Wikipedia

Talk:Pearl Jam discography

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)
Learn more about this page
Featured listPearl Jam discography is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 19, 2008Featured list candidatePromoted
July 25, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
September 30, 2020Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Featured list
edit
Year B-side A-side Format
1991 "Once" (album track)[I] "Alive" CD, 12", Cassette, 7"
"Wash"[II] CD, 12", Cassette
1992 "Even Flow" (re-recorded)[III][IV] CD
"Dirty Frank"[II] "Alive", "Even Flow" "Alive": CD
"Even Flow": CD, 12", Cassette, 7"
"Oceans" (remix)[V] "Even Flow" CD, 12", Cassette, 7"
"Footsteps"[II] "Jeremy" CD, Cassette, 7", 12"
"Yellow Ledbetter"[II][IV] CD, Cassette
"Alive" (live)[VI][VII] CD, Cassette, 7", 12"
"Alive" (album track)[I] 7"
"Why Go" (live)[VIII] "Oceans" CD, Cassette
"Deep" (live)[VIII]
"Alive" (live)[VIII]
1993 "Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town" (acoustic) "Go" CD, 12", Cassette
"Alone"[II]
"Blood" (live)[IX] "Daughter" CD, 3" CD, 12", Cassette, 7"
"Yellow Ledbetter" (live)[X] CD, 3" CD, 12", Cassette
"Animal" (album track)[XI] 7"
1994 "Animal" (live)[XII] "Animal", "Dissident" "Animal": CD, Cassette
"Dissident": CD
"Jeremy" (live)[XII]
"Jeremy" (album track)[I] "Animal" CD, Cassette
"Oceans" (album track)[I]
"Alive" (live)
"Daughter" (live)[XII] "Animal", "Dissident" "Animal": CD, Cassette
"Dissident": CD
"Release" (live)[XII] "Dissident" CD
"Rearviewmirror" (live)[XII] CD, 7", Cassette
"Even Flow" (live)[XII] CD
"Dissident" (live)[XII]
"Why Go" (live)[XII]
"Deep" (live)[XII]
"Glorified G" (live)[XII]
"Go" (live)[XII]
"Garden" (live)[XII]
"State of Love and Trust" (live)[XII]
"Black" (live)[XII]
"Alive" (live)[XII]
"Blood" (live)[XII]
"W.M.A." (live)[XII]
"Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town" (live)[XII]
"Rats" (live)[XII]
"Once" (live)[XII]
"Porch" (live)[XII]
"Indifference" (live)[XII]
"Tremor Christ" (album track)[XIII] "Spin the Black Circle" CD, 7", Cassette
1995 "Out of My Mind" (live)[XIV] "Not for You" CD, 3" CD, 7", Cassette
"Rearviewmirror" (Performed by The Frogs) "Immortality" CD, 7", Cassette
"Long Road"[XV] "I Got Id" CD, 7", Cassette
1996 "Habit" (album track)[XVI] "Who You Are" CD, 7", Cassette
"Black, Red, Yellow"[II] "Hail, Hail" CD
1997 "Dead Man"[II][XVII] "Off He Goes" CD, 7"
1998 "Pilate" (album track)[XVIII] "Given to Fly" CD, 7", Cassette
"Leatherman"
"U"[II] "Wishlist" CD, 7"
"Brain of J." (live)[XIX]
1999 "Soldier of Love (Lay Down Your Arms)"[XX] "Last Kiss" CD, 7", Cassette
2000 "Insignificance" (album track)[XXI] "Nothing As It Seems" CD, 7", 12"
"Better Man" (live)[XXII] CD, 12"
"Footsteps" (live)[XXII]
"Grievance" (live)[XXIII] "Light Years" CD, 12"
"Soon Forget" (live)[XXIII] CD, 12", 7"
2002 "Down"[II] "I Am Mine" CD, 7"
"Bu$hleaguer" (album track)[XXIV] CD
"Undone"[II]
2003 "Other Side"[II] "Save You", "Love Boat Captain" "Save You": CD
"Love Boat Captain": CD
"Love Boat Captain" (live)[XXV] "Love Boat Captain" CD
"Man of the Hour" (demo) "Man of the Hour" CD
2006 "Unemployable" (album track)[XXVI] "World Wide Suicide" Digital download
"Come Back" (live)[XXVII] "Life Wasted", "Gone" "Life Wasted": 7", Digital download
"Gone": Digital download
"Gone" (live) "Gone" Digital download
2009 "Supersonic"[XXVIII] "The Fixer" 7"

