Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines/Archive 1

message: Hi,
I think the main issue we should solve is: how does this project relate to WikiProject Composers? Composers are musicians/musical artists, so is it the intent for this to be a super-project of Composers? --Gennaro Prota 23:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feed back. I'm going to move this discussion to the top-level talk page since it's Project-wide. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#"Musical Artists" and "Composers" B.Mearns*, KSC 16:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Musical Artists" and "Composers" 

message: :About salary, I dont have a strong opinion, but I think it's a highly unreliable piece of information. I've always had doubts about salaries of singers, actors, football players etc. reported by newspapers and magazines (i.e. I think they earn even more than what is declared :)). How could the information be verifiable?
::Good point. I don't have particularly strong feelings about this either, except that it struck as kind of odd, only because it's nothing I personally could imagine caring about. But I'd say if someone can come up with a reliable and verifiable source, I'd support it. B.Mearns*, KSC 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not something that should be in an opening infobox on a group (or other musical act). --FuriousFreddy 16:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? How could you decide if joining that group or not?? ;) --Gennaro Prota 17:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the RIAA only applies to the US, and it's difficult to get accurate record sales information for the rest of the world. There's no use in listing dubious information. --FuriousFreddy 17:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was actually (intended to be) humorous. Sorry if it didn't come out very well. A few lines above you may see that I agree with you. --Gennaro Prota 19:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Sorry. My humor functions aren't working today :( --FuriousFreddy 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salary, RIAA cert 

message: Currently there's many infobox related to musicians: Template:Infobox musical artist 2, Template:Infobox musical artist and Template:Infobox Band (tell me if there's more). While  is not used (I'll nominate it for deletion), could we agree on one infobox for bands between the two others templates in order to use just one type of infobox for all musicians articles? CG 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The goal is to work towards standarization of 2 (see above), but there are still issues being discussed (and not getting very much discussion, hence the enormous delay). Even with that, there's still the issue of convincing the people who prefer the old Infobox band. –Unint 21:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which infobox to use 

message: Can the "musical artist" text be removed from the box? It should be obvious what the page is about from the opening sentence - I mean, you don't see "TV  Show", "video game" or "FILM" appearing on those respective templates. Also it doesn't makes sense if you use it on a band page. (Though I'd argue separate Band and Artist infoboxes are better, anyway.) --SevereTireDamage 22:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the "musical artist" is a bit silly. Could we replace it with "solo singer", "band" "orchestra"... as defined by the "Background" field, or specify a new field for it. And I prefer we have one standarised infobox for all musical artists. CG 08:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I was trying to see if I could implement this earlier, but was scared of breaking the template. Do we just add it, or do we somehow try to tie it in with the color selector? Also, this infobox is designed to accomodate both bands and artists.--FuriousFreddy 08:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Musical Artist" text - necessary? 

message: I have requested comment on the template. User lividly disagrees with the "current" and "past members" formatting; he apparently wants the allowance of special designation for the "most important lineup" a band had by changing "current memebers" to just "members" (and therefore reverted my update at Nirvana (band), because he likes Template:Infobox Band better). However, changing this would create a serious issue of editors waring over which lineup of an act is the "most important" and which isn't (just imagine what would happen with, say, Menudo, or Destiny's Child, or New Edition, or The Spinners)?
We discussed earlier the problems of misuse of fields that could potentially cause edit wars in the template before, as when we removed the "notable songs" and "notable albums" sections. But, if it is believed that we could do okay with a change, then we can try it. Everyone should weigh in on the talk page with their opinion.--FuriousFreddy 08:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on [[Template:Infobox musical artist]] 

message: *1990: Mariah Carey
*1991: Emotions
*1992: MTV Unplugged
*1993: Music Box
*1994: Merry Christmas
Comments:
*Support conditionally only in the case of artists who have there own discrography pages. Otherwise this is just too little info.--Esprit15d 14:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Method 1

message: Rejected proposal. Click [Show] on the right to see comments.
Albums
* 1967: A Whole New Thing
* 1968: Dance to the Music
* 1968: Life
* 1969: Stand!
* 1970: Greatest Hits
Comments:
*Reject. Too little info, and not very attractive.--Esprit15d 14:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Method 2


