under the year column. I can see what it was trying to do, though, and I agree with RexxS, et all, that's it's an accessibility problem due to rowspanning. Something like the current kinda-sorta guidance, with albums optionally appearing at the end of the row, would be best, especially if it did not use rowspanning at all. It's better to have some redundant text that to make the data hard to interpret for an entire class of users.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Amy Grant discography up for Featured List

Amy Grant discography, a list in this WikiProject, is up for featured list. Discussion is ongoing, and any input is welcome. Toa Nidhiki05 20:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Small text in discography tables

Working with articles related to K-pop, I've started to notice a trend among these pages: users are implementing {{small}} templates to the original Korean-language titles of works, see Verivery#Singles as an example. As far as I'm aware, this is not the standard in dealing with foreign-language titles. I don't see any reasonable application of smaller text here and it's probably being used for stylistic purposes. Is there any guidance here regarding the matter? ✗plicit 12:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such thing; perhaps others do. It's certainly not addressed in WP:DISCOGSTYLE. Personally, I think it's an inappropriate usage. The non-English title isn't subordinate to the English (IMO), and so shouldn't be unnecessarily reduced. We allow {{small}} (or <small>) for details like featuring Glen Campbell and Dr. Dre, but that's an importance/space issue. Surely the (in the original language) correct title deserves to be full size. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Does the small text remain within the guidelines laid out in MOS:SMALLTEXT? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Twenty One Pilots discography inaccuracies

Hey all, First time on here - whilst doing some research on Twenty One Pilots, I noticed that there's been some tampering and amending of data in their Discography secion - 'Stressed Out' has no chart positions, and some of the earlier singles (and their most recent release) seem to have now gone to No.1 in 'all' territories, which isn't factually correct. Also, RIAA sales seem to have been inflated (10x platinum etc, even for earlier sinlges)... Can anyone assist in fixing this, or reverting back to before these edits were made? Marcodotuk (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

This is quite common on discography articles, sadly – fans surreptitiously inflate chart positions and certifications over time, knowing that most people don't watch these discography articles and it's likely that they get away with it. I think the edits you are talking about were only done yesterday and today by an IP [1] and [2], so it shouldn't be difficult to revert them... you'll just need to keep an eye on the page and revert any further attempts at exaggerating. But keep WP:3RR in mind – this still applies and you could find yourself in trouble if you exceed the limit. Richard3120 (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

3RR plays no role in deleting deliberate vandalism.

For the record, I've stopped editing most Twenty One Pilots articles because of interactions with fandals. If the article needs WP:ECP or WP:PCPP, just make the case in the correct location. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, a perennial article that the fans insist deserves an article even if they can't find any sources that discuss it has been recreated at yet another location: Regional At Best (album). It is now up for a deletion discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Need this Wikiproject’s help on an article

I just posted at Talk:Ringo Starr discography#Suspicious US chart entries about a problem with the accuracy of data on that discography. Since I’m not sure how many people are watching that page, I figured I should post about it here too. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Videography sections of Discogs

Based on my searches for secondary sources for this table, it appears that both eng/non-eng sources covering k-pop music videos do not usually mention director/producer credits. While reliable secondary sources do exist for the release of all the listed mvs, almost 99% of them exclude these credits, hence the reason for the primary YT sources in the table (the credits are listed out in full under every mv). Is it okay to leave the YT refs in the table to support the credits specifically (I will be adding the missing secondary sources to the rest of the table), or should they be removed regardless? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Director/producer credits are usually not subject to interpretation or otherwise reflect bias, so primary sources should be OK. Although {{Cite AV media}} is used, if the actual video doesn't show credits, then it isn't the actual source. Youtube upload descriptions may or may not be reliable, so the source is questionable. If the typical reliable sources and websites for the group, management, label, etc., all don't mention the directors or producers, then maybe this info is not important and could be removed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: the primary refs being written using cite av media is my fault. I tend to forget that using that format is for when you want to cite something stated/shown in the video itself, not for infor stated on the webpage where the video is located. I'll correct them to regular "cite web" instead. I agree that the credits could be removed altogether but I'm hesitant to do so because I feel other editors may not share the same opinion. Do you think I should get consensus on the talk page for this or be bold and just do it? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Citing Youtube as a source may cause problems. I tried something similar with Discogs.com, but there were objections because "it's user generated", even though I wasn't using that part of the album page. So, it may be better to err on the side of caution: if there is no solid reliable source for the info, don't include it in the article. This discussion may be linked in your edit summary to show the rationale and to generate more comments. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: ok I'll remove them link the discussion. Tyvm for the advice. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: I own a few Super Junior albums and can confirm that the music video directors are credited in the physical photobook/booklet of the albums. I am not sure if this is also true for other k-pop artists so I suggest you try looking for them there and cite it using Template:Cite AV media notes if they are available. Hope this helps. Lulusword (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lulusword: I don't own any of their releases so that never crossed mind my mind as a possible option (I have sourced personnel for BTS releases this way before so yes it's true for other artists). I'll try to see if there are any scans or unboxings online that provide a good look at the accompanying booklets and hopefully I'll find what I'm looking for. Thanks for the reminder! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Format

