Talk:Genesis discography

Other releases

Is there are reason why releases such as Genesis Archive and The Platinum Collection aren't included in the main table? Mdwh 21:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Now they are. BGC 22:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Official albums vs studio and live albums

I think it would be more accurate to split "official albums" into studio albums and live albums. This would make it easier to see how many albums of original material were released by the group. JamminBen 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll do this if there are no objections. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Many Too Many" EP

Why isn't "Many Too Many" listed as an EP? It was a 7-inch three-song release, just like 3x3. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing album.

Where the heck is "Abacab"? Abacab! Aba freakin' cab! Jack Meihoffer 02:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A bot had commented out the Abacab album because it believed that the front cover image of the album being used in Wikipedia did not qualify for use under the "fair use" guidelines. I have addressed the issue. AreJay 03:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As an added comment, there are four different cover versions to the original Abacab LP release, all legitimate, and all equally prevalent. Someone interested enough in that fact may want to work on the image entry to reflect this fact.Mpoloukhine 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

... And Then There Were Three

The official album title does not have an elipsis on the end of the title. Only has one at the beginning. I don't know how, nor care to edit it myself, but maybe someone else does. Mpoloukhine 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I know the 1994 remaster has an elipsis at the end as well. If you can send me a link to an image of the front cover of the original album showing the elipsis only at the beginning of the title, I'll be happy to change the album text as well as make the necessary changes in the ATTWT article. Thanks AreJay 02:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was to hasty. It appears to be less clear than I initially thought. On many albums it is with both, while with others just the one. On many official listings it is with neither, and in some cases its with the one. I think in retrospect, the double is not "wrong" enough to change, it depends on one's definition of "official." I'll keep it on my back-burner of "things to sort out" and will post back if I find something more definitive. Thanks for the replyMpoloukhine 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding reference to an external Discography link

I've tried on several occasions to insert a link to my site: http://www.genesis-discography.org/ only to have it removed for various reasons due to the personal opinions of others (Robotman, BGC) that edit these pages. I would like to open to discussion the issue of adding such a link in a way that all can agree to.

The website in question is without doubt the most complete, comprehensive and accurate discography of Genesis music online or in print. Yes, its my site, but I challenge anyone to dispute that claim. So, it seems like those seeking information of a greater depth than the wikipedia community is willing or able to provide ought to have at least a pointer to such a site. Yes, the site is my own site, but it is also recognized by just about any avid Genesis collector that has an online connection, and one need only visit the official Genesis site to verify that; the site is currently awarded site of the month status there.

I spend more time than I care to imagine keeping my own site up to date, accurate and relevant, and cannot and will not spend even more time trying to do so here at wikipedia, not only forfeiting my copyrights to my own work, but then regularly defending entries to mis-informed edits, etc. (tried, not trying again.) Maybe someday someone will take that on here, and power to 'em, but in the meantime, it seems like an external link to the site would be a net addition to wikipedia.

Please advise how to best do that in a way that you all can accept. Or tell me to take a hike, either way. Mpoloukhine 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy prohibiting folks from adding links to their own sites, although (for obvious reasons) such links require some extra scrutiny. In my opinion, a link to your site is very appropriate on this page. Does anyone disagree? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've visited your site often and think it's very informative. I don't have a problem with you adding a link to the website under external links. Thanks AreJay 02:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps BGC should respond with counterpoint, seeing he/she is the one that has deleted them?Mpoloukhine 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and add your website to the links section. Be sure to reference WP:EL#What should be linked in your Edit summary. AreJay 19:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as suggested, I've added a link in a new "links" section in the Discography entry. I suppose this will be considered sufficient by most.

But at one point I had tried to add a similar link at the bottom of each album entry. My logic was that you can arrive at the album entry, where the actual discography and release information is listed, and not know about the link that's up in the discography entry proper. My feeling was that a link at the end of each album entry would make sense to allow people the knowledge of the external source for more info. This had been previosuly deleted by Robotman.

What's the consensus on doing that?

Personally, my feeling is that this main discography page is little more than a table of contents, and that the actual "discography" is where the information actually resides. In this case, the information resides on the album entries, and as such, a re-direct to more detailed information ought to be at those album entries.

Opinions?Mpoloukhine 22:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Images in Discographies

Based generally on Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria point 3a (minimal use) and point 8 (significance/decoration) and more specifically on the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes, I think that using a gallery of fair use album covers as a discography is a violation of our fair use policies. I am going to try to reformat this discography into a tabular format today.