message: Year	Album              	US	UK
1999	The White Stripes  	- 	-
2000	De Stijl           	- 	-
2001	White Blood Cells  	61	55
2003	Elephant           	6 	1
2005	Get Behind Me Satan	3 	3
Comments:
*Support. Informative and simple.--Esprit15d 14:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would easily work for me and thanks for finding an example of it Heaven's Wrath. Thanks -Patman2648 04:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Method 3

message: Rejected proposal. Click [Show] on the right to see comments.
*Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols (28 October 1977) # 1 UK, # 106 US
*The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle (26 February 1979) # 7 UK
*Some Product: Carri on Sex Pistols (interviews and radio spots) (27 July 1979) # 6 UK
*Flogging a Dead Horse (compilation) (16 February 1980) # 23 UK
Comments:
*Reject.  Cluttered.--Esprit15d 14:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Method 4


message: Rejected proposal. Click [Show] on the right to see comments.
Image:Nocover.png|
Image:Nocover.png|
Comments:
*Support.  My favorite for albums, but too cluttered for singles.--Esprit15d 14:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Method 5


message: Rejected proposal. Click [Show] on the right to see comments.
Album     	Information	Information         	Information
Color Key:	Pink: EP   	Yellow: Studio Album	Green: Live Album</font>
          	
*Indie EP.
*Released: 1999
*Label Release: 2002
*US chart peak position: #22	
*Indie EP.
*Released: 1999
*Label Release: 2002
*US chart peak position: #22	
*Indie EP.
*Released: 1999
*Label Release: 2002
*US chart peak position: #22
          	
*Studio album.
*Released: September 18, 2001.
*US chart peak position: #8
*USA: 4x Platinum
*(Dual disc re-release) (2005)	
*Studio album.
*Released: September 18, 2001.
*US chart peak position: #8
*USA: 4x Platinum
*(Dual disc re-release) (2005)	
*Studio album.
*Released: September 18, 2001.
*US chart peak position: #8
*USA: 4x Platinum
*(Dual disc re-release) (2005)
          	
*Double disc live album.
*Released: February 11, 2003.
*US chart peak position: #17
*USA: Platinum
*Double disc album.	
*Double disc live album.
*Released: February 11, 2003.
*US chart peak position: #17
*USA: Platinum
*Double disc album.	
*Double disc live album.
*Released: February 11, 2003.
*US chart peak position: #17
*USA: Platinum
*Double disc album.
Comments:
*Strong reject. Absolutely too cluttered.  Yikes! Maybe for a discography page, but for a normal artist page it's a Christmas tree on the dining room table. --Esprit15d 14:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Method 6


message: Rejected proposal. Click [Show] on the right to see comments.





Comments:
*Reject. Looks to dominant to me.  More appropriate for a discography page.--Esprit15d 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Method 7


message: Not sure if these deserve their own sections:
* Small table with images: e.g. Genesis discography (refers to the edit linked, not the current page).
*Comment.  I would say not, since this is soley discography page.  We aren't really forming a policy for such pages.  And that chart is extremely detailed.--Esprit15d 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Method 8

message: *There's a difference between supporting the format versus supporting the amount/types of info included.  We also have to decide upon order of data.  Method 3 and 8 are actually pretty similiar.  Ideally like to see the style of the Genesis discography, but with the columns listed in order:  "Year, Album (pic then name), Singles, Charts (singles), Charts (album), Worldwide Sales". --geekyßroad. meow? 02:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Adding to that, I think the style should also depend on the artist's...notability. --Snaxe920 20:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments

message: I'm starting a subsection on fair use of record covers because, frankly, there is unresolved contention on this issue. (I don't purport to be a copyright man, just an aggregator of the discussion.) Some places where this has come up:
* Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD. Proposed article guidelines for our parent WikiProject (and as a point of relevance, there are quite a few points on musician articles). See /Discography #2 for the only piece of developing policy available (AFAIK) on fair use images in discographies.
* Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The KLF discography. This will set precedence for the criteria a discography must pass to become a featured list; currently it remains to be seen whether removal of all record covers will be one such requirement.
* Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. Another discussion brought up at the FL nomination.
Granted, the latter two deal more with full-fledged discography articles, but I think the principle is the same. –Unint 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The fair use discussion