Is there a consensus that discographies should use scope="col" and scope="row"? DPUH (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Reviewers for discographies at featured lists usually require them and most that have been promoted, in the last couple of years at least, use them. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll follow suit then. DPUH (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Campaign to reduce backlog of album infoboxes w/o cover art

Somewhat related to this project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Backlog elimination drive: Album covers is an effort to reduce the number of infoboxes lacking album covers. Participation welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Latest discographies?

How I can find latest featured discographies? There is only few entries for whole 2021? Eurohunter (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

There probably aren't any – not many editors work on this WikiProject, so it's likely that nobody has nominated many discographies for featured status. Richard3120 (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

So far in 2021, the following discographies have been promoted to featured list:

• American Football discography
• Amy Grant discography
• Dua Lipa discography
• Discography of Sibelius symphony cycles
• Harry Styles discography
• Johnny Winter discography (also appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on May 24, 2021)
• Lana Del Rey discography
• mewithoutYou discography
• Regine Velasquez discography
• Taylor Swift singles discography

These may be found by clicking on the number next to FL[3] in the "Discography pages by quality" box on the project page. Recent candidates are listed under "Article alerts – Featured list candidates".

—Ojorojo (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: Thanks. Eurohunter (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Lana Del Rey discography (singles sales)

What about singles sales data in Lana Del Rey discography? I would see them in every dicography. Eurohunter (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Depends on whether you can find reliable sources that state her singles sales, I guess. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Of course but no one add them even if there are sources. Eurohunter (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: there seems to be sales data in Lana Del Rey discography#Singles. Was there something else you were asking about? Richard3120 (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120: This is the only example or probably one of very few. This is the concern. Eurohunter (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood you – I thought you were saying that Lana Del Rey's discography didn't have singles sales, but you are asking why don't more discographies include singles sales, like Lana Del Rey's discography does, for example. Yes, I guess, editors just don't choose to add them. Richard3120 (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sales figures are very frequently unsourced or, when sourced (somehow), wildly inflated, so we don't encourage their inclusion. It would be relevant information, yes, but verification is something of an obstacle, unfortunately. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 18:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Discography Guidelines

Dear editors, could you please share what rules and criteria we use to create a separate article related to an artist's discography. I'll be very grateful for your answer. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Mainly it's a matter of if the section is taking up a disproportionate amount of space in an article, as outlined here. QuietHere (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Size is the usual primary factor, but along with the disproportionate amount of space guideline if the article is too long, splitting the discography section is a good first option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

QuietHere, Walter Görlitz Thank you very much for your help! Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Florence Price discography

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Florence Price § Discography. Peaceray (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Peaceray (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

"single" vs "promotional single"?

what is the difference? DownTheRabbitBurrow (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

There have been lots of discussions about this in the past [4]. In general, it depends whether reliable sources describe the release as an official single or a promotional single. But I agree that the boundaries are not always clear. Richard3120 (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't We Define Our Abbreviations for Readers?

I came across the abbreviation "b/w" in the Sonny Curtis discography. I had no idea what this abbreviation was, and expected to see it defined at the bottom of the table. Nope.

Google tells me that it stands for "backed with," or the B-side of the 45.