I think that the use of these images on the individual articles are compliant with our fair use policies. ~ BigrTex 17:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but I'll let someone else chime in and revert if need be. As I posted in the Phil Collins discography article, which I did revert back to the original photos, "As of this time, whether it's a violation to use fair-use images in discographies is being debated, although current rules appear to allow this. Per WP:Album, "Some editors consider the use of image galleries in discographies an "unnecessary application" of fair use, although the practice is common and other editors see it as perfectly fair and reasonable (see e.g. Kylie Minogue discography or The Beatles discography)."

I know there's a debate about this happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines, but no consensus has been reached and the photos currently appear to be allowed to stay per the discussion. If policy or consensus say they should go, then they should go, but otherwise, why remove albums from an album discography without any discussion? Perhaps we should allow the debate to finish first before removing more photos?" --Ataricodfish 01:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• WP:Album#Discography states "Note that fair-use images are not permitted in any form of gallery or list article, such as discographies." I have also joined the discussions that you mentioned. I believe that policy says that they should go, but am willing to discuss as needed. ~ BigrTex 15:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Best?

Is there a reason this is not included?

The_Best..._Genesis

Someone has put it as the next album in the chronology section of The Lamb article MrMarmite (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I did googled "The Best...Genesis" and got nothing. Compilations and bootlegs exist, though I'm not sure articles need to be created for any of them if they aren't notable. Also, the article doesn't cite any sources. The closest match I found on the Genesis discography was "The Best of Genesis" released 1971/72. No other information is available about the album. I don't think it should be included in the main article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wind & Wuthering release dates

Okay, let's get to the bottom of this. There has been a lot of contention here, on Wind & Wuthering, and on Seconds Out. My take on it is that the album must be considered "released" as of the first pressing in any country. All the evidence I've found so far indicates that the first pressing was in 1976. I suggest this page as a starting point. It includes scans of actual record labels from Wind & Wuthering releases in 1976. Please post your evidence here. User:BGC seems convinced that the liner notes from the Rhino pressing are correct. I'm not so sure. MFNickster (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it's original research, but I bought W+W in 1976 on 28th December....yup, I'm that old! MrMarmite (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If the Rhino pressing seems to be the only one that has the different date, maybe Rhino was the company that printed it incorrectly? I tend to agree with the 1976 release date, as Genesis' official website, and MrMarmite's testimonial both vouch for. CarpetCrawler (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It really is perfectly simple. The confusion has arisen because W&W was released on 27 December 1976 in the UK and on 7 January 1977 in other territories, specifically the US. As with MrMarmite, I bought my copy in late December 1976 - I recall it distinctly - but that's not proof.

The issue here is that User:BGC will simply not entertain any opinion other than his own. He seems to consider himself the 'King of Genesis' and has assumed control of the various Genesis Wiki pages. He has also reported me as a sockpuppet simply because sometimes I undid his incorrect changes without logging in - as I explained to the administrator, I didn't realise logging in was compulsory. However, since then, he has himself been banned for 48 hours, so I think we can expect a further barrage of vandalism when his ban expires.

Anyway, back to the plot. User:BGC has requested proof of the 1976 release date. Do we really need to look any further than the band's official website: http://www.genesis-music.com/discog/?v=a&a=4&id=9? User:BGC feels that the liner notes of the 1976-82 box carry more weight than this which is, frankly, bizarre. That's akin to claiming that the authorised lyrics for "Strawberry Fields Forever" are those listed on the 1967-70 album, sometimes known as The Blue Album. As User:BGC also considers himself to be a bit of a Beatles expert, doubtless he'll know what I'm talking about. The liner notes to which User:BGC attributes such authority are, in fact, riddled with typos and inaccuracies. Any Genesis expert would spot these instantly. E.g. in the text relating to Duke, it claims that Tony Banks was "revelling in his Yamaha CP-80 electric grand". This is clearly a typo, since Tony Banks never used the CP-80 - instead, he was one of the first users of the Yamaha CP-70. In the text of W&W, it is claimed that the song "Your Own Special Way" signified the first time that Genesis had "completed a verse-chorus-verse pop song without the distraction of long instrumental breaks". Perhaps Michael Watts (the author of these liner notes) had somehow missed out the instrumental break in the middle of this song? Strange if he had, as it is notable for being the only time Tony Banks ever played a Fender Rhodes on record. Therefore, where the liner notes say that "Genesis brought out Wind and Wuthering in the UK on January 7 that year", this is clearly another glaring error on the part of Mr Watts or, perhaps more charitaby, a simple typo.

