Talk:Van der Graaf Generator discography

New live album
An article should be written on the new live album from the recent reunion. The name escapes me now though. Robotman1974 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Richardrj talkemail 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Box
This is definitely a compilation by any reasonable definition, so I've moved it back. --Richardrj talkemail 13:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't change anything about it, but I still think it's ludicrous. Almost half of The Box was never officially released before: 6 out of 10 songs on CD 1, 5 out of 6 songs on CD 2, 1 out of 8 songs on CD 3, and 3 out of 10 songs on CD 4. Is the definition of compilation album: an album of which all the songs have never been released on any other format? In my definition a compilation album is made up of tracks that have been released before. Mark in wiki (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But what else can you call it? It's not a studio album, because it doesn't consist of tracks that were put together at the time of recording with the specific purpose of creating an album.  My definition of a compilation album is obviously a lot looser than yours.  A compilation certainly doesn't have to consist only of previously released tracks, it is just a collection of songs (usually from different eras/periods) that have been brought together for some specific purpose. --Richardrj talkemail 15:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Personally I think it's quite nice and clear and not so much text-based as the discography was. But do covers get used on Wikipedia discography articles at all? Mark in wiki (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no. You're not allowed to use album covers in discographies.  The applicable guideline is NFC. --Viennese Waltz 14:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha. I was afraid of that. Thank you for your reply and for the link. Mark in wiki (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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


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