Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

There was a discussion about this back in Jan 2024 that reached no conclusion. This has continued to bug the hell out of me and I'd like to resolve it.

Consider these article titles:

• Zombie (The Cranberries song)
• Friend of a Friend (The Smile song)
• The Moment of Truth (The Real Milli Vanilli album)

These are all incorrectly capitalized. The "The" before the band name should be lowercase, like this:

• Zombie (the Cranberries song)
• Friend of a Friend (the Smile song)
• The Moment of Truth (the Real Milli Vanilli album)

In fact, there should probably be no "the" at all, like this:

• Zombie (Cranberries song)
• Friend of a Friend (Smile song)
• The Moment of Truth (Real Milli Vanilli album)

This is for the following reasons:

• Per MOS:THEBAND, we do not capitalize definite article ("the") in band names. So we write the Beatles, not The Beatles.
• The fact that the names are placed in parentheses doesn’t change anything. For example, we have articles titled "White Christmas (song)", not "White Christmas (Song)"; "David Mitchell (author)", not "David Mitchel (Author)"; "Mercury (planet)", not "Mercury (Planet)" etc.
• These are fragments, not sentences, so arguments about capitalizing the first letter of the sentence do not apply.

We have hundreds or thousands of articles with this problem. The current naming is contrary to Wikipedia manual of style and we need to fix it. Popcornfud (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

My understanding was that THEBAND applied to article prose, not article titling. I say this more as an observer, than a participant, as I don't care that much (though I also see little conceptual benefit to "fixing" this either.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The benefit of fixing it is the same as any other MOS fix: to be consistent with the MOS. So the question is whether I'm right in my interpretation of the MOS and how it applies here.

If we say WP:THEBAND only applies to article prose, that would presumably mean we would cap "The" everywhere else, such as in shortdescs ("1965 album by The Beatles"?), infoboxes ("Album by The Beatles"?), and article titles in general, not just disambiguation parentheses ("Bob Marley and The Wailers"?) ... I don't see the logic in that. Popcornfud (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: I'd love to see this resolved. I understand it as you do and I'd like to see it treated uniformly through Wikipedia, but I've seen requested moves go against it. A decision here would help resolve that. I also think your final point using the example "Zombie (Cranberries song)" should be made the norm too. Nobody says "I love that the Zombies song", so we shouldn't use that unnatural language in our titles. SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

My understanding that THEBAND was largely rectifying the awkwardness of having a capitalized "The" in the middle of sentences. ("Johnson posited 'Untitled' was the best The Smashing Pumpkins song." sort of stuff.) No such awkwardness exists at a page title like Untitled (The Smashing Pumpkins song), with it just being a name sectioned off with parentheses. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

IMO, it's extremely awkward, because it would be simply wrong to capitalize "the" for any other type of noun in this situation. In fact, we probably wouldn't write "the" here at all, as SchreiberBike mentions (see MOS:THENAME).

So why do we make this exception just for band names just in parenthesis just in article titles? If you don't find it awkward, I can't convince you to have that feeling about it, but I'm hoping you can at least see that it's inconsistent. Popcornfud (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support proposal. "Zombie (Cranberries song)" is the most intuitive. I would also make the "T/the" variants be redirects (e.g. "Zombie (the Cranberries song)", "Zombie (The Cranberries song)"). WidgetKid ^{chat me} 19:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support omitting "the" if possible, capitalizing it if not. If "the" can be omitted without causing confusion, let's do that, but if not, writing it as "The" is preferable since a lower-case letter starting what's effectively the band name in parentheses would look odd. Gawaon (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - considering the hundreds (thousands?) of articles affected, and the fact that we've only had a handful of participants over the course of the last week, makes me think we're going to need a more widespread WP:RFC to get the sort of participation and consensus we would need for a situation like this. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Wikipedia style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

When an article title includes the name of a band (or other musical act) in parentheses, how should definite titles ("the") before the name be treated?

