Anatomy of a DISCOGRAPHY

[emdebe]

It all started with the “Zappa Per Album” category. This category listed each and every album page tagged with “[[Category:Zappa Per Album]]”. It still does.

“Zappa Per Album” is a sub-category of “Discography”, which list every page tagged with “[[Category:Discography]]”; this could be albums, but also other pages like “Album Chronology”, “Album Grouping”, “Album History”,…

I thought that “Zappa Per Album” and “Discography” were a bit too much “one-size-fits-all” in their approach, so I started adding more album-related categories:

* Albums
* Cucamonga Years
* Compilations
* Compilations (unofficial)
* Samplers & Promos
* Special Editions
* Beat The Boots
* Bootlegs
* Interview Discs
* Miscellaneous

Now, the “Zappa Per Album” and “Albums” categories are somewhat confusing, and it’s all my fault.

So, I first tried to get rid of the “Zappa Per Album” category, but Barry gave me a spanking...

Then, I tried to rename the “Albums” category to “Regular Albums” (vis-à-vis compilations, etc.), but Barry gave me a spanking...

Then, Barry wanted me to rename the “Albums” category to “Official Releases”, but I gave him a spanking…

I would like to stop this discussion and try to settle on the notion of “Main Albums”.

Is everybody happy with that? Or are there even better suggestions?

Note: for one reason or another double brackets are not correctly displayed here.

[Barry]

Erhm... how about:

Original Albums

?

[emdebe]

Original Albums?

Original Releases?

[Barry]

Good grief man, we can keep this discussion going until hell freezes over (note also that it's a discussion between you and me; no one else seems to think so heavily about it).

"Main" vs "Original" - when faced with a parent category called "Zappa Per Album", which word do you think will make the subcategory more distinguishable?

"Main Albums"
"Original Albums"

If any of the rest of you need us, we'll be over by the crate of Grimbergen, being anal.

[emdebe]

I keep forgetting to add these funny creatures, so here they are...

 

By-the-way: make that a crate of Duvel...

[Bálint]

Hey, anybody!

:-)

I'd like to make an offer and "complete" a few albums (lyrics, at least, but hopefully more stuff, too), but I cant find (and myself cant make) a "normal", chronological discography. There was one before - is there a way to make it back? I can find things more easily that way.

thank you!

B

[Bálint]

Worked a little on Absolutely Free - up to Call Any Vegetable.

A "normal" discography would be fine...

[Dunk]

Barry said in another thread...

(discog's been humming along nicely in its own peculiar way though)

A "normal" discography would be fine...

The discography is most peculiar and not at all "normal".  It neither informs nor enlightens..

If I am looking at the listing for Mystery Disc and want to find out more about the track called Original "Duke Of Prunes" I am sent to the Duke Of Prunes page where I can find out stuff about a track from Absolutely Free (some of the information there seems to be factually dubious) but I learn nothing about the Original "Duke Of Prunes" track.

If I am looking at Orchestral Favorites I see a list of Players but following the link to Duke Of Prunes I see another list of Players who, according to us, play on this track.

In what sense is the discography "humming along nicely"?

[Barry]

In what sense is the discography "humming along nicely"?

It's humming along nicely in so far as one points to the right articles. Showcasing those instances where it is not going the way it should is - in my humble opinion - a somewhat lopsided way of judging things. A lot of discog pages carry the content they should. And don't forget: if what you're looking at is not how you envision the page, don't bitch, hit the edit button and make it better.

[Dunk]

don't bitch, hit the edit button and make it better.

Perhaps I just prefer the wrong records but most that I look at seem to have this problem.  I was merely trying to invoke some discussion as to how we should address this fundamental flaw. But I am happy to (repeatedly) hit the edit button and do it my way - regardless of what anyone else may think  

[Bálint]

Maybe we should mak a "sample album" - with all the picture, the correct way of look, and all. Let it be Freak Out. What do you think?

And a question: I saw that at Lumpy Gravy there is also the picture, its great, but coulnd't we us the right side of the page for this or that - for example for the pictures.

Uh, and now I'm leaving home.