message: To go along with this discussion, we should probably come to a consensus about dividing the discography into sections, or deciding how or if we want to distinguish them from each other.
# Divided
#* Use sub-headers to differentiate between album types.
#* See: Dispatch, 3 Doors Down
# No distinguishment
#* See: Counting Crows
# Provide text after title
#* See: Sex Pistols
Comments:
* Support #1 Organized, easy to distinguish album types.  -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  15:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Albums: Studio vs. Live vs. Compilation

message: This idea might be better suited to use a timeline.  I fiddled around with the extension meta:EasyTimeline.  I began to create a timeline for Eric Clapton.
:Example Timeline
The green is before he joined a band (childhood), the red is his group-oriented career, and the yellow is his solo career.  This method does slow down the page and still is not amazingly easy-to-read.  I tried linking to the bands, but it messes the formatting up.  To fix it, I would have to make a new entry for when a new band was formed and when a band was broke up.  (But it is possible.) -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  22:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how I can explain the 'need' anymore or better than I already have.  I hope you have read all of my above comments.  If you have a specific question, then please ask.  --luckymustard 22:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method 3 

message: Comments:
* Neutral I do not really see the need for this type of method, since it is pretty complex for the little bit of info that is being diplayed.  This info is almost already in the infobox, or should be, except for the dates.  --luckymustard 12:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method 5 

message: This method to be used in band article or sub-article.
Comments:
* Neutral I see/envision that using this method will get too big for even it's own article with all the band members of the offshoot bands.  So it would make more sense to not have any members listed in the boxes containing the offshoot bands.  So I'll try Method 7.  --luckymustard 12:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method 6 

message: This method to be used in band article or sub-article.
Comments:
*Support. I sure am liking this one the best.  --luckymustard 20:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim, you said that maybe there should be something that says "where the subject is in the 'Tree'".  Are you talking about the band's name or the band member's name?  So for the above tree, method 7, it would say "The Beatles", or for method 1 it would say "Paul McCartney"?  That's sounds like a title, which of course these would have, they would be the article's name that they're in.  Then when you talk about "a group be formed to create said tree and maintain it" it seems to me like you're thinking that there would be one master tree containing all bands and band members ever and they would all be linked.  That is not my intention, essentially because that would be too big.  Please let me know if I am understanding you correctly.  Thanks.  --luckymustard 14:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought was there would be a large tree, maybe two, one defining every band/artist, and the other for just artists (a solo career could be considered band-like). Then, the article could be of a person or group, and would say, "In the 'Rock Tree,' their position is HERE, or next to so-and-so and so-and-so." And this could be linked to, and yes it would be large, and thus would need a group to take care of it. At present, I'm not sure if it would be viewable on the whole, considering bandwidth and the common PCs used for browsing the Internet (would they all be capable of viewing such a large file? Perhaps a 'panning' Flash file - well, that's just a thought). The creation of a large, all-encompassing tree, seems to be the only option here so that an article posting about the Tree could be justified; it would be the proof. Jimcripps 17:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your support.  Please go to User:Eric Jack Nash/Sandbox/BeatlesTree to check out an almost completed version of this tree using this method.  My thoughts are to replace The Beatles line-ups with this.  --luckymustard 22:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, it got really quiet here over the last few days.  Well, as you may have already seen, I updated The Beatles line-ups with the tree that I started here and continued to create in my sandbox.  Hope it's OK.  Thank you all for all your help.  I'll continue to create these trees in other articles as I have time.  Again, thanks.  --luckymustard 18:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh. Should have kept WP:BEATLES in touch with this development really - this ought to have gone out in the newsletter as a "funky" project development :). I like it, but it gets a bit confusing post-62. Also, if other bands are to be mentioned (Wings and Plastic Ono are on then) then you've got a major ommission - Traveling Wilburys. --kingboyk 01:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method 7 

message: At some point sombody made , which is just silly what with us having had this whole discussion already. It hasn't really caught on (I imagine people notice that it's a considerable waste of space), but I'm leaving a note here for future reference. –Unint 06:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally disagree with this template.--Tasco 0 20:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography update 

