Discographies NA‑class

This page 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 NA This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, due to the Style page being dormant I decided to come here for guidance on this topic. I am trying to edit the Babymetal article to meet the standards and style given by the style article but I'm having a problem, one of the songs has multiple !'s and is effecting the format (see below). Can anyone help me fix this? I have no idea how to solve this at all, thank you. SilentDan (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentDan297: You can use unicode characters to get around this issue. To make a long story short, ! will display as an exclamation mark, but will not be interpreted as part of the table layout, so use that character string instead of an exclamation mark. In other words:

• Headbangeeeeerrrrr!!!!! displays as Headbangeeeeerrrrr!!!!! but breaks the table formatting
• Headbangeeeeerrrrr!!!!! also displays as Headbangeeeeerrrrr!!!!! but does not break the table formatting.

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Eminem discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Discographies articles that would be affected by this action are these:

• Music of Final Fantasy IV

If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Discographies' use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice about Category:Discographies articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, looks like I posted my question on a dormant page but I would appreciate clarification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Track listings. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I know the rules for listing out the track-listing if an album does not have its own article? K-pop articles have been plagued with so many unnecessary details. I look at articles like this Humming Urban Stereo, and it looks nothing more than a directory of songlists to me. This article looks a bit better Brown Eyes (band), but the full songlist is still there. Common sense tells me to go ahead and delete it, but I want to understand more about the rules for this. Thanks.--TerryAlex (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party to say, I want to know too. Often times many of the albums such as those you mention are notable and could have articles (Brown Eyes, certainly), but most kpop editors only care about the brand new idol stuff so only the latter albums get articles, even though they're no more notable and, when you come down to it, their articles have very little content beyond track listings and a few release dates & chart listings. Older Korean albums are really hard to find good info for, though, so it's hard to imagine creating articles for each of them, notable or not. I wanted to cry trying to flesh out album articles for the very, very notable S.E.S. So what I'm saying is that the track listing info is no less notable for albums by someone like Brown Eyes than it is for many of these new idol groups, the only difference is whether someone has taken the time to make an article. The info is just as valid for inclusion on Wikipedia, it's just a case of how are we supposed to include it properly on discographies, be they stand-alone articles or part of an artist's article. I urge you not to wipe out what you've run across (it's a month later, I can see you didn't, ha ha). There's huge temporal bias in kpop articles. :( Would really love some feedback from someone in this wikiproject. From my own archive-digging here, it seems there is no definitive answer, but some discussion would be nice. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I found several discussions about rowspan in this talk page's archives similar to the archives for WP:filmography, I thought it would be appropriate to publicize here the RfC for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#RfC: to amend the table layout consensus to allow rowspan in year column of filmographies. Thank you. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a promotional single was released, but it has two tracks on the CD, how would you display that in the promotional singles section of a discography page? I was thinking there would be a / in between tracks, such as Found a Way (Acoustic)/Found a Way. And actually, should it be counted as a promo single or single? Here is the link to the single. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I nominated Mac DeMarco discography for featured list status a month ago but haven't received any comments/reviews. I would really appreciate it if some of you could take a look at the article and leave your comments here. Thank you :) Littlecarmen (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor who has the book Australian Chart Book 1993–2005 could add the year, peak and reference to Metallica's Kill 'Em All#Charts, it would be greatly appreciated. Piriczki (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix it up soon, but for your information, the David Kent books are based on the Kent Music Report chart, which was only Australia's official chart from May 1974 to 19 June 1988 inclusive. It was then superseded by the ARIA Chart, although the Kent Report chart continued to be published until the late 1990's. "Kill 'Em