• Option A: capitalize "The", eg Zombie (The Cranberries song)
• Option B: lowercase "the", eg Zombie (the Cranberries song)
• Option C: remove "the", eg Zombie (Cranberries song)

Popcornfud (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Option C. This is to me is the most natural and concise, and follows the advice at MOS:THENAME, which says "use a Beatles song, not a the Beatles song). Certainly not Option A as this goes against WP:THEBAND, which specifies not to capitalize "the" before band names except at the start of sentences, and I don't see any reason to make an exception for parentheses in article titles and nowhere else. Popcornfud (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• Option C per Popcornfud, aka per the MOS. This text is in a disambiguator, not part of the title of the work itself, so we should follow regular English formatting rather than potentially stylized title formatting. Toadspike [Talk] 07:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  Pings for participants in the above discussion: @Sergecross73@Gawaon@Widgetkid@SchreiberBike. Toadspike [Talk] 07:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Option C as long as The The is left alone. Also note this proposal omits singers like The Weeknd. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 07:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  On the former, I think there's a reasonable case for making an exception for "The The". On the latter, yes, as currently worded this only includes bands. Toadspike [Talk] 10:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  This was an oversight on my part when wording the RFC. I meant to propose we apply this to all musical acts, including bands, duos, singers, individuals etc, as this is what WP:THEBAND says. I've updated the RFC to clarify this, but I'm aware that might not be strictly kosher as people have already voted. If anyone thinks this is out of line, feel free to revert to the original wording (or just ask me to revert it) and we can sort this out some other way. Popcornfud (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Option C but let's be vigilant: There are acts in whose title the definite article ("the") is an inseparable part. The Beatles were originally marketed as The Beatles, as were most bands that followed them thereafter, a trend that lasted for some time. -The Gnome (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• Option C per Popcornfud and Toadspike. But in the rare cases where "The" has to be included, it should be capitalized, say with The The. Gawaon (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot)Options C with exceptions per Gawaon. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• Option C per above, which reflect WP:THEBAND, which has been consensus for many years. A few exceptions may apply per WP:IAR if it makes the encyclopedia better. SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• Option C. The first two make my eye twitch. WidgetKid ^converse 15:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• Option C per above – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• Option B, aka status quo, as a compromise. Per the discussion above, MOS:THEBAND appears to relate to article prose, not proper nouns in article titles. Keeping in mind the example given above, The Cranberries is the official name of the band. They are listed as The Cranberries on all CDs, vinyls, digital retailers and streaming services. Removing "The" entirely is therefore improper and misrepresentative. Plus, the example above of "No one says 'I love that the Cranberries song'" is kind of splitting hairs. It would be perfectly acceptable to say "I love that song by the Cranberries", however. And I've not seen a single voter above give a policy-based reason why "the" should be removed entirely from article titles anyway. MOS:THEBAND gives no such advice for article titles. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• (invited by the bot) Good grammar rules out "A" and allows "B" and "C". Why not just edit them instead of making up a rule. When editing I'd do "C". North8000 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  What a bizarre comment. Please don't discourage editors who are correctly following Wikipedias consensus-building process in the correct avenues. This RFC is about something that has been inconsistently done throughout the website, there was disagreement on how to proceed, and it will affect a large volume of articles. This is absolutely the time to get a consensus before proceeding. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Option C (omit "the") per Popcornfud. Blue & Lonesome is a Rolling Stones album, not a The Rolling Stones album. Commonsense exceptions apply for The The and The Who and The Band. Also, disambiguators aren't exactly running text. See also Talk:Officer (The Salvation Army)#Requested move 22 February 2026. But in the rare cases where "The" has to be included, it should be capitalized, per Gawaon. "Zombie (the Cranberries song)" looks like a reference to "Zombie (the song)" rather than "Zombie ([bandname's] song)". See also Talk:Scarlet (song)#Requested move 4 November 2020 and Talk:Angry (Rolling Stones song)#Requested move 16 December 2023 and Talk:Closer (The Chainsmokers song)/Archive 1#Requested move 31 October 2020 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music/Archive 8#RfC: using "The" in song/album article titles (2019). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
• Option B - Homeostasis07's arguments are persuasive, and I am made rather anxious by how many of the "Option C" votes have the disclaimer "But we'll have to make lots of exceptions." All else being equal, I think we should avoid setting rules where we anticipate making numerous exceptions, and especially so in this case, because I see lots of room for disagreement over what constitutes a "common sense exception" to Option C.--Martin IIIa (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment - I just want to point out that while there seems to be a consensus forming here for having Option C as a default while allowing for exceptions there also seems to be a lack of consensus on how to phrase those exceptions. As it stands two people have expressed preference for A (specifically for exceptions) while two people have expressed preference for B. Unless one, in my opinion unreasonably, claims that those voting for B shouldn't be considered to also prefer B over A for exceptions if C passes as the default, then this seems to be headed towards a consensus for C with exceptions with no consensus on the format of those exceptions. That will likely lead to you guys having to do another RfC to resolve the disagreement that will inevitable arise over that. That might be prevented if the people voting for C clarifies their preference for how to handle exceptions. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 19:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I just looked at categories like Category:The Band songs and Category:The Who albums for the three bands and one artist that have been explicitly discussed as potential exceptions. All of the straightforward examples had "The" present and in uppercase (i.e., option A). There is one song with lowercase for which The Weeknd is one of several artists in a list in the title, and there is one redirectTwilight (the Band song) for a song by The Band that uses lowercase. I think a list is more like running text, and I think redirects shouldn't count when looking for styling guidance, because no one looks at the redirect itself. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I personally don't see the need for exceptions. "Song Title (Who song)", "Song Title (The song)", "Song Title (Band song)" might look odd but, you know, those band names are odd, too. The article title about The The also looks odd, after all, but we don't feel the need to retitle it "The The (band)" to mitigate that oddness.

