Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style/Archive 5

Table format for albums/EPs
Hi, I have a question regarding the table format for albums in discographies. I've seen two versions on Wikipedia, the columns are:

Version 1: "Year", "Album details" - with title (sometimes in bold), release date, label and formats, - "Peak chart positions", "Sales" and "Certifications". Eg. Biffy Clyro discography or Arctic Monkeys discography

Version 2: "Title", "Album details" - with release date, label and formats, - "Peak chart positions", "Sales" and "Certifications". Eg. Beyoncé Knowles discography

Which one is better and why? I prefer the first one (esp. with titles in bold), because I find it more legible and just better-looking. Especially when the number of charts included in the table is large, the first version is narrower and fits better on the screen.

However, when I tried to convert the table for Justin Timberlake's EPs from the second format to the first one, it was undid. I understand that the second version is shown as a sample on the project page, but is the first version wrong somehow? It has all the elements from DISCOGSTYLE, just as the second one. Mayast (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Version 2 is the correct format; see the style on this page... The ones you have listed have just not been updated to the new format yet.  — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 04:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's too bad... ;) Bad I'll follow the rules, of course :) Thanks for the reply, Mayast (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One more question, is it still possible to use the first version on artist's page in the Discography section, if he/she doesn't have a discography page (yet, or never will have, because he/she isn't notable enough)? Examples: L.P. (singer) or Everest (band) Mayast (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Was there ever a discussion about changing all discographies from Version 1 to Version 2? Or did someone just one day decide this is the way things are just because? Fezmar9 (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a decent explanation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style/Archive 3. In short, it's to do with how accessible the info is to visually impaired users. Adabow (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the second time I've been told something was against WP:ACCESS recently, so I took it upon myself to read the previous discussion in depth AND download a screen reader to see what all the hubbub was about. There appear to be a ton of issues with the way screen readers read common discography tables (and just Wikipedia articles in general). I used the screen reader (SR) to read the current version of Rihanna discography, only because it was mentioned in the archived discussion and currently open in my browser. Here are some other issues I found:
 * The SR read album details as a single sentence. So it read the album details for Music of the Sun as: "released august 12 2005 us 21 label def jam formats cd lp digital download." Perhaps to better distinguish what's going on in these fields for SRs, each one of these album details should have it's own column?
 * Any data that spans multiple columns or rows is only read on the first occurrence. So, in Riahanna's singles section, the release year and parent album of "Pon de Replay" are read by the SR, but not for "If It's Lovin' that You Want" since they're rowspan'd from the previous single.
 * This next issue isn't exclusive to discographies, but it seems to be a major problem in certain areas on discography tables. Piped links are read as the article title, not the actual text displayed. So the French album chart header isn't read is "FRA" or "F-R-A" or "French Charts" -- It's confusingly read as Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique. While it is correct to link to this article as this is the name of the French music industry, it's completely out of context when read by a SR.
 * Should any of these problems be addressed? Fezmar9 (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, interesting that the SR reads the target link and not the text (#3). That seems like a major flaw in either the SR software or the wiki code Wikipedia is using. As for #2, I believe that originally dates were repeated. This could look odd to visual (human) readers, though. I suppose this is a Wikipedia-wide problem too (all rowspan tables). Perhaps there is some sort of identifier we can slip into the text to "force" SRs to reread the spans? With respect to #1, that is a problem, and should be addressed. Not sure how though... any suggestions? Adabow (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I just quickly/sloppily whipped up the above chart to illustrate what a discography would look like without multiple items stuffed into one cell, but instead if each bit of information had its own cell. This is a possible way to address Issue #1. It has the benefit of being simpler, smaller, easier to read and easier to compare data, however the additional horizontal size limits the amount of data the chart can hold. Perhaps a secondary table could be created to solely compare album certifications? I mean, it's not entirely clear how the 10 certifications listed for Good Girl Gone Bad at Rihanna discography were selected from the 24 listed at Good Girl Gone Bad. Perhaps a stand-alone certification table that could allow room for ~24 certifications would eliminate the potential bias in selecting which certifications are worthy of being included in the studio album table. Fezmar9 (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The 10 certifications are for the same 10 countries, for which chart positions are included in the table. But that's not common knowledge... Before I knew that, I tried to add eg. the Polish certification for Adele's 21 in Adele discography (which was 2× Diamond!), and my edit was reverted. I believe that when most people read information from discography tables (and are not Wikipedia editors with that kind of knowledge), they think that these are all the certifications the album has received. On the other hand, I obviously understand why the number of certification is limited to 10. — Ma y ast  (talk ) 23:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Dormant?
Why the heck did this become dormant? How can we have non-governed project with no guidelines and have things going through GA/FA/FL without any kind of minimum standard. We should discuss reinstating this as the project example for discographies. It will be a good chance to debate any necessary changes or underlying concerns that people have.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  00:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also like to see something like this passed as a guideline or MoS page. I think it would be good to create a standard list of chart abbreviations (e.g. NED vs NDL vs NL for Dutch charts). Adabow (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you meant NLD, not NDL :) And in my opinion NLD is the right version, when we use three-letter abbreviations. With two letters it might be more simple, as we could use ISO 3166 codes (although I would have a problem with using "GB" instead of "UK" ;)). I often see two different versions for Ireland: IRE and IRL. Chart abbreviations are one thing, and another thing is that in some discograpies certifications are listed with countries ("UK: Gold"), and in others with certifying bodies ("BPI: Gold"). I think I have read somewhere that certifying bodies should be used, but on the other hand for an outsider country codes might be easier to recognize. Like "FR" or "FRA" instead of "SNEP". — Ma y ast  (talk ) 01:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of using ISO codes, but the three-letter ones would be better. Currently, the codes are simply condensed names picked by