All" did not enter the top 100 chart in Australia until April 1998 (and did not peak until re-entering in September 2008), so none of David Kent's books would be an appropriate reference. Furthermore, the peak currently listed on the page is wrong (it peaked at #56, not #55).Nqr9 (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, it did actually peak at #55 in Australia (I missed the 1993 albums chart entry listing in Gavin Ryan's book). I've fixed up the reference now.Nqr9 (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Birdman discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Azealia911 _talk 23:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Pink Floyd discography#Recent edits contrary to style guidelines regarding this issue. Project members are invited to comment. Piriczki (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A rewrite of {{Infobox artist discography}} is being proposed. Your comments are invited at Template_talk:Infobox_artist_discography#Style_violations. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those look like valid suggestions. I wonder, though, if there a need for an infobox in a list article? A count of the number of different types of releases doesn't provide much of a summary and isn't particularly informative anyway. The counts are often inaccurate too. Piriczki (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True. A good example is the David Bowie discography. When this infox was added in 2010 (see this version), the number of video albums was listed as 4; now it's 13. That's not because Bowie released new video albums - the most recent is dated 2004. As it is currently used, the infobox seems to be a count of entries in each section (rather than the actual output of the artist), and even that is rarely up to date. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at WT:ALBUM#Upcoming_albums_and_discographies on whether upcoming albums should be included in a discography or not. Please feel free to comment. -- 46.254.186.36 (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music charts articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from here to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Record_Charts and replied. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found something that could be added to Cody Simpson discography, a live collection of songs (called Cody Simpson Live From Sydney) that seems to be exclusive to Spotify, like the Spotify Sessions EPs done by multiple artists like Echosmith. But the thing is, the "album" had 6 songs on it. So would I consider it a live album, an EP, or something different entirely? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the discussion on my talk page, people think singles should be merged in the lead and in the columns listing how many singles. So should they be merged in the charts as well? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a disagreement at Talk:David_Bowie_discography#Singles_Table_is_confusing. Could do with some thoughts from this project. Thanks, Bob Dawson 1966 (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Multiple chart peaks. The discussion needs to be in one place, but I'm open to suggestions as to where is best. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion regarding how Wikipedia should define singles. Please go here to discuss.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interested in helping with Draft:Michael Jackson & The Jacksons – Month To Month Recording Session Guide? It was recently created by a very, very new editor (The Doctor 1170) and he could definitely use some help with this. It's written like a personal blog, is unsourced, and I'm worried that it might be considered too indiscriminate for Wikipedia, but I could maybe see the potential merit in having a recording guide to an artist's work. I'm going to post this in a few places looking for help. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I do not really see the merit of this work. As he notes, a lot of information comes from Wiki sources. That is problematic to start with. Other sources would inevitably be all WP:PRIMARY. Another issue is precedent. I looked at, for instance, the Beatles and Elvis Presley pages and neither have a sessions page, despite the fact that a large amount of studio bootleg material has been released from both artists. That leads me to conclude, that while it certainly is a worth-while effort, an article on Michael Jackson's recording sessions is largely redundant. Karst (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I was afraid of hearing, to be honest. It's why I figured that I'd ask around, just in case I was incorrect, but it looks like my first inclination was correct - it's just a bit too indiscriminate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing the Fugazi discography and I could use some help to see if there are any more areas of the article that can be improved. This is the first discography I've tackled so I welcome any expert advice. Thanks in advance. Vivatheviva (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across a few articles with either separate discography pages or extended lists within the main articles for producers. Some are by not very notable artists and have often been COI'd to