message: Hi I am still new here so I would like to see what the feeling is on this topic. I have an artist with a common name and to disambiguate him should I add the title (musician) or (singer)? I am asking because I have seen artists named with either of the titles (or other specific titles like (guitarist)) on many pages. I believe the feeling is to label him as (musician) but is that a solid rule or just up to each persons discretion? My apologies if this is a well known rule and I just missed it somewhere. ThanksSolonyc 21:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is not an article already created with that name, then do not preemptively disambiguate the article, just create the page with his/her name as the title.  Otherwise, you should add the (musician) to the end of the title and add a "did you mean" template on the top of the article with just the person's name.  (see WP:DAB)  That was a little confusing, so just post the article if you need some more help.  – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that pretty much confirms that I should put (musician) after his name. I was not preemptively disambiguating, the artist goes by a first name on his releases and credits so I need to do something. It is just that I have seen many artists with (guitarist) or (drummer) or (singer) after their name. In my opinion that is a mistake as there should be another way to differentiate from artists with the same name like (British musician) etc... Maybe one day there will be a standardization. Thanks again Solonyc 23:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming artist 

message: I think conventions for how articles get named might be a good restart to this discussion. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Style for details. Zytsef (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style guidelines 

message: There is an artist, Ian Najdzionek, that has released many albums on multiple record labels. The only thing is he has released records under a number of different names, including "Sisters Freed From Bondage", "Khold Void", "Larvae Temple", "Horse Latitudes", and recently "Tezcatzontecatl". What should the title of the page be? -Violask81976 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest picking one name (maybe his birth name, or the name that's most famous) and using that, listing the other names in the "Alias" field. See Aphex Twin, for an example. Zytsef (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prolific Artist Under many Names 

message: I'm running into what might be the beginning of an edit war on a page I edit, Axl Rose. A new user is repeatedly removing the artist's upcoming album, Chinese Democracy, from the discography, claiming that it "doesn't exist" because it has not yet been released. While there is no release date for the album and it's become a bit of a running joke, it does have a label and ample citations to prove it exists and will be released in the future, and the article on the album is A-class and well-referenced.
I've cited WP:CRYSTAL (ie, future events can be discussed if they are cited) and from what I've seen on other pages, it's pretty standard to include an artist's upcoming release in the discography if it can be properly sourced and verified. SOme official insight from the Wikiprojectm or any help, would be appreciated, though. Thanks! DanielEng (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography question 

message: Hi, curious what people here think about including information about the equipment that a musician uses to get his or her "tone".  I've seen this issue go both ways on articles and I think it would be good for there to be a more official policy.  I, as an electric guitarist, an instrument with infinite tonal possibilities, find it very helpful to have this information available, especially if it specifies which recordings the gear in question was used on.  Steve CarlsonTalk 23:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The main concern is verifiability. For the great majority of artists this information is not available or extremely difficult to get ahold of (and thus hard to verify or maybe even original research). For the artists with verifiable information is available, equipment should be included. Most articles probably won't and shouldn't have any equipment info, though. Therefore I don't think we need a guideline on it. Zytsef (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about verifiability being important, but there are definitely some musicians that sources can be found for.  The reason I want a specific policy is twofold: first, I want something to point to when the non-musicians decide its crap and just delete it, and second, I want to highlight the importance of mentioning which recordings gear was used on so it is relatively clear how the artist achieved their tone on any particular album/song.  Look at David Gilmour for a classic example of lists and lists of gear without context - if he used all that gear at the same time, it would sound like mush!  But it would be helpful to know whether he used his signature Strat on Dark Side of the Moon, for example. It would also be cool to standardize on a format for this, as prose can get a little dense, while a list doesn't adequately capture what gear was used on what recording.  Steve CarlsonTalk 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like some of the information could be shifted to articles on specific albums and songs (if they exist). Some of these articles are pretty bare so I'm sure the extra content will be appreciated. As you can see the guidelines here haven't been actively developed in a few years and never really achieved a very well defined form so I'm not sure how much good a guideline here will do you in situations with equipment information getting deleted. The best I can say it make sure the information is well cited and if someone comes along to delete it get a third opinion. I'm available for this if you leave a note on my talk page. Most of the time deleting well cited information is considered bad form. If you're still set on turning this into a guideline I'd like to hear from a few other contributors to this project. Zytsef (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a bit of back and forth with this issue myself in the Adam Willard article. A couple of editors have added long list sections of "gear used" without any references, and I reverted it as unverified and because it really cluttered up the article. I'd actually like to have a section in there about the instruments and equipment he has used over the years, as it would certainly be informative and add meaningful content to the article. However, I don't think it's a good idea to list every piece of equipment he's ever used, as it would be an incredibly long and cluttered list (and of course it must be referenced). I think the best way to include this information is in a section of referenced prose. That way you can discuss how the musician's equipment has changed over time to produce different sounds and meet different recording needs. You can focus on the most important stuff and touch on what equipment they are currently using, if they are active. A list doesn't really tell you why any of it is important, nor how the musician uses that equipment to produce a particular sound. A couple of paragraphs of prose, however, would be able to explain this very well. As for explaining what they used on each album, I agree with Zytsef that that kind of information is best summarized in the individual album articles. Otherwise with most musicians who release a lot of albums the list would be unnecessarily long. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equipment/Gear? 