User:BGC further suggests that the W&W page on the Rhino website is more proof that he is right. Again, this is perfectly simple - Rhino, being an American organisation, is quoting the album's American release date.

Finally, all User:BGC has to is to look at his original UK vinyl copy of the album in question to see that it has 1976 stamped on it. What? You mean he doesn't have one...?

MarkRae (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it to the correct release date and the correct reference. MrMarmite (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW, I won't be surprised if the first thing User:BGC does when his ban is lifted is to restore the incorrect information again... Incidentally, this needs to be changed on the main Genesis page, the discography page, the A Trick of the Tail page (next album link), the W&W page itself, and the Seconds Out page (previous album link).

MarkRae (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done MrMarmite (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, note that the Rhino page doesn't give an actual release date - it just refers to "1977's Wind & Wuthering." A proper citation to support a January 7, 1977 date should certainly specify that date. MFNickster (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. In the interests of completeness, here are some more references which further support the 1976 release date:

http://www.amazon.com/Wind-Wuthering-Genesis/dp/B000002J2B/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1219247957&sr=8-2

http://www.charismalabel.com/charcds.htm

http://www.genesisdiscography.com/GwandwCat.htm

http://www.genesisdiscography.com/GwandwImageUKLP3rd.htm

http://www.planetmellotron.com/revgenesis.htm

http://www.genesis-news.com/philcollins/biography.html

http://www.connollyco.com/discography/genesis/

http://img2.sharedmusic.net/files/pics/221/220776/img_2_pr.jpg

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:l2j97iojg74r~T1

http://www.discogs.com/release/690570

MarkRae (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If anybody here is truly a Genesis aficionado, they would have the Genesis 1976-1982 box set, and will notice in the liner notes that Michael Watts writes that "Releasing any kind of prog rock album in 1977, the year of punk's rude awakening, might be considered as brave." He then goes on to write "Genesis brought out Wind & Wuthering in the UK on January 7 that year...." This text, which lists www.genesis-music.com at the end of it (meaning it is band authorized), is the most recent information available on the album's UK release. Just look it up. Did you ever consider that internet fan sites pick up erroneous information long considered to be "truths" and basically "copy and paste" it into other sites? Whoever compiled the discography section on the Genesis site clearly "copy and pasted". Even more obvious is the undisputed fact that albums usually were released in the UK on Fridays in that era (it was changed to Mondays around 1981/1982). January 7, 1977 WAS a Friday. December 27, 1976 was a MONDAY, the usual release day in North America at the time (it was changed to Tuesdays in the late 80s). Furthermore, I possess the latest volume of "British HIT Singles & Albums" (published in 2006) and Wind & Wuthering entered the album chart for the week ending January 15, 1977. Typically, an album released on a Friday in the UK (as they usually were at the time) would have an entry date of 8 days later. Wind & Wuthering is no exception. The UK edition does have 1976 listed on its label BECAUSE the disc would have been pressed in the factory while it was still 1976, even though it was scheduled for a January 7 release in the UK. For example, A Trick of the Tail was released on February 20, 1976. What date did it chart in the UK? February 28. 8 days later. Selling England By The Pound was released on October 12, 1973. What date did it chart? October 20. And by the time Wind & Wuthering was released in January 1977, Genesis were certainly well-established, meaning that their albums were sure to chart in the next available chart. If you'd rather base the release date on a bunch on sites that basically repeat the same anomaly and fuzzy memories, or seek out the two texts I just listed and use common sense, you will see that the January release date in the UK is clearly the right one. It's stated very bluntly in the liner notes for Genesis 1976-1982 and the UK chart entry date also supports the claim. It's quite clear. BGC (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, at least you're actually discussing this now... For the record, I do have the 1976-82 box set as well as the British Book of Hit Singles and Albums. Regarding the liner notes, do you or do you not acknowledge the fact that Tony Banks never played a Yamaha CP-80 electric piano, even though the liner notes claim that he did? And can you also confirm that your copy of Wind and Wuthering includes the full version of Your Own Special Way, specifically with Tony's Fender Rhodes instrumental break, even though the liner notes specifically say that this song is notable for not having an instrumental break? And surely you're not seriously suggesting that the fact that the liner notes end with a mention of the band's website implies any sort of official authorisation of the text by the band or its management? MarkRae (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You're woefully off topic here. The point is, the record came out on January 7, 1977. And it's in recent print on an official release, not some fan website. The point has been proven. BGC (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm perfectly on topic. Your only claim of proof is a set of liner notes which are full of errors, two of which I have pointed out to you more than once. The fact that you are deliberately ignoring these is clearly because you know that I'm right about them, which will nullify your claim that these liner notes are in any way authoritative. As for "some fan site", the proof that the album was released on 27 December 1976 is on the band's own official website. MarkRae (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