In any case, if we decide we do need to include the definite article (the) in parentheses, we shouldn't capitalize it, per the WP:THEBAND policy reasons given above, and because capitalizing it wouldn't clarify anything anyway. Popcornfud (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Please don't. "Who song", "The song", and "Band song" would obviously not work at all. Gawaon (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I explained my rationale for why I think they would be OK. Could I ask you to do the same? Popcornfud (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Isn't that obvious? When somebody mentions "The song", people will think they mean "the song" as opposed to, say, "the album" with the same title. When somebody mentions "Band song", people will know it's a song by a band, but they won't think of The Band – at least not at first. Article titles should be chosen so as to minimize confusion, not to maximize it. Gawaon (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I get the logic. But I'm not sure what the parameters are for when something becomes "obviously" confusing. I truly don't think "Who song" is going to be confusing, for example, any more than "Fish song" or "[any other random other word] song".

And if these names are confusing, then how does adding "the" help? Is "the Band song" really less confusing than "Band song"? I think we're worrying too much. Popcornfud (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Some amount of WP:COMMONSENSE is allowed, and I think "Who", "Band" and "The" are apt enough to explicitly acknowledge, and perhaps "Weeknd" too. Thankfully, The Fish (band) is a red link, so we don't need to worry too much about that at the moment. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Heheh, "fish" was just a random word I picked. I think I was hungry... Popcornfud (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't find any good sources. Please add reliable sources, if you can. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Have you checked any of these archive sites of music magazines? There must be a mention of its release in some of the magazines of the day, and probably the occasional review. I see Allmusic has a rating (an impressive 4.5 stars, although it doesn't review it), so there's one. The claim it sold 100,000 is unreferenced, so that has to go. Otherwise there isn't much in the article that is particularly controversial, so it probably doesn't need many references. Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering if there's any criteria for adding this kind of category to an album article? I've seen them on articles where said producer only produced one song on the album, so I'm just curious. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 11:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Per the style guide, "consensus is that 'Albums produced by X' categories should not be included unless that particular producer worked on a significant portion of the album." Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. So what constitutes "a significant portion"? Is it based on running time, number of tracks, notability of the tracks, or none of the above? Martin IIIa (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