B

[Dunk]

Continuing discussion from the Wiki:

I can go to Wikipedia and find out about stuff I do not know anything about.

Imagine someone coming to our Wiki who knows nothing about FZ and only has one recording about which they want to find  more iinformation.  

Chances are our discography will just leave them confused.  If they have a track called Pink Napkins we will take them to a page called Black Napkins.  If they have a track called Sofa we will take them to a page that lists Sofa 1 and Sofa 2 from OSFA.  They can find the lyrics which may or may not match their version.  They can find a list of musicians who may or may not match their version.  They cannot find out about the cover art or the production/engineering of their version.

We include notes with track numbers although we do not number the tracks.  Are bootleg records particularly relevant in the mp3 age? Should tribute bands be included in an FZ discography? All of which merely add to the clutter and confusion imho.

etc. etc. etc.

[Bálint]

I think you are right, in most cases.

But the way it works, it would be much better to give a more detailed SUGGESTION, because now we got some questions - and?... We read it, answer it, some misunderstaning might (always) happen, it takes time, we get tired...

So: it would be much better if you'd write: "My suggestions are: etc. etc. etc...."

Or make a sample page, maybe.

*

and some little arguments:
I see the main problems in another place: when I "go to Wikipedia and find out about stuff I do not know anything about". I mean the half-pages, the skeleton ones - those can ONLY be finished by the guy who started them, and there are tons of them. These (mostly empty) pages would leav the visitor quite confused - or upset. Nowaday Barry and Emdebe were workind on the lyrics, which is quite OK. This is the way these pages should be completed.

*

The versions of Sofa and Pink Napkins: you are right - some comments shud be added (I think), but it's a thing you or I can do. But what about those unfinished pages with almost no infos?... Like this or I just dont know what this this one. I just can't imagine what this Album Network Rock Tuneup No 132 might be (it belongs to Emdebe) - and I just cant co-operate, add anything to it - it just leaves me confused.

*

So my suggestion - again:

1. lets focus on ONE thing at a time. It might be the Discograhy section.

2. Lets try to make pages AS COMPLETE AS WE CAN.

*

I usually get the answer after this that "everyone does what he/she wants to", but I think it would be MUCH BETTER to go to (more or less) the same direction...

[Barry]

Continuing discussion from the Wiki:
 If they have a track called Pink Napkins we will take them to a page called Black Napkins.

Which is indeed wrong. Pink Napkins must and will have its own page.

 If they have a track called Sofa we will take them to a page that lists Sofa 1 and Sofa 2 from OSFA.

There is no "one" Sofa - there's always the instrumental vs the lyrics version... That disambig page may well be extended with other versions of Sofa (1 or 2) - provided there is an existing article for that version. The disambig page will eventually become a repository of sorts for all versions of Sofa, with links to each version's own page/article.

They can find the lyrics which may or may not match their version.  They can find a list of musicians who may or may not match their version.  They cannot find out about the cover art or the production/engineering of their version.

Well Dunk, if you expect each article for a given track to be complete from start to finish by tomorrow, you are indeed in for a bit of a disappointment. Please tell me how we would accomplish such a thing? As for me: I'm planning to scan every official album's cover art album by album and upload it/add it to the album's page as I go. In due time...

We include notes with track numbers although we do not number the tracks.

A mistake from the beginning that has carried on into the present, right you are. Let's make it policy that tracklistings are preceided by numbers ('#' in wiki markup) rather than bullets ('*' in wiki markup) from now on - and update the existing pages accordingly.

Are bootleg records particularly relevant in the mp3 age?

Insofar as they are still being traded in mp3 format, I would say yes...

Should tribute bands be included in an FZ discography? All of which merely add to the clutter and confusion imho.

You mean "Version" sections of Track pages including versions from tribute groups? That's borderline, I agree. As for simply listing Tribute Groups with some information, I don't see anything wrong with that.

etc. etc. etc.

Please elaborate?

[Barry]

And here's something that irks me (see The Black Page):

Players On This Song
The track on Sonora is played by Yahozna.

It's like we're describing a car by saying: "want to know more about this car? well, i dunno about this one, but there's a similar car to the one you see here, which has a different set of wheels" - if you catch my drift.