But shouldn't these abbreviations be defined for our readers at the bottom of the table? I think it would certainly go a long way to helping out readers who are not experts in this field... — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpDater (talk • contribs) 00:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

B/w redirects to a section of A-side and B-side that explicitly states that the term stands for "backed with". If you think the term is that esoteric you can wikilink it and that'll get people the info they need. QuietHere (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how important it is to list the B-side of every single anyway – arguably these could be removed and the problem solved. Richard3120 (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Hover title is also an option. QuietHere (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the Hover title page, "For marking abbreviations specifically, please use {{abbr}} instead, because it is accessible to screen reader users." {{Abbr|b/w|backed with}} produces b/w. But it doesn't need to repeated for each single if the table heading makes it clear ("Title A-side / B-side", see Little Walter discography#Singles). When an artist is primarily a singles artist, the B-sides are also important. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Albums discographies and Category:Singles discographies

I think we could have Category:Albums discographies and Category:Singles discographies. What do you think about it? Eurohunter (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

For individual artists, or as an overall category? If it's the former, I think it's redundant because all records fall into the subcategories, if it's the latter, I don't see why it's needed. Richard3120 (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Help?

I'm trying to do a proper discography w/ chart positions on Salem Ilese, but doing it just made me go insane because of all the websites I have to search (some of which don't even let you search by artist, which means I have to search through months and maybe even years of charts manually, and no way am I doing that). How do you guys even do this without breaking? wizzito | say hello! 23:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wizzito: I'm quite an experienced editor but I only started contributing to discography articles lately. What I found is that like almost everything, you can start with small steps. Billboard charts are very easily accessible and so are the UK charts. Next come all the charts Hung Meiden publishes. This already covers 90% of the charts and I leave the harder charts for other editors who may be interested. I hope this helps. --Muhandes (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Usage of asterisks in K-pop discog tables/articles

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music § Usage of asterisks in K-pop discog tables/articles

 – Carlobunnie (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Coldplay compilations

Firstly, my apologies in case I'm uploading this on the wrong page. I've been editing a lot of Coldplay articles, most recently their discography one. As a fan of the band, I'm well aware their only actual compilations are The Singles 1999–2006 and The Butterfly Package. However, EMI and Warner Music Group (Parlophone's owners) have released numerous boxsets consisted of CD combos across selected countries. Should I... a) Keep everything and count them normally? b) Delete them and only consider the two official compilations? c) Split them between official and unoffial? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If they are CD boxsets then you could list them under a separate boxsets heading. Per your description, that sounds like it'd make more sense then calling them "unofficial" (If it's the band's record label releasing them then what's unofficial about them?) QuietHere (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean unofficial in the sense the band does not recognise them as part of their catalogue like The Singles 1999–2006 and The Butterfly Package. I actually bought one of these boxses and they're the exact same CDs, but with an additional sleeve to keep them together. Separating them sounds the most sensible choice indeed though, thank you for your help! GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a similar situation to Avenged Sevenfold's The Best of 2005–2013 which is listed in the same section as their other comp despite the band's opinion on the matter. If that's the only difference then that's probably not enough reason to make a separate section after all. QuietHere (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Acceptable sources for discography entries

Posted question here, seems like an MOS query? Input from discography project editors welcome. Acousmana 09:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Eligible for inclusion?

I'm working on an "appearances on various artist compilations" list to add as a sub-section to the Discography section of the Skip Spence article, and I have some questions about the eligibility of some releases. I'm relatively new, so I don't' know the rules yet. Can any of these be added to the list?:

• Woodstock Generation, an MP3 from Sony Music (France)
• Come on Back to The War, The Anniversary of Light, and Who Has Seen The Wind, cassette-only releases from Mississippi Records - They release lots of CDs, but these are from their "tape series". (I can't find a release date for the last one.)
• Institute - A Mixed Tape By Institution, a limited edition on cassette only by Sacred Bones Records. (They seem big enough, they have eight sub-labels.)