message: This page hasn't been active for months, so I'm hoping someone will notice this & we can discuss it. I'd like to create a guideline for using links to interviews in articles. I'm sure we've all seen articles that have several to even a dozen or more links to interviews in the External links section. I tend to cut these wherever possible, because they fail WP:NOT#LINK and WP:EL. Essentially, if an interview has some kind of useful or crucial information that is relevant to the article, then it should be used as a reference and the interview should be linked via a citation. If it's not worth citing as a reference, then it really doesn't have any useful information beyond what the article has already. After all, most notable musical artists have given dozens of interviews over the course of their career, and there's almost no discernible value to listing them all as external links. Basically I envision a guidline like this:
Interviews, such as those published in magazines and online music journals, can be valuable sources of information on a musical artist. However, Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and linking numerous interviews in an "External links" section is not useful to a reader. Avoid adding links to interviews in External links sections, and instead find ways to incorporate information from the interview into the body of the article, linking the interview in an accompanying citation.
Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the last sentence a little redundant? I like the idea behind it, but why aren't WP:NOT#LINK and WP:EL enough to take care of this issue? Kaldari (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a little redundant to NOT#LINK/EL, but since we have article guidelines for our specific are of focus (musicians), I thought it would be a good idea to explain specifically how this applies to those articles. I frequently get into discussions over the "External links section as a linkfarm for interviews" issue and have to explain repeatedly how NOT#LINK and EL apply to the issue. If we could summarize it here in our guidelines, then we could show that the project has a particular consensus with respect to this issue. I mean, we have WP:MUSICSTYLE even though it's more or less redundant to WP:DAB, WP:MOS, etc. Part of the point of a project is to streamline particular sets of articles under common style guidelines, applying Wikipedia's core policies & guidelines to those particular article sets. Our guidelines don't cover very much in the way of specifics at the moment. You're probably right about the redunancy...I've reworded it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I support the guideline with the updated wording. Anything that helps cut down EL lists is probably a good idea :) Kaldari (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as there's been no further comment in 8 months, I'm going to add this wording to the page. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interviews 

message: Question -- I wrote an article on a band, and an editor redlinked their debut (and so far only) CD (just released).  So I created an album page.  That editor then contacted another editor, who is now seeking to delete both the band page and the album page.
Question -- I'm fine with deleting the album page, if I am allowed to move the songs info and the album cover image to the band page.  Am I allowed to reflect the album cover on the band page, and the song tracks under a discography section on the band page, if I do so?  And also redirect album searches to that page?
Many thanks. (flustered and flabbergasted)--VMAsNYC (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album; Discography and album cover image move 

message: If an artist doesn't have a discography article, does the discography section of the artist's page still need to follow these guidelines? Or can it include other things such as singles released, compilation albums, etc? Thanks.  Eugeniu B +1-contribs- 01:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no separate discography article, then the discography section of the artist article should contain as much verifiable information about the artist's releases as possible (including singles, EPs, etc.). If the artist's discography is large enough to merit a separate article, then the discography section of the artist article is typically reduced to just a list of studio albums, with a  link to the separate discography article (per WP:SS). --IllaZilla (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the artist doesn't have a separate discography article, feel free to follow MOS:DISCOG (rather than the guidelines here) within the section. Kaldari (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What I want to know and what I believe Eugeniu B wants to know is if you are able to list the track listing of said releases in the artist article as was done in the One Ok Rock article. Because all of their releases (albums, singles and EPs ) are already listed there. Eugeniu B, however wants to include the track list for the singles and EPs. MS (Talk|Contributions) 01:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. But I was also interested in what guideline should be followed when there is no discography article. Thanks for answering my question Kaldari.  Eugeniu B +1 02:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography sections not pointing to discography articles