Talk:Discogs

External link templates

If you are writing an article on a music-related topic and want a link to Discogs.com, there are several templates:

• Template:Discogs artist
• Template:Discogs label
• Template:Discogs release (for a given release)
• Template:Discogs master (all versions of a release)

Hope this is helpful!--Larrybob (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have appended Discogs master to your list. — Ekans ^talk @ 05:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have recently fought to have them all kept on WP, after some ill-thinking editor thought they should all be removed: battle over — thankfully 100% voted to keep! In the process added some documentation to them too. Jimthing (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Permitted?

I don't read anything on Discogs on the Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites-page, so it is permitted all the way to use as a source? 83.85.143.141 (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I signed in to Discogs and spent some time entering my own collection of LPs and have noticed that Discogs uses Wikipedia as a source so be careful. Jodosma (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can use it as a source, as entries on the Discogs database are verified by multiple users who own or have in their possession a copy of said release. In fact it is often more accurate than so-called other private music databases, where the data is only added by one editor from info often submitted by record companies and/or distributors, that often contain simple factual errors, which may not be corrected later, unlike Discogs actively encourages. Discogs also has info on rare pressings (e.g. coloured vinyl editions, cover differences, et al.) and error releases and suchlike (e.g. mispressings, promos, et al.), that other databases don't. Jimthing (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually I've just had a number of article citations removed from articles. They were added in good faith, but from the description above, Dicogs clearly falls foul of WP:UGC and is probably an unreliable source - which is quite anooying as I found it really useful. Cnbrb (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Those editors are wrong, I'm afraid. WP:UGC specifically says "generally unacceptable" not "completely unacceptable", and as has been said before above, Discogs data gets verified by multiple owners of each release checking each release's data is correct, "as per what's on the release". It shouldn't be used for non-release citations (e.g. info taken from the "Profile" section), as that's unverified info that cannot be taken from an actual item's data. Jimthing (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Just wondering about this myself. I have just had a draft article declined and one of the reasons given was use of Discogs as a reference to a release. Does anyone know for sure if it is allowed? Rebeldiamondz (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Remixers links

Why is not possible to get into the remixer's profile from the tune's page in Discogs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.59.48 (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Discogs.com is NOT usable for citations

Discogs is a commercial sales website and its discographies are user-generated without editorial oversight. It's specifically prohibited under Wikipedia policy WP:NOTRSMUSIC. KokoPhantom (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Except that's not true, as items are verified by many users who own each item on the site to be exactly "as per release". That's literally the point of the website and how it operates. Jimthing (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

There still seems to be an ongoing debate about whether using Discogs as a reference is allowed or not. For every person who says it is not allowed, there is someone who says it is. And it still exists all over many live wiki pages and has been approved on those pages.

I just had a draft article declined and one of the reasons was using discogs as a reference.

Can anyone give me a definitive answer on this? Rebeldiamondz (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Like the Internet Movie Database, Discogs is not citable as a reference (WP:RS). However, it may appear in § External links using Template:Discogs artist, or similar templates (which specifically states "It is intended for use in the external links section of an article" in their doc). — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

Discogs does not allow selling/buying of items it deems "unofficial", unlike e.g. Amazon or Ebay. Additionally, that isn't even the case for ALL unofficial items. Also some items are banned from selling/buying for (apparently) political reasons, again without rhyme, reason or explanation. Definitely should be mentioned here, as this is impacting the site's status as potential master music release database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.86.132 (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

No it isn't. All items can and are available to be added to the database, however some items are banned from being sold on Discogs for quite obvious legitimate reasons: Digital releases (obviously); bootlegs of legitimate releases; Far-right/hate-speech releases. Everything else should be available for sale. Jimthing (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Discogs images no longer downloadable

As of about August 2021, Discogs images can no longer be accessed from Discogs.com via tools such as qsniyg.github.io/maxurl/. I do not know how they serve images now. Rwlesses (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC) (ex-fantailfan on Wikipedia, https://www.discogs.com/user/cartologist on Discogs)

Creative Commons

The API terms of use mention that, besides user data, marketplace data, and images, the site's data is licensed as CC0 (so practically the database itself). I can't look into it further at the moment, but should be mentioned. Opencooper (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

New logo color

There is displayed white version of logo now. Wayback, archive.is Probably for update by registered user. --5.43.78.53 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

• Reassess article to C-class.

The B-class criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. and #4, The article is reasonably well-written.

There is a big banner at the top of the article that proclaims, "This article relies excessively on references to primary sources." That is only a partial problem. There are unsourced sentences, paragraphs, sections, and subsections. One primary citation is bold with a title stating: "The Bookogs Marketplace is here! Start Selling Books Online", and another; "Start Selling Comics on Comicogs! New Marketplace Launched". This is 100% advertisement even if being outdated on discontinued services. Some of the citations fail multiple parts of primary sources. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)