I think you folks work on stand-alone discography articles, and this concerns a discography in an artist's main article, but I'm hoping you can help me out. If not, please kindly point me in the right direction. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I would say the first and last ones would definitely be valid, at least. I assume by the first one, you are referring to this album [5] but it doesn't look like it was just limited to France, because here it is available on Apple Music in the UK [6], so it appears to have been an international release. The second ones are tricky, because according to Mississippi Records' website, some of those mixtapes never got a proper release, they were made specifically by the label owner as one-offs for personal friends, so it's hard to tell if any of them are actual "releases". Richard3120 (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. That turned out the exact opposite of what I expected (I predicted that CDrs and limited editions might be verboten), good thing I checked. Regarding the cassettes from Mississippi, maybe the two with release dates are legitimate, and the one I couldn't find a date for is the private one...where could I go to find out if the two were actually released? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the first one wasn't just a CDr. This is just my view though, other editors may think very differently. As for the Mississippi Records cassettes, I think that's going to be almost impossible to find out, as it appears even the label owner who made the cassettes has no recollection of when or who he made them for. Richard3120 (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I just looked at Discogs (I know it's not considered a RS, but I was using it as an investigative tool), and I saw some interesting stuff. There are copies of both Come on Back and Who sees the Wind for sale by vendors right now, and both sale pages list a date for the last time the title was sold, meaning there was at least two copies of each. What's more, there are different prices listed for lowest, median, and highest price paid in the past, which means there are at least four copies in existence of each one. The Anniversary of Light is not currently for sale, but there is the last price paid, and there are the lowest, median, and highest historic prices listed again, which means there are a least three. Discogs may not be a reliable source, but isn't there a rule that the existence of an album (or cassette) doesn't need to be referenced, that it's a thing unto itself? I'm more acquainted with the cinema end of Wikipedia, and that's the way it is with plot synopses: no references required. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Format for Books section

I know this project is devoted to Discography articles, but I'm going to try here anyway...in the Tim Buckley article, there's a Book section after the Discography, but I'm treating them as if they're related. I'd like to know if that's an appropriate (or optitum) format, and I'd like to know if it would be a good idea to add the publisher to each of the four books listed, analogous to listing the label for each album in the Discography. Thanks for your time. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Entries without dates

I'm just wrapping up a Compilation appearances section, and I have some entries with unknown dates. Should I go ahead and include them (put them at the end of the chronological list, and alphabetize them for good measure)? If so, what about the format? I figure I could use ( - ), (n/a), or I could omit the field all together. Any advise? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Indie labels

Should an indie label get a discography? I'm thinking about Gulcher Records. There's almost no article there, the list would be the entire article. I'd be up for doing it if you think it would be a good idea. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

In general, I don't think there's anything wrong with adding a discography section. However, I would prioritise finding sources for Gulcher first since the article cites nothing and that warning has been there for over half a decade. No point in adding a discog if the whole page could be deleted as non-notable anyway. Save yourself the work, y'know? QuietHere (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Klaus Voormann/Manfred Mann

I just added a With Manfred Mann section to the Klaus Voormann article, but I'm not sure the layout meshes well with that of the Collaborations section below it, so I'm entertaining suggestions. Another point: in the Up the Junction article's lead, it says that that album is the band's "first soundtrack and fourth studio album", but in the Manfred Mann discography article it gets a standalone Soundtrack box with no mention of it being a studio album. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Per the last point: a lot of soundtrack albums are recorded in the studio, so surely can be seen as studio albums. I guess it's a bit of a grey area. DPUH (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

When a song is not orig released as a single, but a version of it is later on

When the original version of a track from an album isn't released as a single, but charts, it's usually listed in an "Other charted songs" table. If some time later a diff language version or an acoustic version of the same track is released by the same artist as an actual single, should the track now be moved from "Other charted songs" to the main "Singles" table and the charting info for both versions combined, with notes about which chart position is for which version if necessary? Or should the single version alone be added to "Singles" and the orig remain in "Other charted songs"? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Putting Remixes of artist's songs…

Should we make a new section for remixes of Kuuro’s songs? Duwang8 (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No! The purpose of the "Remixes" section is to list songs Kuuro has remixed, not the other way around. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I know. There is a section for songs remixed BY Kuuro, but not for remixes OF Kuuro’s song, you catch me? So I’m wondering if there should be a new section for remixes OF Kuuro’s songs, or we put them in the Singles section. Duwang8 (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion to the WikiProject Discographies page as this is more of a WikiProject issue than an individual page issue. @Duwang8: I do not see any policy regarding the inclusion of remixes of an artist's songs by other artists in their discography sections/pages, and no other musical artist article nor their discography articles include such releases. As such, I do not see a reason to include such material, no less on the article about Kuuro, where this issue first came up. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No. As JalenFolf says, that's not what one expects from the artist's article. Here's my breakdown:

If Artist A creates a single which is not otherwise notable, it may be included in Artist A's discography (which may be in Artist A's article or on a separate page).