individual editors without any real format, influence or even consensus. With regards to certifications, these should be standardised too. I would prefer countries over certifying bodies, as these are easier for everybody to recognise. Most people would have no idea what SNEP means, even in the context of popular music. "FRA" is meaningful and universally recognisable. Adabow (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 would be great. It seems that in cases of most countries we are using them anyway, and only Ireland (IRL), New Zealand (NZL), Spain (ESP), Netherlands (NLD) and maybe Portugal (PRT) would need to be corrected in some discography articles. But I think we should make three exceptions and leave US, UK, GER, instead of changing them to USA, GBR and DEU. The first version is more recognizable, plus it saves a lot of work with correcting those three in majority of articles. With certifications, I think the same abbreviations could be used as with chart names, but they should be linked to certifying bodies (not countries) where possible, eg. FRA. — Ma y ast  (talk ) 07:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I Agree i like the idea of having a standard list of abbreviations.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  14:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, but where do we propose something like that? I will be happy to help with creating eg. a table with countries, their abbreviations and certifying bodies, but I'm still quite new to all the WikiProjects and MOS, etc. so I don't have a clue who should we turn to with these ideas to put them in motion. — Ma y ast  (<font color="#bae30b">talk ) 15:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing to do would be create a table for the charts (country name, chart, abbreviation, certification body) at User:Mayast/Chartstable and link it to the discussion here. Once people have approved it you can move it WikiProject Discographies/Chartlistings or something named like that and create a shortcut etc. ?  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  15:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll work on it there, but I may not be able to get to it before Tuesday. — <font color="#0dacd0">Ma <font color="#1a7fa7">y <font color="#0dacd0">ast  (<font color="#bae30b">talk ) 16:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No rush! I originally helped the first band of editors who worked on this guideline. So I'm quite happy to look at other elements of this too and get it moved back into the mainspace. I dont think there's much wrong with it but we just need to ensure there's a consensus first.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  20:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Should different types of charts within the same country (eg. Billboard charts) be included in the table? Maybe I'll start with the basic ones (like Billboard 200 and Hot 100), and then we'll decide if the table should be expanded further.
 * I'm not sure whether changing the way certifications are listed (country abbreviation vs. certifying body) will be accepted by the majority, per DISCOGSTYLE (third paragraph). — <font color="#0dacd0">Ma <font color="#1a7fa7">y <font color="#0dacd0">ast  (<font color="#bae30b">talk ) 20:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We weren't proposing that we were we?  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  20:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah... Mayast:"Chart abbreviations are one thing, and another thing is that in some discograpies certifications are listed with countries ("UK: Gold"), and in others with certifying bodies ("BPI: Gold"). I think I have read somewhere that certifying bodies should be used, but on the other hand for an outsider country codes might be easier to recognize." and me:"I would prefer countries over certifying bodies, as these are easier for everybody to recognise. Most people would have no idea what SNEP means, even in the context of popular music. "FRA" is meaningful and universally recognisable." However, now that I reread the current section and see that there is some sort of rationale behind it (that countries can be confusing to people), I'm not hugely fussed which way we go. Adabow (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought when I read it earlier today: that guys who wrote it did have a point ;) Anyway, I was kind of writing about two issues: one was that I would personnaly prefer country abbreviations as they are more intuitive (but now I see that clearer distinction between charts and certifications might be a good idea after all), and the other is that some discography articles don't follow that rule and use country abbreviations instead of certifying bodies (eg. Arctic Monkeys discography), so it might be a good idea to include this point in a manual of style for discographies. We have to go one way or another. — <font color="#0dacd0">Ma <font color="#1a7fa7">y <font color="#0dacd0">ast  (<font color="#bae30b">talk ) 21:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to see the country name linked to the certificate provide. Very few people recognise or know who the providers are!  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  22:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is to use ISO three letter codes, then I think it should be with no exceptions. Building exceptions into the system is only likely to cause confusion for editors, who then have to remember which ISO codes not to use, which is likely to result in haphazard use.  I don't think "USA" rather than "US" is a problem, and I'm sure most readers would instantly recognise "GBR" rather than "UK".  "DEU" for Germany may seem a little strange, at least until people got used to it, as this code is rarely used outside ISO.  An alternative might be to use Olympic country codes, rather than ISO, which are perhaps more recognisable (and are frequently seen on television for sporting events both within and outside the Olympics), which would give "NED" for the Netherlands, "POR" for Portugal and "GER" for Germany.  Either way, a uniform system would be less confusing, and readers and editors alike should soon learn the oddities of whichever system is selected.  Skinsmoke (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think these exceptions would be justified. For example we use US or U.S. (not USA) everywhere on Wikipedia when we write about the United States, and UK for United Kingdom (I think I've seen it somewhere in Manual of Style, but I can't find that section now – all I've found is MOS:ABBR), so these two abbreviations are in use on Wikipedia all the time and people are used to them. For me personally GBR isn't as instantly recognizable as UK, and I would have to think for a while to figure out what that abbreviation meant. Maybe that's because I'm not British. Anyway, I believe there would be more people having trouble with adjusting to GBR. Moreover, the thought of changing US into USA and UK into GBR in all discography articles is kinda terrifying ;) While correcting NLD or NED, IRL/IRE, NZL/NZ here or there is not a big problem, in my opinion. There are two reasons for that: 1. these charts are less popular than US and UK (and their various types, like US Alt. and UK Indie – it would be very strange to see GBR Indie, BTW), 2. some articles already use one of those abbreviations or the other. So after the decision is made which one should be used (eg. NLD), we would just have to change it in those articles that use NED. As far as Germany is concerned, I agree that DEU looks strange (I'm much more adjusted to DE, as I often see it in German domain names or on license plates), while GER is easily recognized (maybe the Olympic Games have something to do with that :)). — <font color="#0dacd0">Ma <font color="#1a7fa7">y <font color="#0dacd0">ast  (<font color="#bae30b">talk ) 15:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