It would be great to know whether this website is reliable or unreliable. Whenever the random singers (who are not that popular) announce their new single or album, this site mostly pops up in Google's news section, even though other reliable publications didn't publish anything about them yet. Example: . Any thoughts? As I know, there were some cases that blog site became reliable in Wikipedia, like BrooklynVegan. But there's no author field in this site. About us page Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Unreliable - That's got to be the least-helpful "About Us" page I've seen for a publication for quite some time. Even the about page is only attributed to a writer called "InMusic". I can't see anything that helps create an argument for use on Wikipedia here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Cancelled by Motley Crue is considered an EP of three songs, with "Cancelled" as the first song, while "Damn Damn Leash" by Be Your Own Pet is considered a maxi single with three songs, including the two B-sides "Spill" and "Electric Shake." Why is Motley Crue's considered an EP but Be Your Own Pet's is considered a non-album maxi single? Is marketing the only reason they're categorized differently? Kart2401real (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I feel like this line from Extended play#Definition sums it up well: Following the introduction of CDs, music downloads, and music streaming to the market definitive distinctions between singles, EPs, and LPs have become elusive. WidgetKid ^converse 17:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much exactly this. We basically go by whatever reliable sources say most commonly because the lines have blurred so much in the modern age, where most music is in digital form anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? A quick skim of Scream, Dracula, Scream!#References shows it to be full of reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:No Title As of 13 February 2024 28,340 Dead#Requested move 10 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Report discussion. DanielParoliere (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Is this reliable from Scott Humphrey that Nikki Sixx played guitar on much of Generation Swine?

Totally True Memoirs of a Metal Producer: Mötley Crüe’s Generation SwineKart2401real (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

MetalSucks in a general sense, is a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC. I don't know enough about Motley Crue or that albums recording to know if that's a controversial claim or something though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, is the magazine God Is in the TV reliable? I first encountered it in this source while researching about Oasis, though feedback on the publication in general would be helpful too. I searched this page's discussion archives as well as the project source list, and couldn't find any meaningful mention of it. Left guide (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I am a bit unclear on this as well. I have historically avoided using them because I've come across a few articles in the past that had a number of typographical issues, but I can't recall a specific example at the moment. I'm not necessarily against them based on that alone, and it would be beneficial to look through their authors and see if they've also written in other established publications. Fundgy (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The article Biti tu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 12 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. A search found only Discogs, and a similar song by a different band. Fails the relevant notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I created a tool (User:Widgetkid/RecordingCover) for easily adding covers to albums and songs. If anyone would like to use it or kick the tires on this 'beta', I'd appreciate any feedback. WidgetKid ^Converse 01:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

An RFC had been opened regarding the hidden pregap track on the concept album Act III: This City Made Us, to determine where it should be described in the article and to what extent. Interested editors are invited to weigh in via the talk page. PBugaboo (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

In late February of this year, Loud and Quiet announced the magazine would be moving to Substack, with the website serving as an archive for all past articles. While it has been deemed as a reliable source, I'd like to know if the website's move affects its reliability at all. Thanks. Rambley^[who?] 17:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, so long as the business hasn't fundamentally changed. Nothing in that post says anything about losing writers or editors, and from a scroll of their Substack homepage just now, I see at least six different names in bylines, so it seems the roster is still healthy. So long as nothing else has changed about the way the site operates, hosting on a different platform shouldn't make a difference. Substack, as far as I know, does not exert any editorial control over publications which use it (I've published a handful of essays to the platform and never seen anything of the sort), so that shouldn't be a concern. If there's anything else to worry about, I can't think of it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

FYI

 – This is a spillover from an AfD conversation.

