Talk:U2 discography

U2 discography is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 31, 2007	Featured list candidate	Not promoted
July 5, 2008	Featured list candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Former featured list candidate

Discographies

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

Rock music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U2 (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject U2, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.U2Wikipedia:WikiProject U2Template:WikiProject U2U2

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Album Sales Information

Should 145 Million be updated? It was based on LiveNations press release in 2008 and appeared to exclude their live and compilation albums. Also, Bono and Edge's bios on the official website for Spiderman (http://spidermanonbroadway.marvel.com/) mention 170 million BEFORE the release of NLOTH, which would make a 175 Million figure reasonable and a 170 Million figure conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.200.27.7 (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rattle and Hum

Um, Rattle and Hum is 90% live; why is it listed under studio albums? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.147.183 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly; only 6 of Rattle and Hum's 17 tracks are live; 7 if you count "The Star Spangled Banner" excerpt. That's well below even 50%. Since the vast majority is studio material, it is listed as a studio album (there isn't really a category for a combination between the two that we can use). Unless you're refering to the film, in which case it also has an entry under the Videography. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've definitely always thought of Rattle and Hum as a live album with a couple of studio tracks tacked on-- I guess because it's the soundtrack to a concert film. I'm surprised when looking at the track listing (after having not listened for many years) to see how many studio tracks there were. Weird. I guess the live stuff was just more memorable, at least for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.192.109.24 (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

# of videos made

I am fairly certain that there weren't 3 videos made for Vertigo, and I think some of the other numbers of videos made are wrong too. Could someone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.30.8 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

What's about the 1980 Live LP "No Surrender"? Look here for Details: http://www.croportal.net/forum/glazba/u2-no-surrender-live-1980-a-13009/ THX

It's a bootleg. --typhoon 17:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messed Up

Hi. I kind of messed up the album bit, by moving "Original Soundtracks No. 1 [Passengers]." Can someone please revert it to the previous edit? Thanks.

Done. --Kristbg 21:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. 82.38.55.11 13:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature

EPs are extended-play singles, so they go under the Singles header. Also, not all of their regular singles were necessarily hits.

--typhoon 19:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Singles

I've put up entries for every U2 single released. There's not much info on the pages right now, so please help me fill 'em up! Check the entry for If God Will Send His Angels for an example (thanks Typhoon!) --Kristbg 04:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the GERMAN CHART POSITIONS? Germany is the third biggest music market in the world! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.128.212.233 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

other

updated info for Original of species reference http://www.u2wanderer.org/disco/pr058.html Hyperfeedback 00:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Video

I've done basic entires for the live video releases. Can someone add them to the U2 box which appears at the bottom of u2 related articles. Havent figured it out yet!. Probably best goes in "Live and other projects" section Hyperfeedback 11:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All video entries are now updated and added to Template:U2. I also added some producers, like Flood and Jimmy Iovine. --Kristbg 14:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Hyperfeedback 14:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

I think I'm going to try switching some of the headers to the gallery layout to save some space, since this page is getting pretty big. The albums will stay like they are (since it's handy to have all the album songs right there to search).

--typhoon 23:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great job! --Kristbg 01:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love the gallery layout. It's easy to follow and looks great! Underneath-it-All 21:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland and Austria?

Is it really necessary to include chart positions from these countries? I don't think they're very helpful at gauging the success of a U2 single; I think it would be better to use the space to include positions on the Modern Rock Tracks or Mainstream Rock Tracks charts, or to remove the columns altogether.

Acegikmo1 22:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Kristbg 00:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's more logical to include more countries to show the worldwide succes than to show more American charts... But to solve all problems, isn't it better to only include English and American charts on this page, and make a seperate U2 chart positions page, where the Swiss, Austrian, Latvian, Dutch, Modern Rock and Mainstream rock and other charts can be listed? This would make sense to me. (I read this comment about Switzerland and Austria only after I included the Dutch positions...) Pie.er 14:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everlasting Love