BGC: "(meaning it is band authorized)" How do you know that Genesis even authorized it? That's quite a bold thing to say, since many bands/celebrities just blindly let information slip by without their consent. I'm sure Dwight Gooden is really glad that his ghostwriter made up the whole part of his book where he admits that Kevin Mitchell (baseball) had actually decapitated a cat in the infamous "cat decapitation" incident. What I'm trying to say is, that bands and celebrities do not always double check what is printed, and I'm sure they couldn't care at all about what's written about them in a sleeve on one of their CD sets. It seems that many other websites, including Genesis' own official website, all contradict your claim, in which it seems that only Rhino Records is the only source that you have for your claim. And just a fair warning to all involved in this disagreement, let's all keep our cool and have a civil argument over this, I'd rather not see any more bannings! CarpetCrawler (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, BGC, I have reverted all of your edits to the release date on the proper pages. Let us please reach a consensus here before any of us change the things the way they are as of right now! Thank you! CarpetCrawler (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have listed THREE sources: the liner notes for the box, the Rhino site and the UK chart book. As I said, these sources are far newer than any of the websites which ALL repeat the same anomaly. How does anyone know the official website is fully correct? Saying that the official website contradicts me is a bold statement, since most bands let web administrators run them, "blindly", as you put it. BGC (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

PS - And I'm washing my hands of this affair. No one wants to see reason, and I don't need a wikipedia page to tell me what I already know, and besides, I actually have a life outside this place. BGC (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

BGC, I understand your frustration, but the issue is not settled. Yes, you have sources - but it's certainly possible the liner notes and Rhino site are also "repeating the same anomaly," and you have not offered any reason why other sources might be in error. Speculating on release date vs. chart entry is not very solid ground, I'm sorry to say. Did you fail to notice MrMarmite's direct testimony that he actually bought the record in 1976? Whilst being original research, it certainly suggests a discrepancy that deserves further investigation. What I would like to know is, is there an acceptable reference from 1976 or 1977 that everyone would accept as authoritative? MFNickster (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody not notice that the official site lists the release date in tandem with the AMERICAN label, Atco? The UK release was handled by Charisma. And I'm sorry, the release date vs. chart debut is indeed a solid argument, especially when based on the other albums I listed and their entry dates. As I already stated, I have listed three very recent sources, just debunked the official site date (since it's clearly the US one), and someone's anecdote about buying the disc over 30 years ago is very subjective. How do we not know it was an American import on the Atco label? BGC (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold on - are you now saying that the official Genesis website is listing 27 December 1976 as the official US release date...? Make your mind up... MarkRae (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does list 'Atco' as the label rather than Charisma. It also says the format is 'CD', tell me how that's possible. :) MFNickster (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean? I personally think the 12/27 date was erroneously estimated by someone at Atlantic and used in the "definitive remaster" CD reissue from 1994 (the UK edition, via Virgin, bears the year "1977", however. Check it yourself.). And I think that's how the 12/27 date has been spread, even to the point of ending up on their website. It charted in the US on 1/22/77. A month is an awful long time to chart for a band that was gaining steam in the US by then... And I still hold fast to the fact that albums were released on Fridays in the UK at the time, and would have made the chart dated 8 days later (1/15/77). BGC (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This page claims that the record sold 100,000 copies in the first week of its release. Seems hard to believe that would go unnoticed, but it would be nice to have a source for that figure. MFNickster (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That page is full of errors: "A Trick of the Tail" was released in February 1976, not "spring", for instance, and W&W never got to #1 in the UK, it reached #7 (#26 in the US). And of course, you'd have guessed I don't agree with it being released during the Christmas season (!) BGC (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone was able to buy the record in 1976, it obviously must have been released in some country. Could you be clear here, are you trying to establish the UK date as the only "official" release date of the album? Because I would consider the album's first release in any country to be the release date. So whether it's imported doesn't matter in that sense, and it doesn't matter to me whether the UK or US date was first.