Untitled

edit
edit

For every Christmas since 1991, with the exception of 1994, Pearl Jam has rewarded members of its official fan club with special, exclusive singles. Here are all of the songs to have been featured in each of those packages:

Year Track listing
1991
  1. "Let Me Sleep"
    • Later appears on Lost Dogs.
  2. "Ramblings"
1992
  1. "Sonic Reducer"
  2. "Ramblings Continued"
1993
  1. "Angel"
  2. "Ramblings"
1995
  1. "History Never Repeats" (live) (with Neil Finn and Tim Finn)
  2. "Sonic Reducer" (live) (with Joey Ramone)
  3. "Swallow My Pride" (live) (with Mark Arm and Steve Turner of Mudhoney, and Chuck Treece)
  4. "My Way" (live) (with Elvis impersonator Terry Presley)
1996
  1. "Olympic Platinum"
  2. "Smile" (live)
1997
  1. "Happy When I'm Crying"
  2. "Live for Today" (Performed by R.E.M.)
1998
  1. "Soldier of Love (Lay Down Your Arms)" (live)
  2. "Last Kiss"
    • Later appears on Lost Dogs and rearviewmirror: Greatest Hits 1991-2003.
1999
  1. "Strangest Tribe"
    • Later appears on Lost Dogs.
  2. "Drifting"
    • Later appears on Lost Dogs.
2000
  1. "Crown of Thorns" (live)
  2. "Can't Help Falling in Love" (live)
2001
  1. "Last Soldier" (live)
  2. "Indifference" (live) (with Ben Harper)
  3. "Gimme Some Truth" (live)
  4. "I Just Want to Have Something to Do"
2002
  1. "Don't Believe in Christmas" (live)
  2. "Sleepless Nights" (live) (with Beck)
2003
  1. "Reach Down" (live) (with Chris Cornell)
  2. "I Believe in Miracles" (live)
2004
  1. "Someday at Christmas"
  2. "Better Man" (with Walmer High School Choir)
2005
  1. "Little Sister" (live) (with Robert Plant)
  2. "Gone" (demo)
2006
  1. "Love, Reign o'er Me"
  2. "Rockin' in the Free World" (live) (with Bono and The Edge of U2)
2007
  1. "Santa God"
  2. "Jingle Bells"
2008
  1. "Santa Cruz"
  2. "Golden State" (with Corin Tucker)

This list does not contain...

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following does not belong on the page:

"This list does not include material recorded by Pearl Jam band members with Green River, Soundgarden, Bad Radio, Mother Love Bone, Temple of the Dog, Brad, Wellwater Conspiracy, Mad Season, Three Fish or The Rockfords."

It just doesn't belong. Look at Discography pages of SOOOOO many other bands and you will not find a similar paragraph even though members of those bands HAVE recorded with others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1emt (talk • contribs) 13:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Angel

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What about the early track "Angel?" Cant see it listed here.

It was included on a fan club release in 1993. Fan club singles are a possibility for addition. Has this been discussed? Kristmace (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jeremy

edit

Let's talk about this before it becomes an edit war.Billboards offical site claims Jeremy charted at #75 on the billboard hot 100.allmusic guide claims its peak was at #7.Other reliable wikipedians keep changing it to #79.Does anyone know for sure what Jeremy's peak was?I was only 5 at the time so I don't remember. -SOADLuver Just to let people know I was actually 12 when Jeremy came out sorry about the confusion

"Ten" album sales

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The edit war over the U.S. Album sales needs to be resolved. If someone could please post some factual information regarding the exact album sales figure then we could come up with a definitive answer to this problem. Doesn't the RIAA calculate these figures? Enough of the back and forth edits, let's have a discussion about this. Someone please provide some references for the figures. -MattWatt 21:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Link to RIAA top 100 albums shows Pearl Jam "Ten" having received 12.0 level (http://www.riaa.com/gp/bestsellers/topalbums.asp). This is 12x Platinum, and from my understanding, a Platinum rating is given for every 1 million units distributed from the manufacturers (http://www.riaa.com/gp/certification/criteria.asp). "Ten" was certified 12x Platinum on 9/11/2003. This information can be found on the RIAA website. So does this conclude that the U.S. sales figures for "Ten" are 12 million? It certainly seems that way to me, unless someone has some other info. -MattWatt 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No actually.If you go to the main page you may read that this arguement has already been resolved.The RIAA count how many albums were SHIPPED.Tens sales ARE 9.4.period - SOADLuver