"Everlasting love" did chart as a single, although only in the Netherlands. Chart positions, starting week 1 in 1990: 26-17-12-10-15-22-38. I believe (but I'm not sure) it charted as the B-side of the 7 version of "All I Want Is You". But it definitely charted under a different name than "All I Want Is You", which charted 6 months earlier and only reached 12th place. I don't consider it U2's greatest achievement, but facts are facts: it charted as a single. Pie.er 08:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it charted doesn't make it a single. It was never issued as a standalone single, only as a B-Side (and as a bonus cassette in Australia [1]). Many songs by many artists spend some time in charts without ever being released as singles. U2's own "Until the End of the World" is an example of this (see the Achtung Baby talk page). --Kristbg 13:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I can live with that. Pie.er 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy enough not to have it, but i dont really understand how it can chart if it is not a single. If it is not single, there are no sale, so what is actually charting? how do they calculate a position. incidently, around this time U2's Everlasting Love got heaps of playback on radio. People loved it. The Australian release of the All I Want is You single was delayed for the Lovetown tour. Even more so, the original Sweetest Thing (as B side) was an even bigger radio hit. people were ringing in for months and was played several time daily. OK, i will stop giving you all interesting but unimportant trivia --Merbabu 22:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I've rated this as being of 'top' importance for the U2 project - see banner above. But i struggled to give it a B quality as referencing is quite poor. Merbabu 04:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Instant Karma...

Does anyone know if Instant Karma will be released ever?CRBR 19:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album Art

Would it be possible to include a column of album art, or would that not fall under Fair Use for Wikipedia? Ank329 20:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying not to hurt feelings here, but U2's discography it's the worst article of any other decent band: not a single picture of any sleeve, how on earth the casual fan that tries to get info on the media available of the U2 music's gonna learn something here?...if you like I would send you scans of my very own albums, either vinyl, cd, or cassette...and change the infobox picture, what kind of ugly picture to show the Best Rock n' roll band in the last 20 years... really you got a lot of computer skills but certainly don't know nothing about photography or even choose one...also, I can provide live shots of concerts I've attended much better than this one (by the way there's at least 4 listing of U2 items right now at eBay with this same picture). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.164.125.62 (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of album listings...

The current version lists the album tracks without breaks - while this condenses the whole section down, it does reduce quick readability (ie, this is a list, not an article of prose). I've placed a version with breaks here in my sandbox - what do people prefer? I prefer the line breaks after each. --Merbabu 01:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if you want to implement it by all means, do it. Love,Neranei (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I will wait for a bit more opinion. PS "love?" - aw shucks. :) --Merbabu

:) You are one of our resident U2 gurus, you deserve a little love! (Do You Feel Loved?) :P Love, Neranei (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballad of Ronnie Drew

I've temporarily hidden "The Ballad of Ronnie Drew" inside of an inline note. I originally removed it entirely, but decided that an inline note would be of better purpose. This is stemming from my confusion of what qualifies as a U2 single. "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", "The Saints Are Coming", and "One" with MJB are all listed. However, other collaborations such as "Do They Know It's Christmas?" are not. What exactly qualifies for inclusion on this list, and should "The Ballad of Ronnie Drew" be among those that are listed? MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U2 discography Well, U2 didn't appear on that single. If they had, I imagine it would have been included. It is not on the list just like the Mission Impossible theme song is not on the list - it was only performed by members of U2, not the band itself. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about guest singles like on The Ramones tribute album? 134.155.22.245 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-Artist collaborations should be listed in a seperate place, if at all. Should Bono's 1986 collaboration with Clannad be included? Do they know it's Christmas (bono sang and Adam played Bass)? What about the Robbie Robertson contributions in 1988? I think these should be listed seperately if at all. If the single or duet mentioned it as a U2 duet (as was the case with Green Day, BB King, etc), then it should be mentioned, but if it didn't, then it should be seperate or not included. unlisted (talk) Feb 3rd 2010 11:57 UTC(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.200.27.7 (talk)

Original Soundtracks 1

Original Soundtracks 1 needs to be moved to a different place. First, it's not even an U2 album. Second, this is the discography of U2, Passengers was just a side project. This article should be shown somewhere else. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 21:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It’s generally considered a U2 album. If you read literature about the time, “side project” certainly underestimates it (see the referenced info in the U2 article). Further, 4 out of the 5 credited artists are U2 in full. The 5th credited is Brian Eno, their long time producer and collaborator. The album was initially intended to be released under “U2” but the difference in sound and approach led them to release it under a made-up moniker. The fact that tracks from the album end up on U2 compilations and are played live in their concerts also makes it hard to say this isn’t a U2 album.

