Help talk:Adding New Artists
song titles on artist page?
do we really want all the song titles on the artist page? this really nullifies the usefulness of album pages. --MindlessXD 18:23, 29 December 2005 (PST)
- I've had trouble thinking about that, I -do- like the entire discography on one page, but, I like the pretty arrangement including album art. I tested album art on one of the queen pages, I don't quite like the effect adding the album art has on the entire discography thing. It's for sure something open for discussion. As well, having the individual album pages allows for a cleaner sorting by category. It may be slightly (mostly) redundant, but, it also depends on what exactly your after. The complete discography pages have little that can be added to them. But, since it's an 'artist' titled page that lists the discography, general information about the band can be on that page. The specific album pages, aside from tracklists, can house a multitude of other information, such as who wrote the individual songs, the band members in the band at the time of the song. (As well, forgive me, I've been using Artist and Band interchangeably). It's kind of segmentation that's slightly redundant, but, in my own opinion keeps some more structure. Might not be needed, as I've been questioning that myself, but, I -like- the album pages ;P if that makes any sense. --Nanenj 18:47, 29 December 2005 (PST)
- One thing to add to this, is something I've realized whilst editing tons of stuff ;). It's very easy to revert changes, move stuff around, etc. If the general consensus is to do something different then the above, it can easily be changed. There's only a few things I think I'm almost certain about, but, I'm sure even those I could be persuaded given the pros and cons. --Nanenj 18:50, 29 December 2005 (PST)
- Yay, yet another consecutive comment for me ;). Two people I've talked to about this have actually asked why we don't use both discographies x.X? It's something I haven't even thought of... This would be a prettier way of having an artist's own discography table of contents instead of the long list of links that shows up because of the == Header == used in the long discography versions. I'm not too sure on this, but, figured since it's been suggested twice, it's something worth tossing out for consideration. --Nanenj 00:24, 31 December 2005 (PST)
- I'm not sure what you mean "use both discographies". --MindlessXD 08:04, 31 December 2005 (PST)
- I got here because I was thinking the same thing... why list song titles on the artist page. I think it would make sense to have a list of albums on the artist page and then the lost of songs on the album page. So thats my input :) Bailey 18:21, 22 January 2006 (PST)
- Most of the artist pages I've done are using short discography. I'm not sure why long discography has been adopted by most entries despite the debate and popular opinion that the short ones make more sense :P. To be entirely honest, it doesn't matter much to me what way is decided on, there's a question asking this somewhere, and most that answered said short. :P To Mindless, Both was a suggestion of having a preceding list of albums, much like the TOC provides. It didn't make much sense to me then, and still doesn't. But, when I get suggestions I feel they need to be stated anyways. --Nanenj 10:30, 27 January 2006 (PST)
Well, for giggles, I updated the Queen page to include both the short and long discographies, so you can see how it looks. I also included a couple of mini-album covers in the long section. Let me know how you think it looks. I'm still a fan of the short discog, but I thought it'd be handy to see how this actually looks. Also, I sorted the albums by year, before I realized they were in alphabetical order. However, I think year is the more standard way for albums to be listed, so... --risser 06:57, 20 February 2006 (PST)
- How should be handle non-album tracks? I don't think there should be a seperate page for them, but instead they should be listed below the discography. What does everyone else think? --MindlessXD 15:58, 20 February 2006 (PST)
- I agree, non-album, remixes, B-Sides, etc. shouldn't have a seperate page (unless you're doing the short discography, then you'll be forced to do it =P). Like how ohhla do it ;)--268229 22:43, 20 February 2006 (PST)
- Technically speaking, is there such a thing as a non-album track? I mean, it must have come from SOMEWHERE, even if it's the B-Side of a single, the second track on a CD Single or 12-inch EP or a new track on a greatest hits comp. I suppose in this day and age of digital downloads, it's possible to get a track that has no context whatsoever, but that's pretty unusual. (Or, you may just not know where it comes from...) We may want to expand the Discography to have different sections (similar to AllMusic): Albums, Artist Compilations, Various Artist Compilations, Singles and EPs, non-Album Tracks.
- One other thing to consider might be, why keep album info at all? If this is really about song-lyrics, then any album data could be considered superfluous, except that which is necessary to distinguish 2 versions of a song. I mean, in the Queen example, we could simply list every Queen song in alphabetical order. Why bother presenting a discography?
- Now, I like the discography, but there are already several discography sites available, including AllMusic, MusicBrainz and others, who are way far ahead of us. So, do we really want to get into the discography business? Or should we concentrate on songs and song lyrics? Or, should we split the difference and include discographies, but keep them "unofficial" with the emphasis on song lyrics?