If Artist A creates a notable song (single or not), it can have an article which mentions notable remixes by Artist A and other artists.

If Artist B remixes a song by Artist A, it may be listed on Artist B's discography (although I'd be wary of WP:INDISCRIMINATE problems).

If Artist A remixes their own song, it (again) may be listed on Artist A's discography (although I'd be wary of WP:INDISCRIMINATE problems).

And I'm probably missing some variant, but I'm not seeing it right now. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I see. Thank you! Duwang8 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about in-article discographies

If an artist already has a separate page for their discography, then does their discography still need to be detailed on their main page? I've tried just adding a link to the separate discography page but users continually insist on including the discography on the main article even though there is already a separate discography page. Spectrallights (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The whole point of making a separate discography page is that the section needs to be split off because it's too large and overencumbers the article. In this case, that section is massive and absolutely fits the bill for a split. That definitely needs to go. You can have a short list on the main page, e.g. just links to the albums like Pink Floyd#Discography, but the full section was split off for a good reason. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. Spectrallights (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Discogs

Hello. I know Discogs is not reliable. What I want to do is cite information that is directly available on the cover of a record for example, the artist, serial number and song. Do I cite the record individually or do I source Discogs as they are the hosts of the image? Here is a linked example, Discogs. In this instance, I would cite the song, artist and serial number that is listed on the image of the physical image. Thanks in advance for the help! Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I think sourcing directly to the record with {{Cite AV media notes}} would be appropriate in this instance. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright thank you! Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic discography

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic discography#Couldn't the list be smartphone-friendly?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. The discussion encompasses both the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic discography and My Little Pony: Equestria Girls discography articles. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Requirements for separate discography page

Hello. I am wondering whenever there are any requirements for splitting off an artist's discography into a separate page. Daizydoodles (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That I'm aware of, the only real requirement would be that all items are reliably sourced. Otherwise, it's a matter of if the section is so big that it needs to be separated. If it's not large enough to be obstructive then typically it's better to keep them together. Which article did you have in mind? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I was specifically talking about the Boys World discography; it's not necessarily too big, but I can see the potential for it becoming too big relatively soon. It seems like there isn't a ton of people working on it, so I wanted to get clarification. Daizydoodles (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but that section is nowhere near as big as the typical "too big" discog. Just two EPs and less than a dozen singles is far from enough to need splitting off, and while it could happen in the future, it most likely won't be anytime soon. Keep in mind that it's generally better to keep these things to a single article for a number of reasons that make it easier both for readers and editors. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Daizydoodles (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Category:Discographies of albums and Category:Discographies of singles

What do you think to create Category:Discographies of albums and Category:Discographies of singles? Eurohunter (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I would go with Category:Album discographies and Category:Singles discographies instead since that's the established naming scheme for the articles. Whether or not they should be made, I dunno, though my instinct is to make one for singles but not for albums. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Olivia Rodrigo discography

From what I see at Olivia Rodrigo discography, her second album is flopping. It barely has any certifications. Does it just need an update?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:DISCOGS" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:DISCOGS has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 13 § Wikipedia:DISCOGS until a consensus is reached. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Lack of Singles List

Hello. There's no list of singles. Loyal to Metal (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Loyal to Metal is this referring to a specific article, or to the WikiProject page? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Kicking Harold discography

Hello, should I make a Kicking Harold discography page? Many thanks, TomGreene16 (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@TomGreene16 no, you shouldn't. First off, because I don't think the band is notable enough to have their own article and have started an AfD to determine so. And secondly, because there's not enough information or sourcing in the band's article to justify moving anything out. Discography pages should be reserved for when the discography section of a band's article gets overwhelmingly large, and this is just a list of albums with release years and no other info. Far from overwhelming. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

User:77.169.219.78

77.169.219.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, can someone take a look at User:77.169.219.78's edits? To me they seem disruptive, because of the large changes made on discography pages. Thanks in advance -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I have notified WikiProject Hip hop of this discussion. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, it looks as though the changes they are making are correct. The biggest issue is that they aren't always following the MOS for formatting, but all their additions look to be real, not vandalism. Richard3120 (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)