Actually I did, per your advice, and everything agrees with my statement. The sales are 12 million and there is no source for 9.4. Everyone has agreed it is 12 million, per the RIAA, and I am enforcing what is agreed on Pearl Jam's main article. I can guarantee you there aren't 2.6 million unsold "Ten" albums sitting in stores around the U.S. What make's SoundScan's figures more accurate? -MattWatt 05:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[1] here's my source.A billboard article.Billboard uses only Soundscan figures in there articles.WHAT MAKES SOUNDSCANS FIGURES MORE ACCURATE!!!!!You must be a newbie.Please quit making a fool of yourself.An argument has already been made over this.Soundscan is the source.They are the ones that count sales figure down to the exact number.AND GUESS WHAT?I have a subscription AND GUESS WHAT?Ten's ales ARE 9.4.The RIAA count how many albums are shipped.Don't revert it back. - SOADLuver

Look kid. I've seen that source. I understand the differences between the two and I ask, again, why one is more legitimate than the other. Your attitude is uncalled for, especially coming from some kid named SOADLuver. Perhaps you should wander back to Myspace, because I can guarantee you that you wont become a Wikipedia Administrator with your attitude and maturity. I'd be interested to see what an Administrator would think of the way this "edit war" has been handled. Don't come here and trash an article and discussion for a band that I've been listening to since you were most likely in elementary school. That's great, you've got a free registration to SoundScan. I don't need one, and I've seen the figures. Let me ask you something else, are you also a 10+ year member of the TenClub? Why don't you leave the real PJ fans to take care of these articles. -MattWatt 19:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

listen ten-9.4 sold.Soundscan free?since when I pay 20$ a month.Bring in an admisistrator.What makes soundscan's figures more accurate!Whats wrong with you man soundscan is the company that counts records sold.Obviously your new to wikipedia.Do you think I made up the term "edit war".Bring in an admin.Because my source is from Billboard.Why is it better than yours?Because Billboard uses soundscan figures in all of there articles.

BTW I bought Ten the month it came out and I've been part of the Ten Club for 3 years.not like it means anything to this discussion.And I never trashed this acrticle.As for my comment I am sorry I've had a long day some moron keeps addind nonsence to The Killers page I guess I was sorta grumpy for that I apologize -SOADLuver< 36 year old owner of every Pearl Jam album and attende of 4 Pearl Jam concerts.

We've got to go with the Soundscan figures, because they give an exact number and the RIAA doesn't. I think the way it is now with the Soundscan figure AND the RIAA certification is good. Kristmace 22:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is "Black" a "Ten" single?

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There seems to be a small edit war over whether or not "Black" should be included on the list of "Ten" singles. The Black article itself says this song was never released as a single, but I do know I've seen a very rare singled release for this song. Let's resolve this... -MattWatt 21:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The more I thought about it no Black should not be on the singles list if it wasn't released as a single, but if it was released on a limited release than yes it should be on there. - SOADLuver

The only thing I have been able to come up with is that it may have been released as a single in other countries(possibly Mexico), but not the U.S. There really isn't much information and these are obviously quite rare. I've really been digging for hours and can't come up with anything more definative than that, but I did see a copy on eBay a long time ago, and I believe it was labeled as a promo. I would say it should be removed from the list of singles since it seems to be far too obscure. -MattWatt 05:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

yes if it was released in a rare radio release I'll delete it. - SOADLuver

To toss in personal observation/recollection...we (I was a DJ in the 90's) just thought it was a really good, dark track at the time, it went along quite well for mellow, lo-fi kind of indie shows. It was never released as a proper single that I recall. Tarc 00:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Man of the Hour

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Didn't the song Man of the Hour (from Big Fish soundtrack) make it onto the Modern Rock or Mainstream Rock charts briefly in late '03 or early '04? I don't see it listed. JDK77590 17:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so. -SOADLuver

live in london

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

i have a 2 disc live album from 30/5/00 at the wembley arena in london. could someone look this up and add it?

