This page is only to be used for testing various templates in order to chose which one is the best one for the official version of the wiki.
Discographies
I deleted all the old ones I hope that is OK? Since it seems we have narrowed it down to something more likely to be used.
Albums
Single artist LP discography
revised
Title | label | Year | matrix/cat number | Country of issue | Comment (incl producer & format cd/LP) |
| | | | | |
Single artist featured on comp LP discography
revised
LP Title | Song(s) featured | label | Year | matrix/cat number | Country of issue | Comment (incl producer & format) |
| | | | | | |
Single label LP discography
Artist | Title | Year | Matrix/Cat No | Comment (incl producer, & format, and country of origin if applicable) |
| | | | |
12" Discos
Single artist 12" discography
Side 1(including additional artist details ie. dj) | Side 2 (including additional artist details if different from a side etc) | Label | Matrix/Catalogue # | Producer | Year | Country of issue | Comment (including rhythm) |
| | | | | | | |
Single label 12" discography
revised
Artist A | Side 1 | Artist B | Side 2 | Year | Matrix/Catalogue # | Producer | Country of issue | Comment (including rhythm) |
| | | | | | | | |
7" Singles
Single artist 7" discography
revised
Side 1 | Side 2(including artist details if different) | label | Year | matrix/cat number | Country of issue | Comment (incl producer) |
| | | | | | |
Single label 7" discography
revised
Artist | Side 1 | Side 2(including artist details if different) | Year | Matrix/Cat No | Comment (incl producer, rhythm) |
| | | | | |
Discussion
I'm a bit unsure about the different discog-tables for JA vs. UK 7". Even though I see a point with them I can imagine that they'll end up causing more confusion than help it. I'd rather have the same standard for all 7". Furthermore I'd personally prefer the year of release in front of the catalogue number since I think it's information that more important than the matrix/catalogue #. Otherwise I think these are great templates. /joakim
I've started a UK Prince Buster discograpy to test the differences. Personally I still prefer this as it's more logical to me but I can see the other side of it too and don't mind too much either way. I've a feeling when people start differnt discographys they won't necassarily follow the set format anyway and unless it's completely terrible there would be little point in changing it. Let me know what you think. Tim
That's true. Even though it's good to have a standard. I think that contributors want some sort of guide lines when it comes to these things. Regarding the matrixes they can still be the structural part of the list. Just that they don't come in the first columnt. Something like:
Artist | Side 1 | Side 2 | Year | Cat No | Comment |
Prince Buster | Big Five | Musical College | 1967 | PB 1 | A side rhythm Rainy Night In Gerogia, B side rhythm? |
Prince Buster | Fishey | More Fishey | 1971 | PB 4 | B side is instrumental version. Holly Holly Rhythm |
Prince Buster & The All Stars | I Wish Your Picture Was You | It Mash Up Version (Dennis Alcapone) | 1971 | PB 7 | |
Prince Buster & The All Stars | My Heart Is Gone | I stand Accused | 1972 | PB 16 | |
Just posted the twinkle disco. Forgot entirely about our discussion here. Sheesh :D I'll do it again later today and that time it will be the correct version!
/joakim
I did a change on the buster listing the singles by ascending cat #. Perhaps that is the best compromise of the two system to put both artist and cat # as the most important parts. /joakim
OK I see what you mean - yes this is fine with me. Enjoy changing the Twinkle Brothers discography ;-) I'll have to change the Parish one i did and a couple of others but at the moment I think I'd prefer to add more content. I can always return to that... Tim
I do all the changes in excel so there's a question of just a few minutes work. A little bit too tired to do the Twinkle now though. And yeah, good choice on rather adding than changing. /yabby jocke
OK I set up Studio One disco mixes etc pretty much to test the format. These are unlikely to be tested more than that to be honest and it seems to work OK. It's hard dealing with multiple artists on the same side of a disc but there is no real solution to this as far as I can see. I'd say the discography is settled. Any objections? Tim
Citing Sources
This is how I've been citing sources (check Soul Syndicate Band and Volcano)
- Author(s), Title in italic (year), city of release, publisher
Discussion
I'm not sure about the city of release though. When citing sources in essays at the university I've got to include it since it's the proper citing-format. But I don't think we need to be that formal on the wiki.
I done it like this so really it's just the order.
1. Solid Foundation An Oral History Of Reggae - David Katz (Bloomsbury 2003)
I don't think we should bother with the city. I'll change my ones to conform with yours. What about magazine references is this likely to be different? Tim
we can probably treat magazine references in a similar way to citing articles from journals:
article title, author, page numbers, magazine title, issue number and year. (am i missing anything?)
I know it seems like a lot of extra work, but if you have the information to hand you can add this stuff more easily then than you can later. Also, i wholeheartedly agree with tim and Joakims comments above; probably much better to keep adding stuff now (in an agreed format) than to go back and revise the format previous additions are in... Now I just need to get myself a few free hours to get some real stuff written... Daniel
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.