}Hold up, isn't there a functional difference between the United Kingdom and Great Britain? Adabow (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Doens't GBR include the Republic of Ireland whereas UK is (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England)? Or have i got that completely wrong?  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  20:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The offical name of the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain refers only to England, Wales and Scotland, not to Nortern Ireland. (The Repubic of Ireland is independent from the UK and therefore not part of Great Britain either.)Szaboci (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The ISO 3166-1 codes <tt>GB</tt> and <tt>GBR</tt> actually stand for the United Kingdom (not Great Britain), and thus include Northern Ireland. SiBr4 (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But its difficult to apply to Single charts because there is a UK Singles Chart (which covers England, Northern Ireland and Wales) and an independent Scottish Singles Chart. Irish Singles are produced in a completely differently chart.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  23:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would leave UK alone. I strongly oppose changing it to GBR, and I've given a few reasons for that in my previous comments ;) It seems that the only person proposing that change was User:Skinsmoke and no one has supported it, am I correct? — <font color="#0dacd0">Ma <font color="#1a7fa7">y <font color="#0dacd0">ast  (<font color="#bae30b">talk ) 23:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, just the very existance of the Scottish chart is a reason why ISO codes won't be applicable to ALL the charts. Anyway, I'm gonna work on that table with proposed chart abbreviations tomorrow or on Thursday. — <font color="#0dacd0">Ma <font color="#1a7fa7">y <font color="#0dacd0">ast  (<font color="#bae30b">talk ) 00:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a functional difference between the "United Kingdom" and "Great Britain". The "United Kingdom" covers England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, whereas "Great Britain" covers only England, Scotland and Wales.  Lil-unique1 is completely wrong in assuming that the Republic of Ireland is included in either.  However, the code "GBR" is used for the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and is taken to stand for "Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The "UK singles chart" does NOT cover only England, Northern Ireland and Wales, but also includes Scotland.  The "independent Scottish Singles Chart" is, in reality, a regional chart, and the sales figures that produce the Scottish chart are also used to produce the UK chart.  I would add that Mayast] will NEVER have seen "DE" on vehicle licence plates, as the code used for Germany is "D" (the code used for the United Kingdom licence plates is "GB").  It should be possible to develop a bot run to change country codings to whatever is selected as the common system, so the amount of work involved is not really a consideration in making that choice.  Skinsmoke (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, you're right, it's just "D". That's what happens when you get three hours of sleep, like I did in the last few days. Anyway, I think the whole point of creating such a table of chart abbreviations was to choose one version for a chart, because right now some charts have two or three abbreviations (like Dutch charts). That was never the case with UK. The country is called United Kingdom, the charts' names are "UK Singles Chart" and "UK Albums Chart", why introduce GBR as an abbreviation and confuse millions of Wikipedia readers, when "UK" works perfectly???
 * Skinsmoke, you wrote that "If the consensus is to use ISO three letter codes, then I think it should be with no exceptions." Well, let's make it clear that there has been no consesus that ISO codes should be used. ISO codes were mentioned mainly because they might be helpful when choosing one abbreviation out of two or three, eg. NLD instead of NED or NL. — <font color="#0dacd0">Ma <font color="#1a7fa7">y <font color="#0dacd0">ast  (<font color="#bae30b">talk ) 12:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My point was to demonstrate that the abbreviations should make sense in relation to the names of the chart. Using ISO codes was ONE way of standardisig the abbreviations. UK → UK Singles Chart → GBR would be a contentious change because it would also move the position of the UK chart within lots of tables and similarly United States → US Hot 100 → USA Hot 100 would confuse as the chart's name in long form is US Billboard Hot 100. ....  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  15:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. And one more argument why we should focus on those charts where standarizing abbreviations is actually needed (so far I've counted Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand and Portugal, but I might find some more), and leave those abbreviations that work fine (like UK, US, but also many more) alone. I don't think we need a revolution here, just small improvements. — <font color="#0dacd0">Ma <font color="#1a7fa7">y <font color="#0dacd0">ast  (<font color="#bae30b">talk ) 15:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Germany also requires attention (I've certainly seen both "GER" and "DEU" (and even "D") used). I think I've seen different variations for Denmark also, and confusingly, I've certainly seen Austria given as "AUS", which is normally used for Australia.  A common code for the two Belgian charts would also be helpful (nobody seems at all sure how to label the Flemish and Walloon versions).  It might be worth checking how country abbreviations are used for other spheres within Wikipedia, particularly sports tables.  There doesn't seem much sense setting up a different system for music, if one (or more) systems already exist for other fields, because sooner or later someone is going to come along and propose a merger of the two (or more) systems.  Whatever is decided should be proposed as an addition to the Manual of Style to give it some authority.  Skinsmoke (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * These are good points that haven't been discussed for a while, so here are my responses to them.

