Talk:Genesis discography

	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 articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Other releases

Is there are reason why releases such as Genesis Archive and The Platinum Collection aren't included in the main table? Mdwh 21:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now they are. BGC 22:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official albums vs studio and live albums

I think it would be more accurate to split "official albums" into studio albums and live albums. This would make it easier to see how many albums of original material were released by the group. JamminBen 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this if there are no objections. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Many Too Many" EP

Why isn't "Many Too Many" listed as an EP? It was a 7-inch three-song release, just like 3x3. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing album.

Where the heck is "Abacab"? Abacab! Aba freakin' cab! Jack Meihoffer 02:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bot had commented out the Abacab album because it believed that the front cover image of the album being used in Wikipedia did not qualify for use under the "fair use" guidelines. I have addressed the issue. AreJay 03:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an added comment, there are four different cover versions to the original Abacab LP release, all legitimate, and all equally prevalent. Someone interested enough in that fact may want to work on the image entry to reflect this fact.Mpoloukhine 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... And Then There Were Three

The official album title does not have an elipsis on the end of the title. Only has one at the beginning. I don't know how, nor care to edit it myself, but maybe someone else does. Mpoloukhine 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I know the 1994 remaster has an elipsis at the end as well. If you can send me a link to an image of the front cover of the original album showing the elipsis only at the beginning of the title, I'll be happy to change the album text as well as make the necessary changes in the ATTWT article. Thanks AreJay 02:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was to hasty. It appears to be less clear than I initially thought. On many albums it is with both, while with others just the one. On many official listings it is with neither, and in some cases its with the one. I think in retrospect, the double is not "wrong" enough to change, it depends on one's definition of "official." I'll keep it on my back-burner of "things to sort out" and will post back if I find something more definitive. Thanks for the replyMpoloukhine 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding reference to an external Discography link

I've tried on several occasions to insert a link to my site: http://www.genesis-discography.org/ only to have it removed for various reasons due to the personal opinions of others (Robotman, BGC) that edit these pages. I would like to open to discussion the issue of adding such a link in a way that all can agree to.

The website in question is without doubt the most complete, comprehensive and accurate discography of Genesis music online or in print. Yes, its my site, but I challenge anyone to dispute that claim. So, it seems like those seeking information of a greater depth than the wikipedia community is willing or able to provide ought to have at least a pointer to such a site. Yes, the site is my own site, but it is also recognized by just about any avid Genesis collector that has an online connection, and one need only visit the official Genesis site to verify that; the site is currently awarded site of the month status there.

I spend more time than I care to imagine keeping my own site up to date, accurate and relevant, and cannot and will not spend even more time trying to do so here at wikipedia, not only forfeiting my copyrights to my own work, but then regularly defending entries to mis-informed edits, etc. (tried, not trying again.) Maybe someday someone will take that on here, and power to 'em, but in the meantime, it seems like an external link to the site would be a net addition to wikipedia.

Please advise how to best do that in a way that you all can accept. Or tell me to take a hike, either way. Mpoloukhine 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy prohibiting folks from adding links to their own sites, although (for obvious reasons) such links require some extra scrutiny. In my opinion, a link to your site is very appropriate on this page. Does anyone disagree? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've visited your site often and think it's very informative. I don't have a problem with you adding a link to the website under external links. Thanks AreJay 02:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps BGC should respond with counterpoint, seeing he/she is the one that has deleted them?Mpoloukhine 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and add your website to the links section. Be sure to reference WP:EL#What should be linked in your Edit summary. AreJay 19:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as suggested, I've added a link in a new "links" section in the Discography entry. I suppose this will be considered sufficient by most.

But at one point I had tried to add a similar link at the bottom of each album entry. My logic was that you can arrive at the album entry, where the actual discography and release information is listed, and not know about the link that's up in the discography entry proper. My feeling was that a link at the end of each album entry would make sense to allow people the knowledge of the external source for more info. This had been previosuly deleted by Robotman.

What's the consensus on doing that?

Personally, my feeling is that this main discography page is little more than a table of contents, and that the actual "discography" is where the information actually resides. In this case, the information resides on the album entries, and as such, a re-direct to more detailed information ought to be at those album entries.

Opinions?Mpoloukhine 22:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images in Discographies

Based generally on Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria point 3a (minimal use) and point 8 (significance/decoration) and more specifically on the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes, I think that using a gallery of fair use album covers as a discography is a violation of our fair use policies. I am going to try to reformat this discography into a tabular format today.

I think that the use of these images on the individual articles are compliant with our fair use policies. ~ Bigr Tex 17:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but I'll let someone else chime in and revert if need be. As I posted in the Phil Collins discography article, which I did revert back to the original photos, "As of this time, whether it's a violation to use fair-use images in discographies is being debated, although current rules appear to allow this. Per WP:Album, "Some editors consider the use of image galleries in discographies an "unnecessary application" of fair use, although the practice is common and other editors see it as perfectly fair and reasonable (see e.g. Kylie Minogue discography or The Beatles discography)."

I know there's a debate about this happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines, but no consensus has been reached and the photos currently appear to be allowed to stay per the discussion. If policy or consensus say they should go, then they should go, but otherwise, why remove albums from an album discography without any discussion? Perhaps we should allow the debate to finish first before removing more photos?" --Ataricodfish 01:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Album#Discography states "Note that fair-use images are not permitted in any form of gallery or list article, such as discographies." I have also joined the discussions that you mentioned. I believe that policy says that they should go, but am willing to discuss as needed. ~ Bigr Tex 15:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best?

Is there a reason this is not included?

The_Best..._Genesis

Someone has put it as the next album in the chronology section of The Lamb article MrMarmite (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did googled "The Best...Genesis" and got nothing. Compilations and bootlegs exist, though I'm not sure articles need to be created for any of them if they aren't notable. Also, the article doesn't cite any sources. The closest match I found on the Genesis discography was "The Best of Genesis" released 1971/72. No other information is available about the album. I don't think it should be included in the main article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]