However, I’d be happy to see changes made to the description on this page. --Merbabu (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should take note that the U2 discography on their Official site does not list it as an album. http://www.u2.com/music/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomik2 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish charts..?

While reverting some vandalism, I noticed that the peak positions on the Irish charts seem unusually low for the band; on looking at the reference provided, the earliest date this album provides positions for is 2004; meaning that for an album like The Unforgettable Fire, it's talking about the highest position it reached between 2003 and 2009 (which coincides with the Croke Park dates on the Vertigo Tour I believe), as opposed to the highest position between 1984 and 2009. Is there any way this can be remedied? I wouldn't know where to begin looking for an alternate source. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately aCharts seems to be the only online reliable source that has any chart positions for U2's albums. Of the other online reliable sources; Irish-charts.com doesn't show any chart positions for U2, ChartTrack only goes back as far as 2000, and IRMA's site only has singles in the archive. So unless a printed source can be found that has the original positions, we'll have to stick with what we've got per WP:V: verifiability, not truth. --JD554 (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a great site with more charting positions than before, although sadly no charts before 2000 here (it's irish charts but a different section. Dt128 (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I aggree I think as a whole the chart positions are somewhat empty or incorrect. The article could be vastly improved.--93.107.24.3 (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The info is definitely wrong, I mean come on U2 are about the biggest thing in Ireland so I doubt albums like Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree charted very low. Their earlier stuff might have. Sadly the info cannot be referenced properly. Medazzatrash (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information regarding the Irish charts is wrong. The links providing information about the U2 albums in the Irish charts is inaccurate. One of the sites, http://irish-charts.com, contains no information about the position in the Irish charts of U2 albums.

The second site, http://acharts.us, records data from the 26th week of the year 2005 onwards. It does NOT contain information about the Irish charts when albums such as Boy, Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby were released. Details - According to http://acharts.us/album/20596, Boy (released in 1980) "made its first appearance in week 26/2005 in the Ireland Albums Top 75."

Regarding Achtung Baby, the site (http://acharts.us/album/20591) states the album made "Its first appearance was week 26/2005 in the Ireland Albums Top 75". Achtung Baby was released in 1991. The information is neither verifiable, as one cited site contains no information, and the second site contains records that start in 2005. 96.237.248.50 (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the comments above on why this is the case, and read WP:V. Removal of sourced content is unacceptable and will result in vandalism warnings if it continues. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in Ireland. Ireland did not maintain a reliable Album chart prior to IRMA's 2005 beginning, so the "High Positions" refer to positions achieved SINCE the inception of IRMA's charts. Of course, every U2 album since BOY has gone to #1 in Ireland, but there is no way to verify this with reliable chart information. As a point of comparison, Ireland has maintained a reliable SINGLES chart since before U2's inception and they hold the record for both top ten hits (41) and Number 1 singles (21). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.200.27.7 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video directors

This site might be very helpful in getting most names. I have other jobs on wiki or I'd do it myself. Suede67 (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Line On The Horizon sales

I don't think that NLOTH has sold 5 million copies. According to MediaTraffic.de, it sold 3.000.000+. HC 5555 (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched that website and could not find any sales figures for NLOTH. Unless it's explicitly stated somewhere in there, the 5 million figure is the best source we've got.Shkee23 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 5,000,000 figure is based on an irish independent article written by Brendan O Connor, who interviewed Larry Mullen Jnr for the article. I would think it's as reliable a source as we can hope for.Laurencedunne (talk) 18:04 Feb 09 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Release formats

I think that for the release formats, we should stick with the formats that originally released. Otherwise, as new formats come out, they will all be re-released eventually, so I think it's more relevant to simply mention how it was originally released. The way its being done now, we could list every single album as available as a digital download. This link here is a great book source for original format releases. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead...