A general point: seeing as User:Michael Jester and User:JohnFromPinckney wrote most of this page and devised the guidelines themselves, which were accepted at the time by the editors around, it may be prudent to involve them in this discussion. <font color="Green">I Am Rufus  &bull; <font colour="Blue" face="Garamond"> Conversation is a beautiful thing.  13:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "GER" should be used instead of "DEU" for the same reason that we should use "SPA" instead of "ESP": as this is an English encyclopaedia, we should use abbreviations of the English country names.
 * Some discographies, such as Daft Punk discography, abbreviate the region of Belgium that the chart is referring to in brackets and break it to the line below (the Flanders chart, for example, would read as BEL (FL) (or FLA: either is fine to me), and Wallonia becomes WA or WAL).
 * "UK" shouldn't be changed to "GBR", 1) because the United Kingdom and Great Britain are not the same thing, and 2) the United Kingdom and Ireland have separate singles charts (the Irish Singles Chart counting for sales only from the Republic). In all honesty, all though I'm consistent with the abbreviations I use I really don't care that much if someone wants to use NED, NL or NLD or something similar, because common sense tells you which country it is (and there'll always be someone who doesn't understand a certain acronym so I'm not too strict if someone wants to use a different one, with some exceptions if it really is confusing).
 * Having read this, where the certification abbreviation was originally proposed, it seems to have been done to avoid confusing readers by having the same abbreviation for two different entities (i.e. US would refer to both the singles chart and the certification agency, which isn't helpful as they are linked to different things in the first place). I think this is a very sensible idea, although it raises the question as to why the country headings for the singles charts aren't abbreviated as well (i.e. why does UK not become USC, for "UK Singles Chart"). Any thoughts? <font color="Green">I Am Rufus  &bull; <font colour="Blue" face="Garamond"> Conversation is a beautiful thing.  13:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition
To get the ball rolling, I've created this table as a potential addition:

Should these only be used when there are not ten national charts on which an artist has charted? Feel free to disagree, but please get consensus before changing anything. We want to achieve a consensus table. Also feel free to add any charts I may have missed. Adabow (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Billboard charts
 * Thanks for doing that! I totally forgot about this topic. Here's what I think:
 * The Belgian charts names are too wide for the columns, which usually have 3em or 2.2em. So using BEL (WA) and BEL (FL)/BEL (VL) in two rows, like they are usually listed (for example here: Editors discography), seems to make more sense.
 * I don't understand the choice of "SUI" for Switzerland, I think "SWI" would be better, and I think it is already used in majority of discography articles. Plus, in some discographies both SWE and SWI chart positions are listed, and changing SWI tu SUI would require changing the order of columns in those articles (which would lead to more work).
 * I'm also not sure about "NED" – if you would take the first letters from the name of the country, you would get "NET" (which makes a terrible abbreviation, but I've seen it in some articles ;)). My choice for Netherlands would be "NLD" (for NetherLanDs, and as in ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code). Similarly, I prefer "PRT" and "IRL" for Portugal and Ireland, but I would also be fine with "IRE" and "POR".
 * Anyway, great job! — <font color="#0dacd0">Ma <font color="#1a7fa7">y <font color="#0dacd0">ast  (<font color="#bae30b">talk ) 00:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Belgian ones are really difficult, and to be honest I don't include them in discographies if avoidable. I agree that too many letters forces either undesirable cell width or height, and line breaking is usually the way people go. "NED" is the Olympic country code for the Netherlands, which comes from its name in Dutch (NEDerland). Similarly, in French SUIsse (Switzerland). I've just looked up Ireland's codes and both ISO and IOC are IRL, so let's keep that then. Portugal I'm not fussed with any way. Adabow (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, but Switzerland has four official languages, and German is the most popular of them, not French. I agree with one of Lil-unique1's points in the discussion above: "abbreviations should make sense in relation to the names of the chart." In this case the chart is called on English Wikipedia "SWIss Hitparade", and "Schweizer Hitparade" on German and French Wiki. An abbreviation "SCH" might lead to some confusion, plus in some discography tables we would have to switch columns (see my point with "SUI" earlier). And finally, we are on English Wikipedia. All in all, I think we should stick to "SWI". — <font color="#0dacd0">Ma <font color="#1a7fa7">y <font color="#0dacd0">ast  (<font color="#bae30b">talk ) 10:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Table format, limit to 10 charts
Hi, I was wondering if someone could comment on this U2 discography discussion regarding the number of charts. Recently, I've been editing the article heavily (updating table format, removing unnecessary text-align parameters, checking references, etc.) and was also hoping to trim down the number of charts to 10, but other Contributors have their doubts about that. In what cases is an exception from this rule justified, and not a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument? I was also suprised to see that Nirvana discography, a FL-class article which serves as an example at WP:DISCOGSTYLE, still uses the 'old' table format. Is there any reason for that? Or would it be fine if I threw myself into editing that discography article? The same question applies to Queen discography, Genesis discography, and probably a few others, but I wouldn't like to step on someone's toes. — <font color="#0dacd0">Ma <font color="#1a7fa7">y <font color="#0dacd0">ast  (<font color="#bae30b">talk ) 21:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Music Videos table
Music videos have different information compared to that of singles and albums, the format I've seen them most popularly in so far his been like this:

However I was told to edit like this, however I'm starting to believe this is incorrect:

What is more correct? Also can an example also be added to the Samples section on this page to make it more obvious? Thank you. 14:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Bullets in tables
I can't see any good reason for using bullets in tables -- especially when there's only one item in the field. The reason for bulleting is to distinguish the items in a list, but in a table it's not necessary. You can use breaks or (what is now preferred:) a "plainlist". --Musdan77 (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the Album details column? I think the bullet points make it very easy to distinguish here, a plainlist I believe would make it look a bit dis-organised. How would you set it as? SilentDan (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Album details and Certifications. Look at infoboxes. They don't have bullet points (there may be a few that do -- but they shouldn't). But, as I said, I really don't like it when there's a bullet for just one item -- and I see that a lot. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I must disagree with you, I believe it keeps it simple in this case, however they should not be used in infobox's by any means I can certainly agree with you on that. Could you perhaps demonstrate your idea with an example table? SilentDan (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, forget the plainlist - but let me stress (and repeat) the first part: I see no reason to put bullet points anywhere "when there's only one item. The reason for bulleting is to distinguish the items in a list". --Musdan77 (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Track listings
According to WP:NALBUM "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." So if there was an album that failed to meet the GNG for its own article, but still might be notable enough for inclusion on a discography article, would this permit one to include a track listing in a discography? This question was originally asked in 2010 but not answered. I'm wondering now as I am thinking about merging some non-notable albums of MC chris into a discography, and I don't know if I should keep the track listings or exclude them. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many of these "merges" to discographies do not actually have any information beyond name, date, and sales rankings. The proposed style guidelines (WP:DISCOGSTYLE) don't include how to address tracklistings, etc. (there is far too much emphasis on sales charts, IMO).  Maybe you'll be the one to figure out how to make it work. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