give a veneer of self-importance. For notable artists, they're generally more community-edited, but overall I feel they are far too long, often unreferenced and reach the point where we're crossing over into Discogs style database territory. I tried looking into guidance but couldn't find it really so just wanted a bit of clarification of production discography guidelines. Some examples I would like feedback on so I can understand and better contribute are: Teddy Park production discography, Frequency (record producer) and Ryan Tedder discography. Thanks Rayman60 (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For lists such as Babyface discography (I appreciate Babyface is a very well known artist so a discography is apt), the issues in the production discography section I would think that need addressing would be - lack of references, format, selected - who decides what to put - and do we really do things by halves on this project? I thought it's a collection of all worthy knowledge so if it's justified in its inclusion, it's intentionally incomplete by being selected and that doesn't seem right to me. Do we need chart positions? And why are they in such a horrible form? I don't fully understand all the positions, none are referenced and what the damn is '#1 R&B Airplay circa Winter '87' or '#3 FIMI'. I'm not an expert in charts but I'm not oblivious either and I feel readers are being let down by using terminology that isn't clarified. So to follow on from my earlier request for guidance, what would you do in this situation? Leave as is, minor modifications, WP:TNT? I would probably be tempted towards the latter option due to it really needing to be built from the ground up if we can ever justify having an extended production discography of a recording artist when other suitable databases exist (again looking at discogs). I think that's partly down to my philosophies leaning towards deletionism and When Nothing Is Better Than Something although as an outsider to this project, i didn't want to be WP:BOLD when it clearly goes against the general consensus. Any advice on this would help me understand a little more what we're striving towards so my edits when I do come across something are more in line with the greater project's goals. Rayman60 (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A list of records produced by a record producer per definition includes minor successes. A list of releases by a record company, or of artists managed by a certain bureau or person would, too. That's no problem at all. However not all artists are that notable to get an individual article written on them. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Taylor Swift discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the page Shakespears Sister discography, the singles "Dancing Barefoot", "Someone Else's Girl", "Really Saying Something", and "Do I Scare You?" are listed as standard release singles, but none of them actually received a full release, and were released exclusively through the artist's website, shakespearssister.co.uk . Is their listing as singles correct, or are they, by definition, promotional singles or otherwise?--Smenicle (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The latter 3 you mentioned had a physical CD release (I'm not sure about 'Dancing Barefoot'), and none was labelled 'promo only' on the sleeve, so I wouldn't categorise them as that. But I get your point about them not being 'available in the (physical) shops'-type releases. I guess they're kind of similar maybe to exclusive fan-club singles from an earlier era, except people had to buy them from the shop rather than receiving them as some kind of membership/loyalty. Maybe they could be listed in a separate 'Other singles (available exclusively though...)' category - but then this may seem promotional in nature.Nqr9 (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know "Really Saying Something" and "Do I Scare You?" were released physically (wasn't even aware of "Someone Else's Girl"), but since they were also released only through the website, I guess they'd be considered as "Other Singles".--Smenicle (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% certain about "Someone Else's Girl", as I never bought it (and I don't particularly like that track), so I could be wrong. It might be worth checking discogs.com to see if one is listed there (and for 'Dancing Barefoot'). The distinction between what counts and doesn't count as a 'single' these days is murky, with most 'singles' having no physical release.Nqr9 (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous major discography pages list fully commercially released singles as promotional singles, eg. "Almost Said It" on Carly Rae Jepsen discography, which is why I felt that might be the most appropriate to categorise. The distinction certainly is murky.--Smenicle (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no concrete definition of what constitutes a single. I've started two discussions attempting to find a standard to follow on Wikipedia, but both times there was no consensus other than to follow the terminology used by independent reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like both Suzanne Vega discography and Template:Suzanne Vega need some love:

1. The most important problem is how should we count "acoustic" albums, which are kind of studio re-recording of her songs, but gathered around threads, not simply repeating the tracklists from the original albums, so it is also a compilation in some way. I find it hard to place them anywhere in Template:Infobox_artist_discography categories.

2. What about Close-Up Series box set, which contains all of the acoustic albums plus DVD featuring live concert? What kind of Template:Infobox_artist_discography category it is?

3. Which live albums should we count? Currently we have 4 of them, but there are much more of her different live records. Which ones should have a page, which ones should we count, what kind of Template:Infobox_artist_discography category it is (especially considering that some of them are live EP).

--kocio (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with the edits on Buddy Holly template which have been made pretty recently by an user. We have discussed here and we definitely don't agree with it. Could someone give his opinion ? Elfast (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Alyssa Milano discography for featured list status here. I'd appreciate it if any of you could take a look and leave your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The split proposal will affect the status of Pearl Jam discography as Featured List. I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remixes and re-recordings shoukd have their own entry in lists of releases, however concerning re-releases Wikipedia writers don't seem to consider when mentioning them is important, and how. However, a chronology in itself is meta-information which Wikipedia should supply.

Sometimes the pattern of releases of records by artists isn't globally the same. However most Wikipedia articles on here take the American releases as starting point, disregarding policies of record companies elsewhere. A few proposals on how to handle in these cases.

1. add as a footnote or reference that a certain release or seeries of releases were different in a certain country.
2. add month and year of every release.
3. add the months in which charts peaks were achieved.

If a chronological list of releases is very different one may consider creating a separate section or even a separate article on it. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Members of this WikiProject might be interested in a proposal I've started here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discography is defined as "a descriptive catalog of musical recordings, particularly those of a particular performer or composer" (Oxford American dictionary). Many WP discographies appear to be "lists of chart and sales data" – chart and sales figures often completely dominate and the album titles and actual details squeezed into narrow columns. With long, skinny columns for the peak chart positions (sometimes one number and the rest "–"), the tables look mostly empty and provide an unbalanced, awkward appearance (sorry, but to me, the Led Zeppelin discography looks ridiculous).

I own several published discographies (and have seen dozens more) and none devote so much to charts and sales. The style guideline never made it past the proposal stage and I think it's time to reconsider what constitutes an acceptable WP discography. Specifically, more emphasis should be placed on producing discographies that have more balance and visual appeal. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPR#NFCC #8 and Discographies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

In 2015 streams accounted for about an extra 10-15 percent so the numbers still made sense with the certifications. It's 2017, streams make up more than half of bigger artists numbers often but the only column in an artists discog is pure sales. Iit makes no sense for album to show 700,000 sales when it's 2x platinum. We need to start including streaming+sales numbers in discography pages on wikipedia. BlaccCrab (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) is constantly adding {{citation needed}}s to discography pages/sections, such as Walker Hayes. I find this unnecessary, as usually a.) the body of the article text verifies that the album exists, so verifying it again in the discography is redundant, and b.) there should be no need to have a standalone citation on a list unless there is signficant reason to doubt it (such as the "Pimpin' Joy" single, which quickly disappeared without a trace, or the single "C.O.U.N.T.R.Y." on LoCash, which was never actually released due to the label closing). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I agree with this to an extent. However, any Wikipedia article must have at least some reliable third party sources, with the possible exception of WP:BLUE. It would also take some time to look through the entire article to find the sources that apply. Furthermore, tagging guidelines that I should follow were discussed at length at User_talk:Jax_0677/Archive_15#My_proposed_guidelines_for_tagging. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The newly-created Tom Chaplin discography is in desperate need to help, if any editors are interested. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Discographies

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 14:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I apologize if this is the incorrect place for this question, but I couldn't find a more appropriate way. I have completely revised the discography for rock band Theory of a Deadman, which is currently defined as a "Start-class" by this WikiProject. How would I go about getting the article reassessed? Thank you in advance! Miss Sarita ^Confer 21:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiProject Discography! I have nominated this discography for WP:FL (you can find it here) and the review seems to have stalled. May I please ask that anyone interested please take a few moments to review it and leave comments and support for its promotion? It would be greatly appreciated and I would be happy to reciprocate if you have anything under review that needs commenting. Thank you! — Miss Sarita 14:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just need one or two more "Supports"! A lot of the major legwork has already been done. If anyone has some time to look it over, that would be so wonderful! It's so close! And as I mentioned, I am more than happy to take a look at anything you have that needs to be reviewed (now or any time in the future). Thank you! — Miss Sarita 19:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Project members may be interested in this discussion re: whether or not we should categorize all songs by an artist by specific genre(s). Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not MusicBrainz authority file numbers should be included in {{authority control}} is currently discussed at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#MusicBrainz. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Buckethead has a huge discography, some editors have created independent articles for many of his albums and "Pikes", see the wikilinks in Buckethead discography. Many of these are not sufficiently notable for stand-alone articles and so I propose they be deleted or redirected. Thoughts? Polyamorph (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]