It's listed in the "Official Bootlegs" section. -5- 23:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unplugged

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is it just me or is the Pearl Jam Completely Unplugged Album not listed here? --90.10.34.218 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.10.34.218 (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's an unofficial album, most likely a bootleg. I've never heard of it.-5- (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I actually watched it in MTV. Here it is another wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV_Unplugged, the important text is: MTV has filmed over 100 Unplugged performances, but less than 30 of them have been released as albums. Although Pearl Jam's March 1992 set was not released at the time, their Unplugged appearance will be released on DVD as part of the reissue of the band's debut album, Ten, in 2009. Paranoidhuman (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The user was talking about a CD bootleg recording of the Unplugged performance, not the actual performance itself.-5- (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The MTV Unplugged performance was officially released on DVD in their Ten Reissue Boxed Set in 2009, which is listed nowhere on this discography. Also included are Ten, Ten Redux, the Drop in the Park concert from Sept 20 1992, and a copy of the original demo tape that Eddie Vedder sent to Stone Gossard and Jeff Ament as an audition piece. Axemanstan (talk)

All Alone or I'm Alone

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It is a song featuring Jerry Cantrell or Alice in Chains as a whole, but I'm not sure if it is just with Vedder. Paranoidhuman (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

For some reason that song got attributed to Alice in Chains and Pearl Jam, but it's really by a band called Downface. Go here to see - [2].-5- (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bu$hleaguer single

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It is featured on the band's official webpage as a vinyl-only promotional single, but it is a single anyway :S [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.164.74.25 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

For Pearl Jam's singles only the commercial singles have articles and are featured on the discography. It should be kept consistent. Once you start getting into promo-released singles and promo-released albums for Pearl Jam it gets confusing, it's better to keep it simple-5- (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC).Reply

References

  1. ^ Bu$hleaguer as a Vinyl-only promotional single

Merkin Ball/I Got Id

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Merkin Ball is the name of an EP with two tracks (not sure how that makes in an EP) - "I Got Id" and "Long Road". When it charted almost everywhere referred to by the EP title (see the non-US chart positions sources), but in the US it was referred to by the main song title, ie "I Got Id". --JD554 (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The citation is for "I Got Id" also being known as "I Got Shit". Allmusic is a reliable source so there is no need to remove that citation. --JD554 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I fully understand what the text is attempting to say. Unfortunately, what it actually says is that

Merkin Ball ... is also known as "I Got Shit".

Since that's not what the source says, I removed its citation. Regardless of how reliable a source is, if it doesn't support the text, it doesn't belong here. It would certainly be appropriate if the article text was written in the same way as points 1 and 2 above. Given that it's not, the Allmusic citation doesn't actually corroborate what's in the article.
The entire notion of "EPs" on Wikipedia is messed up anyway. See the nonsense at Talk:Alice in Chains (album)#Jar of Flies, for example. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I disagree, the text says (at least to me) "...'I Got Id', which is also known as 'I Got Shit'". The reference supports that with "the song is more commonly known as 'I Got Shit,'". And the fact that the release is known as Merkin Ball is supported by the same page, then click the link "Chart & Awards" tab and you'll see that it charted as "I Got Shit". So all eventualities seem to be supported by the reference. --JD554 (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I just noticed that you reworded to make it clearer. I've added the chart reference. --JD554 (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am not so sure that the Merkin Ball release has been properly categorized. Firstly, it is under the EP's section but at the same time it is in the Other Charted songs section. It only has two songs on it so can't really be classed as an EP (Extended Play). I think it would be better off in the main singles table as the lead accredited track "I Got ID" and then Merkin Ball in the album column of the singles table. Also there are other songs in the Other Charted songs table that have to have been released as physical singles. For example "Thin Air" could not have charted in the UK at that time unless there was a physical single release, and so I think would be better off in the main singles table. Thoughts appreciated. QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Mirror Ball

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is it not listed? Paranoidhuman (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

CRIA

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why were the certification levels changed, now platinum is only 10,000 units? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifthhorizon (talk • contribs) 17:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Music Videos

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

all the riot act music videos should be removed, since they were only promo videos not official music videos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since this has been nominated as the main article of a good topic candidate, I had a quick look at whether it still meets our FL criteria, which I no longer believe it does. I made the following observations:

It has a maintenance tag (link rot) and is a good example of an old-fashioned featured list. It needs updating to meet current standards. At a quick glance, there are some completely unreferenced releases (e.g. Live at the Showbox, "Chloe Dancer"), some completely unreferenced charts (e.g. CAN and CAN Alt in the "Other charted songs" section), a completely unreferenced section (the "Other appearances" section), some link issues, and I believe none of the tables meet MOS:DTT, a requirement of featured lists. It would be a shame to go to the trouble of promoting this to a featured topic when the lead article needs so much work to remain featured. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I will shortly be nominating the list at WP:FLRC if these issues are not resolved. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Singles section all screwed up

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Billboard Hot 100 row appears to be all screwed up, referencing with Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles. Does anyone have objections to my fixing the list? - Bossanoven (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just had to go through and remove several fake entries in the singles section based on information provided in http://www.billboard.com/artist/328459/pearl-jam. It appears that the entries were added in March 2015 and were never noticed. Can this please be monitored?-5- (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article does not meet the basic requirement for verifiability, as well as not following guidelines on charts per WP:CHART. For example, I just checked some of the entries, and they are found in the source (Inside Job, The End, etc.), they are also not found in Billboard.com or Billboard.biz. It also list Bubbling Under Hot 100 in Hot 100 which is not recommended as it contravenes WP:SYNTH. This article needs to be fixed and checked, or it will it will recommended for removal from the featured list. Hzh (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pearl Jam discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Split

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

There is no consensus to split Pearl Jam discography to the new pages Pearl Jam albums discography and Pearl Jam songs discography.

Editors noted that the list probably should be trimmed because "it lists fan-club releases in excruciating detail (the band's actual, world-famous albums and singles have been accorded far less detail!)." But there is no consensus for or against trimming because it wasn't discussed in detail. There is no prejudice against boldly trimming the article and further discussion if the trimming is contested.

Cunard (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Support split - Discography article is long and should be split to new pages entitled Pearl Jam albums discography and Pearl Jam songs discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Split the discography into Pearl Jam albums discography and Pearl Jam songs discography? George Ho (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose the reason this discography appears so bloated is because of it lists fan-club releases in excruciating detail (the band's actual, world-famous albums and singles have been accorded far less detail!). These do not belong in this article, which is meant to list only mainstream releases, not every last obscure fan giveaway—we are an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Besides they've all been sourced to a crowdsourced database, i.e. an unreliable source.—indopug (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I agree with Indopug in the sense that the sources need to be looked at, and the list probably trimmed as a consequence. I Hvae no preference regarding the split, however. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose This is a solution in search of a problem. I don't think the article is prohibitively long to the point that it necessitates a split in the first place. More importantly, where I see other singles discographies, they're for artists like Jay Z (Jay Z singles discography). It is useful to have a separate page for Jay Z because he is featured on a ton of songs that are not his own, but Pearl Jam isn't. Measured in bytes, Jay Z's singles discography alone is four times larger than this whole article, and it has far more headings that a proposed Pearl Jam singles discography would need. The rationale that supports hip-hop or pop artists that frequently collaborate with other artists on single songs doesn't work here, or for other artists that don't have either frequent collaborations or a truly voluminous singles discography. —BLZ · talk 04:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Horrible suggestion. When I go to an artist's discography page, I want it all there. I don't care if it is long. And how does two long articles make things better versus one long article? If implemented, will be confusing and annoying to readers.--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trimming down the list

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

@Meatsgains, Indopug, Brandt Luke Zorn, and Hobbes Goodyear: The list needs trimming. I see Discogs used as a source for multiple entries. However, Discogs is unreliable as it's user-generated, so either replacements are needed, or the entries may need to be removed. --George Ho (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@George Ho: I'm not sure how to trim this--they have released what they have released. Do you have any suggestions? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
The sources can be replaced without removing the entries. It requires more research to replace Discogs. Unsure about entries cited by fansites. I pinged others and two WikiProjects about what else to do with the content. --George Ho (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I replaced one Discogs webpage with a book. So many more to replace. George Ho (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
In the main, I don't find there to be a pressing need to replace Discogs cites. If you
I don't generally find there to be a pressing need to replace Discogs cites. If you are doing so, and you find that the ref could instead be replaced with "per album cover" or "per album liner notes", then I don't see the point. However, if some opinion in a WP article is being supported by an opinion in a Discogs summary ("blah-blah album represents their artistic peak [or nadir, or whatever]", then, yes, it should be replaced by reliable, independent sourcing. As to the entries for particular albums, EP's, or singles, I don't see anything that should be removed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Found talk from 2009 and from 2016 saying that Discogs is not reliable. I'll be happy to replace Discogs with "cite AV media notes" or "cite AV media". --George Ho (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Discogs is, informally, a great and trustworthy source. It's one that I use all the time (although not as often, personally, as Rate Your Music). Discogs is not considered a "reliable" source within the categorical meaning specific to Wikipedia, for the same reason as IMDb and Rate Your Music: it is a user-created database. That said, I think there might be some flexibility here.

