Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines

Music Project	WikiProject Musicians Discussion							Music Portal
	To Do	Guidelines	1.0 Assessment	Stubs	Infobox	Navbox	Categories
	Discuss	Discuss	Discuss	Discuss	Discuss	Discuss	Discuss

EPs and other releases

"Live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be included."

Just a quick reference so that I don't come off as some random vandal, I've been contributing to Wikipedia for almost 15 years. I've never joined any WikiProject groups or signed up for any other collaborations. With that being said, going to these lengths is a rarity for me, but I feel like this needs to be more generally recognized, as a broad guideline.

As you're all aware, almost every artist page has a small Discography section towards the bottom. Typically, on this Discography section, it will list off the artist's major releases; however, there has been some confusion on what a "major release" is. Some literalists on Wikipedia interpret it as full-length albums only, and nothing else. I disagree with this heavily. Every single artist is different. As per WikiProject Discographies style: "In an ideal situation however, any deviations from the guidelines should be with a clear purpose that is unique to the particular artist and situation in question."

• In many cases, an artist may release an EP, but treat it as a full-length release. An example would be Guns N' Roses releasing the 1988 EP G N' R Lies. As many sources have confirmed, Lies was marketed as a proper album by the band, despite its length. In addition, all 8 tracks on the EP are new songs, and not remixes or re-recordings (although the first 4 songs are labeled as live, in reality, they were recorded in a studio). So, Lies is included on their main page, between their debut album and their double album.

Every artist is different, and by no means should the guideline restrict certain releases. I think rather, the statement should be expanded upon. It should describe that if certain criteria are met, then certain releases can be included in the list. I believe the criteria should be as follows:

-The majority (75% or more) of the release has new songs on it. No remixes, re-recordings, live versions, or demos.

-When the release came out, it was marketed or treated as a proper album. No "promo only" or "limited edition" tactics.

-It helps if the artist decided to tour around the release, but because of limitations, not required.

-If there were singles or music videos released separately for songs on the release. That gives the release credibility, and is used as a foundation for these projects, just like a usual full-length album would.

-The length is more than 15 to 20 minutes. As per the UK Chart Supervisory Committee, anything under 20 minutes is considered either a maxi single or a regular single. As per the U.S. Recording Academy, anything under 15 minutes and 4 different songs or less is considered a single (anything over 15 minutes and 5 songs, RIAA actually considers it an album, and does not mention EPs, thus fueling my statements).

I'm hoping everyone can understand what I'm trying to generalize here. If there is a collective agreement (or if nobody at all responds, which is also very possible), within the next month or so, I'm gonna refer to this statement as a reference, when editing certain Discography sections. As per the 5th pillar of Wikipedia, we have no firm rules. I'm gonna include some more examples below, in case anyone is still in limbo. Thank you for reading my rants.

• Nine Inch Nails released an EP in 1992 called Broken. It was treated as a major release in 1992. It had many promo singles and music videos made. All 8 songs on the EP were brand new. 1 song even won a Grammy. It was listed under the Discography section, until around 2016. After 2016, NIN released 2 more EPs (with the same criteria as Broken actually), and 1 full-length. That's when Broken was taken off. The 2 new EPs was excluded as well. All 3 EPs should be listed alongside the other full-length albums, because of their importance and matching the criteria.

• Limp Bizkit released an EP in 2005 called The Unquestionable Truth (Part 1). The band had a music video made, and it was marketed as an actual album, as it was released by the same major label, and charted on the same charts their full-length albums did. All 7 songs are new. It should be listed under their Discography section, because without it, the gap between their Results May Vary and Gold Cobra albums is larger, and a crucial part of their history is missing. Section 1.6 of their band history even has the EP in its section title, yet for some inane reason, it's not included on the list?

• Alice in Chains released an EP in 1994 called Jar of Flies. Not only were music videos made, and singles charted, and every song was new, this was the first ever EP in history to reach #1 on Billboard's charts. It should be listed under their Discography list. As should their 1992 EP Sap.