This lead needs to be re-worked. In its current form it's just a re-hash of the U2 article. The quick fix is to delete to a one-sentence "This is" sentence, but ideally some work could go into it to make it more like The Beatles discography, the lead of which actually discusses the discography, record releases, etc, and is not merely a summary of the band's history. any takers? --Merbabu (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindergarten

Perhaps we should add "Kindergarten", the "alternative" version of Achtung Baby now being release at the end of the month in the Super Deluxe and Uber editions of Achtung Baby? - I would of thought "no" because it's part of another release - but all the Complete U2 bonus albums are listed (etc. Early Demos, Point Depot) and these can not be bought seperately - so i can't see any reaso not to add Kindergarten-TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we therefore add the "Uber" and "Unter" discs also? Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd of thought so --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get this to FL

With all the activity going on with other U2 articles, we should get this to FL status soon. Of course, it does need some work. I have a bunch of improvements in mind, but I'd like some feedback first before I implement any major changes. Here's what I'd like to discuss:

Remove MDH soundtrack – Only three of the 16 songs on the soundtrack are credited to U2 (one of which was previously released, so only two "original" songs). Bono himself appears on another three tracks, but the majority of the songs do not feature U2. This is merely a soundtrack that features U2, not a soundtrack by U2 (compared to Soundtrack from the Film More, which was entirely done by Pink Floyd).
Remove catalogue numbers – Releases of the same album in different countries may have different catalogue numbers, especially when more than one edition of an album is released. Mentioning them all would be out of the question, so getting rid of them altogether would be best.
Split videography into new page – About 1/3 of the page already is videography, so there's sufficient content to warrant a second page. Red Hot Chili Peppers discography (which is a featured list) splits the bands videography into a second page.
Categorize fan club albums exclusively – Although fan club releases are a combination of live albums, compilations, and remix albums, I think putting them in their own section would be best. Since they are not commercially available, they do not chart, there is no sales records of them, and they should just be kept separate.
Create "Internet albums" section – This would be for all digital-only releases, which is a parameter in {{Infobox artist discography}}
Create "B-sides" section – I'm kinda "iffy" about this one, but just thought I'd mention it since it's also in the {{Infobox artist discography}} template (just for otherwise unreleased studio tracks, not remixes or live songs that have appeared on albums).

–Dream out loud (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually surprised that this isn't a FL already; I could have sworn there was one attached to the WikiProject. I agree with all except the last of your suggestions. With the exception of the two Best Of's (which are already covered), there hasn't been a B-sides album release. I think that would be better represented in List of U2 songs. Another note: all the chart peaks will have to be double checked. In the past we've tried to check and revert when it has been changed from what the sources say, but I'm 100% positive that some slipped through the cracks somewhere in this page's history. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further complicating things is that there are so many charting peaks that can't be reliably sourced (e.g. the info is only available on fan sites or the like). FYI, the featured list you are thinking of is List of awards received by U2. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could do without the B-sides section. I just thought I'd throw it out there. But I'm glad to see that there's an agreement on the other suggestions. I may get working on it this weekend. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New section

I broke the lead into sections because it was to long. Not sure if i did the right thing but the lead was to long.AcuteAccusation (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a while now, I've been of the opinion that the lead here (and what is now the "formation" and "awards" sections after your edit) is missing the mark. It's just a summary/version of the lead from the U2 article. Most of it should be removed - any additions should pertain to the U2 discography. The Beatles discography article is an excellent example of what the lead here should aspire to. Ie, it's about the Beatles discography, and not about the Beatles in general.

I think your changes to the lead push it towards that big change. --Merbabu (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mess with Belgian entries, WP:DISCOGSTYLE