The releases in this discography that rely on Discogs as a source don't seem to be mentioned by any other "reliable" source that I can find on the web. There's a very specific reason why these releases would exist yet not be referenced in third-party media, which is that they were very niche and limited-edition releases that wouldn't ordinarily receive press. Yet from what I see on Discogs, there is little reason to dispute that these releases do actually exist for purposes of this list, even if they would not be "notable" for purposes of their own standalone article. To pick just one example, there's extensive and precise information about this release down to label and catalog number, and I highly doubt someone would go through the trouble of faking and scanning all of that artwork just to perpetuate a hoax. A hoax would likely be noticed by Discogs users, who have procedures and guidelines in place to remove false entries. Instead, Discogs users are using this page to actively trade copies of the album, which goes further to strongly suggest that the release and information on the page are reliable.

The general policy against using Discogs makes sense. For example, it wouldn't be appropriate to cite Discogs to demonstrate that Pearl Jam's album Ten exists, because there countless better and readily available sources that would make more sense to use, and it would be needless and duplicative to even bother citing Discogs or the album as its own primary source (using template:cite AV media or template:cite AV media notes). But the general policy on Discogs seems to have a possible exception for releases of this kind. IMDb is considered reliable for some specific purposes (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb), and I think a sensible exception for the policy against using Discogs would be for this type of niche release by an otherwise well-known artist for that artist's discography page.

Using Discogs is also almost certainly better than just citing to the primary source itself, because it would be much easier to make up an "obscure" hoax release and cite it as its own source on Wikipedia than on Discogs. I would much sooner trust a Discogs page than a dubious primary source standing alone on Wikipedia. And since Discogs guidelines require that users possess a copy of any entry to they database they create (see here), Discogs basically becomes a safer, "double-checked" way to cite a primary source.

The best of both worlds would be using template:cite AV media notes to make a citation to the primary source, using information from Discogs if necessary, and then citing Discogs secondarily in the same footnote. That way, it is clear that 1) the primary source is still what is being cited, but 2) the Wikipedia editor is not required or expected to personally own some obscure, limited-edition, out-of-print release and 3) there is an easy means of verifying the information cited within the primary source. Therefore, I recommend using template:cite AV media notes with a secondary Discogs reference. An example of how this could look as a citation (other potential styles at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Bundling_citations):

Ten Club 1995: History Never Repeats/Sonic Reducer/Swallow My Pride/My Way (vinyl LP liner notes). Pearl Jam. Epic Records. 1995. EX7 7628.{{cite AV media notes}}: CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (link) See also: "Pearl Jam – History Never Repeats". Discogs. Retrieved November 19, 2011.

It's a bit belt-and-suspenders, but I'm only recommending a method of sourcing that is so extensive because this is a Featured List. I think it's reasonable that such a strict/formal method is appropriate where necessary within featured lists, even though other discographies not subject to the same high standards could use Discogs in a looser way. That said, this is also an argument for just using Discogs in place of a primary source, because citing Discogs is in essence a primary source citation. Again, citing Discogs should be limited to the purpose of sourcing releases on discography pages when they are 1) obscure enough not to be mentioned in reliable third-party sources, 2) can reasonably be demonstrated to exist using Discogs, 3) would otherwise be appropriate to cite using just the primary source, with the Discogs citation serving as an accessible, reasonable double-check on the existence of that primary source. —BLZ · talk 23:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Replaced more Discogs links with an Italian source. --George Ho (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Pearl Jam discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pearl Jam discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pearl Jam discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pearl Jam discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pearl Jam discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pearl Jam discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Pearl Jam discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pearl_Jam_discography&oldid=1195541618"