I couldn't find any clear policy or style guidance regarding the 125+ record label discographies. I would like to develop some consensus on an approach. I would like your help with these questions:

I pulled together some relevant portions of these policies:

• WP:MOSMUSIC#Discographies: 2. If the discography of an artist, group, or work becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article, it should be split into a subpage list (preferably titled "<Name> discography").
• WP:NLIST: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.
• WP:NOTCATALOG: 6. [...] Lists of creative works are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.

My initial positions are A (separate discography article) / X (split out large discographies) / P (allow inclusion of everything). WidgetKid ^Converse 16:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Kelob2678, Graywalls, 78.26, Izzy007, Devin, dcljr, Dan arndt, Marchjuly, LingNerd007, Chubbles, Jessiemay1984, Vexations, JalenFolf, FeRDNYC, Richard3120, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, QuietHere, Richard3120, Bearian, A Knight Who Says Ni, Steelbeard1, Zachtron, J04n, Robman94, Another Believer:
As contributors to record label- and discography-related discussions, I invite your input on this topic. WidgetKid ^Converse 17:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

My immediate thoughts are mostly the same as yours, though I think I would vote BXP. My understanding is that these pages should be treated as lists and thus are subject to WP:NLIST, wherein it is said that not all items in a list need to be sourced so long as the group is collectively. A notable record label will have plenty of coverage of its catalogue, and should likely qualify by that standard, so it would make sense to have an associated list. And I think splitting said lists for size concerns is a given. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• I must confess I've never really understood why this is controversial. Record labels release albums; it's their chief reason for existence, and the most basic encyclopedic information we can provide about a notable record label is its output - its artists at bare minimum and a discography at best. There seems to be wide disparity in perception between current and defunct labels; people seem to regard the discographies (and even the artist lists!) of currently active discographies as promotional, whereas there's almost no debate about exhaustive discographies for long-dead e.g. jazz and blues labels. Fundamentally, they're encyclopedic regardless of the label's business status. The discography really only needs to be its own article if the page would be too long for its inclusion - that's ultimately an information management issue, not a notability issue. So I guess that places me into A and Y and P? Chubbles (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  I must comment that you and I generally see things differently in inclusion worthiness. List of products/releases by label, as opposed to artists is essentially list of products by a company; so I feel this shouldn't be specific to the record label type organization/company category specific. Graywalls (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  Well, isn't the entire purpose of a book publisher to publish books? As important as discographies may be to record labels, I don't think it's in our best interest to include a seperate discography page as per WP:NOTCATALOG MoxxiMachineWanna talk? 11:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• I'm pretty conflicted by this. Please note my comments are a result of this discussion and the Polyvinyl AfD that this is spun from. I disagree with Graywalls that discographies are just any old product by a company. They are significant artistic works, of course critical assessment varies. But I agree with Graywalls that WP:NOTCATALOG may apply. Per my question at the AfD, how is NLIST met in general for these discographies. In some cases like Blue Note, or Blue Amberol cylinders, or Columbia Records, you could easily pass NLIST. But that doesn't make every discography pass. And speaking of Columbia, which has no discography on Wikipedia because the size would be ridiculous, how would you parse that out? And in cases like JVB records, why does that belong on Wikipedia, when that exact type of information is readily available elsewhere. On the other hand since discographies contain information that make understanding of notable topics more complete, why not include them? Back in the day albums by notable artists were split off from the main article because it made the main article too long or unweildly. Then these articles were deleted because they didn't have standalone notability, and we lost encyclopedic information. I worry that might happen here. Chubbles is also right, Record labels release albums (or singles, we have those discographies also), artistic works, as their primary reason for existence. I need to admit my bias, I'm predisposed to historical record labels, and I get twitchy about recent labels touting their catalog per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Sorry, I'm not giving any answers, but I'd really like some real thought into how our readers are best served. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• I would first ask how such possible listings are handled in other areas. In articles on publishers, do we list all their books? In articles on film studios, do we list all their movies? In both cases, I think the answer is no. So per analogy and due to NOTCATALOG, record labels should probably be treated the same way – include some works for which they are particularly notable, but don't strive for completeness. An exception may be made for particularly small labels, whose discography would not be more burdensome to maintain than that of a typical artist, but such exceptions are best discussed on a case-by-case basis. Gawaon (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  As pointed out earlier in this discussion "Lists of creative works are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth." so.. the answer would be no on that. And as for a stand-alone catalog entry, the list itself should pass WP:NLIST. Graywalls (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Graywalls, what I struggle with is how to differentiate the notability of a record label from their releases. As I reviewed record label discographies, I couldn't find any difference between record labels whose catalogs I would assume are notable (e.g. Blue Note for jazz, Motown for soul, Epitaph for punk), and ones like Polyvinyl.