Are the Belgian chart positions the ones from Flanders or Wallonia region? For example, the chart position for "Ordinary Love" is from Wallonia, but the source for the entire "BEL" column is for Flanders region. It's a total mess, so I've decided to remove this column from singles section. Plus the max. number of countries should be 10 per WP:DISCOGSTYLE, so the entire table has far too many countries — we need to trim it down further. — Mayast (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To trim that number down to 13, I'll also remove US alternative and mainstream rock – Billboard Hot 100 is enough. But we'll need to choose 3 other countries to remove from the table. — Mayast (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to disagree with the removal of the Billboard rock charts. The WP:DISCOGSTYLE guideline also says, "There is no set inclusion criteria for which charts should and shouldn't be included, but a good rule of thumb is to go by the relative success of the artist on that chart." Considering the amount of charting the band has done on those charts, I would strongly argue for it to be included. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't care if this particular chart is included or not, but we need to have a discussion about which 10 charts should stay, and remove all the others. Right now there are 13 charts, so if you would like to keep US mainstream rock we still need to find 4 countries to be removed, instead of 3.
I would start with saying that IRE, UK and US (Billboard Hot 100) definitely need to stay, and that I probably wouldn't miss FIN, SWE, SWI or AUT (where U2 didn't have many top 10 and no. 1 hits). There weren't many hits in France, too, but it's one of the largest music markets, so I'm not sure if it should be kept, or not.
BTW, a similar operation should be done with album charts section, where currently 15 charts are included. — Mayast (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone would like to check how the singles section looked prior to my recent edits, here's a link: Old revision of U2 discography. — Mayast (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree with removing a few countries/charts, but I would like to point out that the guideline says, "A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested". I think for a band like U2, one of the most prominent groups in the world, it can be argued that an exception could be made. I'd like to see what others think. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most discography articles for "high-profile" artists stick to 10 charts, eg. Beyoncé, Justin Timberlake, Rihanna, Madonna albums/singles, Jay-Z, Metallica, Blur, Coldplay, Radiohead, Depeche Mode, Kings of Leon, etc. In some cases, eg. Sting and The Beatles, the number of charts for albums/singles is even lower, and in some other articles the discography tables haven't been updated to the new format yet (like Nirvana discography). By the "new format" I mean the format proposed in WP:DISCOGSTYLE#Samples, with an objective to follow WP:ACCESS. But I'm also curious what others think. — Mayast (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that is some cases making an exception from Wiki guidelines is a good thing, but is there really any particular reason why we would need one here? ;) I think that with 10 charts we are perfectly capable of showing the band's success, while also not allowing the table to become too wide, cluttered and, as a result, less readable. Mayast (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, everyone should stick to the guidelines and it must be 10 countries. 10 countries will show a band's global success adequately and it is much easier to understand for the casual wiki reader (isn't this the main reason that the guidelines were initially set?). If it works for artist like Beyonce, U2 should be no exception whatsoever. "Stop editing like a fan" this is what people mostly get from editors once you trying to insert extra charts, well you all should stop editing like a fan on this page too. Szaboci (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSPLIT

This list is too long for a valid navigation and article buildup. U2 has a vast discography and I believe its high time that we split the list into appropriate lists like: → U2 albums discography, U2 singles disocography and U2 videography. That way content would be preserved easily and is better suited for navigation. We have easy precedence of old acts like Michael Jackson albums discography, Madonna albums discography and Madonna singles discography for a heads up on how they are created. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: Agreed --Jennica✿^{talk / contribs} 08:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be best to start with splitting the discography and videography into two articles for now, and keep the albums and singles together. Any thoughts? And does anyone want to do the splitting? Because unless there are objections, we appear to have consensus.(YouCanDoBetter (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on U2 discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on U2 discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on U2 discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027055206/http://www.u2faqs.com/discography/ to http://www.u2faqs.com/discography/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live from the Point Depot and Live from Paris

Is there a reason why these albums are not included in this discography? Charles Essie (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added Alternative Song peaks

I added peaks from Billboard Alternative Songs, I'm just not quite sure how to add the reference, so I messed up a little. I'll make sure to add it later. I'm also going to add it to the 2000s list and 2010s list if its okay. -- SabreToothCat1134 05:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional singles & other charted songs

Many songs missing from this section: Promo singles Zooropa (1993), Orginal of the Species (2006) off the top of my head. Additionally, many cuts like Wire (1984) and God Part II (1988) charted on the US Mainstream Rock chart.

Someone knowledgeable needs to seriously go through and edit this section. I wish I had the skills to do it. 68.175.59.44 (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to add U2 To Love and Only Love – Deep Dives and B-Sides

Per https://www.udiscovermusic.com/news/u2-to-love-only-love-deep-dives-b-sides/ it seems like this is just a kind of branding of streaming-only remixes? Is this actually an "album"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is merely a program to reissue certain singles that were released in the pre-digital age, remastered and with all the B-sides. It doesn't warrant any mention on the discography. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's what I figured. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to Re-Assemble an Atomic Bomb

Not sure if this goes under Studio albums or Compilation albums... SethWhales^talk 12:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't feel like it should be included in either. I've created a new section for it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]