• Soundgarden released 2 EPs early in their career. Both were pretty crucial to their history; however, the band released the 2 EPs as a compilation titled Screaming Life/Fopp shortly after. Rightfully so, neither the EPs or the compilation is listed under their Discography section. This is an example of why a release wouldn't fit the criteria.

• Marilyn Manson released the 1995 EP Smells Like Children. It was marketed heavily upon release, and also had a hit single as well, becoming the band's first mainstream charting song. The criteria gets murky however, as there are remixes on this release. This can go either way. From my personal standpoint, I think it should be included under Discography. But I can understand why it wouldn't be.

• Twiztid released the 2002 EP Mirror Mirror. They toured extensively behind it, every song is brand new, and they treated it as a proper album upon release; however, purely because of time limitations, it is not classified as a full-length. It should be included under their Discography section. It can be a bit confusing with an extensive discography like theirs', though. Their 2003 EP 4 Tha Fam was a promo disc only, and should not be included. Their 2013 EP (but also classified as a mixtape, for some reason) A New Nightmare was their first release on their own label, and met other criteria, and should be included. This artist is a perfect example of the "every artist and their releases are different" statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanarki (talk • contribs) 19:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

First, the article guideline isn't one; it's only an essay right now.

Second, every case should be taken with some degree of conscious consideration. If an EP is important to a band in that it charted well or established the band, that should be discussed in prose, and listed in the discography article, but let local consensus determine if it needs to be listed in the discography section of the subject's article. You can argue for the minority cases all you want, but most EPs, live albums and compilations do not belong, and I do not think we need to modify the wording. I think we need to promote that essay to a guideline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the wording 100% needs to be modified. Actually, you're agreeing with me, with the fact that every case needs to be discussed within itself. In that case, for this essay (which I didn't realize wasn't a guideline, sorry), something along the lines of "Live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be included; however, the inclusion of such releases should be discussed on the article's page."

From previous problems in the past, I've had people point towards this very page, and other guidelines, that releases should not be included purely based on what is said here. That's why I'm asking for things to be changed a bit.Xanarki (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I'm agreeing with you on this. You want to add wording to allow for exceptions and it seems to me that the exceptions do not need to be discussed. I am merely stating that exceptions are understood to be expected based on a reasonable local consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

As to your "previous problems in the past", I suspect that they have little to do with this essay and more to do with lack of convincing proof that an exception should be made. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, as I'll be honest, I never participated in any of the discussions until recently. But from my observations, those exceptions are NOT vastly understood and expected as you implied. If anything, a simple "inclusions should be discussed" wording would be nice to add, for clarification purposes. If not, then at least this discussion right here is at least something to point towards. Something, anything, is better than nothing. That's what I'm trying to get across, because there is nothing else on Wikipedia that has discussed this before except on individual articles. And since every article is different, someone can't point to that as a reference. So welp, here we are.Xanarki (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Discography Question

Hi so I have a question regarding artists discography, I’ve been updating the amount of singles that are being released that are “Lead Singles” but a lot of other users have been combining “Lead Singles with Featured Singles” is that the proper way? Now for the template box is the lead singles supposed to be the only number in there or is it supposed to be combined with lead and featured singles? Hope this makes sense. Feel free to take a look at my edit history. It’s kind of hard to explain. Pillowdelight (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Heritage Singers

I don't know much about articles for musical groups, but this seems wrong. It's almost all self-sourced (including Color Press) and looks more like their web page might. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A few secondary sources, but much is primary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Years Active Question

In most all cases Wikipedia musician's pages have ignored when a person actually started playing, practicing, and even early "no-name" bands they may have been involved with. Sometimes, if known, the early years of playing are mentioned in passing. The mark of when Wiki editors mention the start of "active" is usually when someone has commercial success. Is this where it should be?

Sneaking in one more question, without a header... what is "musician-priority="? Jess (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Acceptable sources for discography entries

Moved question to here, input welcome. Acousmana 09:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)