inclusion of B-sides in Singles list
Does anyone know whether B-sides should be included when listing an artist's single releases? I can't see anything explicitly stating that they shouldn't, but I notice that they don't appear in the relevant sample. I ask because there's an IP user who seems to have made changes to a few discographies, including adding details of B-sides. In the case of George Harrison's discography, they've actually introduced some errors, because each single's B-side wasn't the same in all territories. The user's obviously a keen discographer (which is very welcome, of course), but I want to get some idea of the issue regarding B-sides. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A discography is defined as "a descriptive catalogue of musical recordings". Mentioning B-sides seems appropriate (see FL example Jimi Hendrix discography).  For cases with different B-sides, list the one that backed a charting song or was released in the artist's home country, with a footnote advising of or listing others.  BTW, why are WP discographies unique in devoting so much space to columns of sales statistics and squeezing the song/album details into the margin? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Remix
I was just wondering if it's necessary to include the official remix version of a single which itself also was released as a single. Look for example; the original version of Ty Dolla Sign's "Or Nah" was released as a single, and then an official remix version of it also released as a single. The remix version got more attention than the original one, and also they shot a music video for the remix instead of the original. Should we include both the original and the remix versions in the "Singles" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.64.120 (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. A notation could/should be added that explains that. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Release date - list earliest only
Hello. The style guidelines say to list the item's earliest release date only. For physical CD and DVD releases (not digital), this gets a little confusing for Korean releases that are released also in Japan, for two reasons I've encountered: Granted, these items are often also released in other countries in Asia, but none of them have particularly reliable or easy-to-find historical data, so they play minor (if any) roles in most Korean artist discography articles. Japan often plays a major role. I just want to be as clear as possible without listing extraneous data. Suggestions? Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First, sometimes a Korean CD or DVD is released only in Korea, but still charts in Japan as an import - this is a rather noteworthy accomplishment and it's happened sometimes. On the other hand, if it was actually released in Japan in addition to Korea, then it charts as a domestic release and is less impressive.  If only the first (say, Korean) release date is shown in the discography but a Japanese chart placement is shown, it implies that it charted in Japan without being released there.  So it's confusing.
 * Second, in recent years, many Korean artists release their Korean DVDs in Japan (region 2, with Japanese subtitles) first, because the price point is much, much higher (they can chart 2-3 times more for it). Then a month or so later they release it in Korea (region 3).  However, it's primarily a Korean DVD in nature (Korean language, filmed at a Korean concert, etc) and it'd be misleading/confusing to show it in a disc/videography with only a Japanese release.  Especially with DVDs, often they don't have their own articles to explain all this in.  (And to go back to number 1, Korea has no DVD charts but Japan does.)

Chart name abbreviation
Hello all, I'd like to raise an issue I've seen throughout urban artists discographies on the 'pedia. As some of you may know, Billboard has many different charts, many, many, confusing charts. Some are airplay subsidiaries (Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay), some are bubbling under subsidiaries (Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles) and some are digital subsidiaries (Dance/Electronic Digital Songs). Now, on many discographies of American R&B/Hip-hop artists, some consistent chart listings used in tables are:


 * Billboard Hot 100 for singles tables. (External link)
 * Billboard 200 for albums tables. (External link)


 * Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs for singles tables. (External link)
 * Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums for albums tables. (External link)

OR (An artist can't chart on both Rap and R&B subsidiary charts, only one of the two.)
 * Hot Rap Songs for singles tables. (External link)
 * Rap Albums for albums tables. (External link)
 * Hot R&B Songs for singles tables. (External link)
 * R&B Albums for albums tables. (External link)

Now, there's a number of options for chart name abbreviations I see around the site, here are some examples, bare in mind the first chart is the Billboard 200, the second is the Hot R&B/HH Albums chart, and the third either the Hot Rap Albums or Hot R&B Albums chart:

Example 1: Nicki Minaj discography Example 2: Drake discography Example 3: Tinashe discography

I'm no chart freak or obsessive minor editor, but shouldn't there be some consistency between discographies in chart abbreviating? Especially in the case of label mates Minaj and Drake, who's discography articles are no doubt viewed in quick succession of eachother, having different names linking to different articles seems really confusing to me, like how Minaj's use of US R&B links to a different article than Tinashe's use of US R&B. I propose the following for all uses of these charts.

And then obviously on the flipside, if the artist suits:

This would also apply for discography pages that only incorporate one of these charts, EG, even though Frank Ocean discography only uses the "Hot R&B/HH" chart, under "US R&B", the abbreviation would still change to "US R&B/HH", that way there would be no confusion in the matter throughout the entire site, and all charts would have distinct names with no crossovers between articles. I originally raised this issue at Nicki Minaj discography, which consensus was to keep how it was, and I accepted it. Looking back, most of the opposers reasons gave weren't actually that valid, things like "until there is a clear guideline" (Since when did we need a guideline to tell us how to do every little thing?) or "looking at FL "Beyoncé discography", it uses just US R&B" (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) so I thought I'd bring it here to try and form somewhat of a guideline myself.