  Per WP:NLIST: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. If a source discusses the label and their catalog (typical in record label article sources), wouldn't that suffice to demonstrate the notability of their releases as a whole? How do we discern between a record label notable enough for an article, but not a list? Which discographies would you point to as passing WP:NLIST, etc., and how do you tell the difference? WidgetKid ^Converse 15:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Since HarperCollins is presumably as notable as a publisher can be, I don't think it boils down to notability, but rather: Since publishers and records labels do not create works, but merely publish them, they are not covered by the "lists of creative works" exception. For authors, musicians, artists etc. who are creators themselves, listing their creative works is fine, however. But labels should be treated like HarperCollins with no lists of all of their publications. Gawaon (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Surely some record label discographies fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes? Or you're saying none at all - nuke the 100+ that are out there?

  I feel like HarperCollins is analagous to Columbia Records - it would be impractical to create a discography, given HC has hundreds of thousands of books and Columbia probably tens of thousands. There also isn't really a theme or purpose at that scale - versus a Blue Note for jazz or early Puffin Story Books for children's books. WidgetKid ^Converse 16:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Allowing creating of catalog for smaller companies would be egregiously promotional WP:ADMASQ Graywalls (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  I should preface this by saying I'm newer to editing Wikipedia, so apologies if I'm overstepping here, but based on a discussion I had regarding sources for record label articles as well as other discussions I've read regarding the topic [which I unfortunately don't have on hand, sorry] I believe record labels are deemed notable when they have a significant amount of sources about them specifically, not their songs/albums/singers/etc. So while a label's notoriety comes from its discography, a label can't be notable simply because it's discography is notable. I think because of this it would also work the opposite way around, a discography shouldn't be notable just because the record label is. But of course I could be mistaken, so experienced record label participants feel free to correct me MoxxiMachineWanna talk? 00:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  I believe WP:INHERITORG answers your question. Graywalls (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure it does... I understand a label can be non-notable but have notable artists/releases. The case we're talking about is where the label is notable (or assumed to be based on having an article), and how it relates to handling of their discographies. WidgetKid ^Converse 04:28, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• If a company is very notable then its products are often listed, such as List of MGM films as well as some if not all of the products having their own individual articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Personally I think it should be BYQ as per WP:NOTACATALOG. I don't think WP:MOSMUSIC#Discographies works as a defense here since it explcitly uses the phrase "artist, group, or work" rather than "label", so in the context of the book example it would be supporting an article for books by Roth rather than HarperCollins MoxxiMachineWanna talk? 02:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why we should make the listing of record label releases/products more restrictive than the rest of Wikipedia. Another example List of Apple products. WP:MOSMUSIC#Discographies is for musician discographies and not related to record labels, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The instruments were recorded when Corabi was still in the band. Vince Neil's lead vocals were the last thing to be recorded for the album. Did any of Corabi's guitar make the final version of the album like he claims he did? Kart2401real (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is anything anyone is going to know off the top of their heads at the albums WikiProject. I'd recommend doing research into the album's credits, band interviews, etc. Band fansites generally can't be used as a source, but they could still be helpful as a lead in finding more information on it. (Maybe a Motley Crue fansite mentions of an interview done in a magazine that mentions what Corabi did/didn't record or something?) Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)