- I don't know. Just kicking ideas around. --risser 06:32, 21 February 2006 (PST)
- Context helps people find the lyrics they want and it helps them search for related information. The nicething about the whole wioki thing is that if your entering song information , you don't have to put in the album details but if someone wants to come along behind and include it... all the more power. I also think context is great and I would like to see more. I would like to have categories on the year the song was released and even a genre category ( ie 1987 alternative bands )but thats me --Bailey 11:22, 22 February 2006 (PST)
So, have we all decided that we are going to the "short discography" (no songs on the artist page)? That's what it seems like. In either case, I'd like to settle this debate once and for all. What say we?
proposal for a change to artist information layout
After messing around with some artist pages (specifically Iron Maiden) I'd like to suggest changing
== Artist Info == Website: [url url] place additional artist information here == [[Artist:Album (Year)|Album]] == # [[Artist:Song|]] # [[Artist:Song|]] # [[Artist:Song|]] # [[Artist:Song|]] [[Category:Artists]] [[Category:Artists:Letter]]
== Artist Info == Website: [url url] place additional artist information here == Discography == === [[Artist:Album (Year)|Album]] === # [[Artist:Song|]] # [[Artist:Song|]] # [[Artist:Song|]] # [[Artist:Song|]] [[Category:Artists]] [[Category:Artists:Letter]]
I think this increases the consistency between the two type of artist pages as well as looking better with a large number of albums. Also I added a template to create a floating TOC, an artist page wityh a lot of albums loses information if the TOC isn't floating. Once again Iron Maiden being the example Bailey 10:43, 27 January 2006 (PST)
- I see no reason for anyone to disagree with that change. --MindlessXD 15:01, 27 January 2006 (PST)--
I think I just realized where the idea of putting the list of songs came from, and I'm betting it's cause the guides still have both format's listed with that one first. The format I favor is actually...
== Artist Info == Website: [url url] place additional artist information here == Discography == * Year [[Artist:Album (Year)|Album]] * Year [[Artist:Album (Year)|Album]] * Year [[Artist:Album (Year)|Album]]
Okay, I updated the help page for artists a bit. Primarily, I added sections for Members/Member Of and more detailed discographies. Also, I reconfigured the "Alternate Template" section as an "Alternate Discography" instead, which is really what it is, as the rest of the template stays the same. I kinda updated this based on stuff I'd done and stuff I've seen others do, so if you want to change something, have at it. Thanks! --risser 06:03, 9 March 2006 (PST)
- Here's the thing. I don't like Various Artists as a sub-group of albums. It looks dumb. But, it doesn't make sense to have "Compilations" for single artist comps and also for multi-artist comps. But, I was thinking, what about "Collections" for single artist comps, like greatest hits or box sets, and "Compilations & Soundtracks" for multi-artist comps? I like it, but it seems like an arbitrary distinction. Anyone? --risser 07:40, 9 March 2006 (PST)
Which comes first? Green Day or Adam Green (Green, Adam)? Or, how would you order these: Green Day, Adam Green, Gary Green. My initial take is GREEN, ADAM; GREEN, GARY; GREEN DAY, but I don't know for sure. Part of the problem is, space comes before comma in the character set, so 'GREEN ' comes before 'GREEN,'. Really, it probably doesn't matter too much because they'll all be in about the right place. Still, any suggestions? --risser 20:08, 10 March 2006 (PST)
- I would go for leaving the comma off. --MindlessXD 08:52, 11 March 2006 (PST)
- So you're saying: Adam Green, Green Day, Gary Green? --risser 19:27, 12 March 2006 (PST)
- Green Adam; Green Day; and Green Gary. --MindlessXD 04:29, 13 March 2006 (PST)
- I believe you should link to them as their full name, but when applying the sorting to a link, you should probably type it as Green Gary or Green Adam. Just leave the ',' out.
- I can go with that. Again, they'll all be in the right area no matter what. I'm just looking for consistency. I'll add something to the front page. --risser 04:31, 13 March 2006 (PST)
Is there some way we could tie directly into the Wikipedia? For most of the bands, they already have a comprehensive discography. And if they don't, we could add one there. If we could just use their existing links and add links from there to the Lyriki, we'd avoid the necessity of having the data in two places and having to copy it all over from there. Does that make sense? Just wondering. --risser 11:19, 15 March 2006 (PST)
- If Lyriki were truly a related project like wikibooks or wikiquotes upon which Wikipedia often refers people to for certain items. That would make sense, but considering the seperated nature of Lyriki, it makes sense for Lyriki to have all the data neccessary to flesh out the articles on it's own. My two cents :) --Nanenj 13:03, 15 March 2006 (PST)