This page seems somewhat inactive so I'm pinging users I've seen edit discography articles well in the past:, ,  let's talk.  Azealia 911   talk  09:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a lack of consistency throughout all sorts of discography articles, which unfortunately is bound to happen when this project's style page doesn't pass as MoS and people give up on it. I think the best solution would be to not include R&B or rap-only charts, but to just use the main R&B/Hip-Hop chart and abbreviate it as "US R&B" or "US Hip" depending on the artist. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 18:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the subject of the MoS, how can we re-start the process of making it approved MoS? The projects really do need consistency. As for this issue, I'd personally be up for only using the R&B/HH chart, but unless there's mass consensus, which looks unlikely on this thread, I doubt it'll be easy to remove. Even I'd revert a removal if someone cited this discussion.  Azealia 911   talk  10:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"Discography" vs "Selected discography"
I frequently see discographies in articles with the header "Selected Discography." That makes no sense to me in an encyclopedia for the following reasons: It seems to me that "Discography" would be much preferred over "Selected discography" for such a section in an encyclopedia. Now, if you're writing a review or a biography for a different publication, a selected discography may be highly appropriate as recommended listening, but not for an encyclopedia. I couldn't find anything in the style guide about this.
 * 1) Who is doing the selecting?
 * 2) What are the selection criteria?
 * 3) Why not list the entire discography? (or as much as can be found)

I recently got in a dust-up with an admin over this and I'd like some consensus one way or another. The Dissident Aggressor 21:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on all points. The only major exception I can think of is perhaps for acts with many different international 'greatest hits' compilations, where listing each one could extend into the hundreds.  There is also the issue of the suggestion of limiting discography tables to 10 countries' chart placings.  How is it decided which 10 markets/charts are included in the table?  It shouldn't be based on the first 10 added alone, if it is going to be restricted.Nqr9 (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Alternate Versions of Music Videos
When reviewing the talk page archives for music videos in discographies, the consensus seems to be that music videos are acceptable until an artist produces enough to warrant a separate videography. I'm looking for input on the inclusions of alternate versions of music videos. In South Korean music especially, artists will follow up the release of a single's original music video with extra versions, all of which are considered official videos for the song. For example, a single may have the original music video as well as a drama version and/or dance version (for those familiar with SK music, I don't mean dance practices, but official dance versions of the original music video). The Discographies style guide does not mention music videos, but I typically see alternate versions listed on Wikipedia like this: Stellar (South Korean band) discography. Is there a certain way these should be listed or is it more of a best-judgement scenario? Personally, I think the method I linked to does a clean job of listing alternates without cluttering the page, but I thought I'd verify to be sure. Thanks! Katzenlibrary (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Artist with multiple band discographies
I came across the article Paul Heaton discography which appears to be duplicate copies of The Beautiful South discography, The Housemartins plus some solo works. I don't think this is the way to do it, but I cannot find any guideline on artist having duplicate discographies. Is there a guideline on this? Should that discography article exists at all since the content is largely duplicate. Perhaps it should be deleted and the solo works simply kept in the article Paul Heaton (which also has duplicates of the discographies)? Hzh (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I've redirected the article, although if there are guidelines on duplicating discography I'd like to know. If there isn't one, then perhaps it should be added to the guidelines. Hzh (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Single release date
Any reason why single should include only the release year and not full release date (if available)? While album can have a full release date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookpooi (talk • contribs) 20:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Reversion to title-first rows
Following the bold edits of IJBall I have reverted | hir changes, which added an alternative version. That alternative version put the year first, rather than the title first, a choice which was discussed at length back in 2010. The reasoning for title-first rows is that the tables are essentially lists of 'titles', not lists of 'years'. Making the year a row header is inappropriate, because it's not what the row is about. It's also (therefore) confusing to users of screen-reading technologies.

In IJBall's edit summary, s/he says the added version "better meets" WP:ACCESS, but I fail to see how (possibly I missed some detail in the code). It seems to me that it actually goes in the other direction. I'm open to explanation, though. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)