As for your chart argument, it's original research and it doesn't offer any definitive information about release dates. A reference from Billboard, Melody Maker or NME would be acceptable to me. I'm leery of recent sources because, as you said, it's possible they are repeating an earlier error. MFNickster (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting note: this page says W&W was "officially released in the first week of 1977, though it was rush-released a week earlier in the United States." Makes me wonder exactly what is meant by "officially released." MFNickster (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:BGC that the web page http://www.holeintheweb.com/drp/bhd/Genesis.htm contains errors and, therefore, can't be considered authoritative. However, the point it makes about record stores not publishing sales figures over the Christmas period is definitely correct. In fact, it wasn't until later in the 70s that there were any official charts published at all between Christmas and New Year. Those of us who were in the UK at the time will doubtless remember Tom Browne's chart show broadcast simultaneously on Radio 1 and Radio 2 at 6pm on a Sunday evening which, on the last Sunday of the year, played the Top 40 over the whole year because there were no weekly charts published that week. This can be seen here: http://www.chartstats.com/album_chart.php?date=30%2F12%2F1976 - scroll right down to the bottom and you will see that nothing actually happened that week because there was no chart published. Same with the last week of 1977.

As regards the day of the week, I agree that it was *usual* for albums to be released on a Friday, later a Monday, in the UK but this was by no means a hard and fast rule. Three Sides Live e.g. is listed as being released on 1st June 1982, which was a Tuesday. MarkRae (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And look at what came sailing in at #10 the week ending Jan 15/77: link, eight days after its official release.... BGC (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On what date was Yellow Submarine (the album) first released in the UK? On what date did it first enter the UK album charts? MarkRae (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A poor example. Yellow Submarine started slow because a) The White Album was still lodged at #1, and b) it had hardly any new material on it, unlike W & W which was waited on by Genesis fans. How about looking at Abbey Road (released 9/26/69) and seeing a more realistic analogy: link. BGC (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is that an album's release date cannot be deduced, nor even inferred, by subtracting eight days from its first appearance in the charts... MarkRae (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not in all cases, but in THIS one, the overwhelming evidence points to "yes it can". BGC (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to "And I'm washing my hands of this affair. No one wants to see reason, and I don't need a wikipedia page to tell me what I already know, and besides, I actually have a life outside this place" :) I am not planning on taking any position on this as in the grand scheme of things it really does not matter and the only information I could add is original research from myself or Tony Smith MrMarmite (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Singles

Is it really necessary to surround all of the A-sides and B-sides with double quotes? MarkRae (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess not, I don't even think that's what we're supposed to do! But I may be wrong... CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the double quotes from the Singles table MarkRae (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, there's some stuff missing... what about "On The Shoreline"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.184.42.253 (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I Know What I Like

I thought it peaked at #21 on the U.K. charts... a recent edit says that it really peaked at #14. Who is correct? CarpetCrawler (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ordering

Why is Throwing it all Away listed as the 2nd single from the 86 album? I know it was in the US, but it was 5th in the UK - their country of origin, which usually takes precedence in these matters. (If the act is US based then the article generally has American spelling and English if the band is from the UK, for instance). By the way, yes, I Know what I like did only reach 21. The vandals are out again. Seek - and kill!--82.0.207.86 (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the anon, this order is really confusing! Some sections have it in U.K. order, and others in U.S. order! I also put it back to #21, that's what I THOUGHT it was, but I for some odd reason didn't change it when I asked. I should've just been bold!. CarpetCrawler (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

the different tables should be in the release order of the artists home country...the uk Mister sparky (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Rock Theatre - was Missing

I've added it, it exists but wasn't mentioned on the wiki page. I can only assume I have put it in the right place, but I'm sure a regular editor will move it if it needs moving ...

213.106.119.231 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Musicians

Recent edits by 82.1.63.98 (talk expanded the musicians column to full names. I think this change unduly elongates the table and detracts from the page's appearance. Other editors are invited to comment here. Piriczki (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the entry for Genesis to Revelation, the table is the same size as previously. This is more than offset by the space saved by not having the key. And listing the musicians is more immediately useful to the reader than having to crossref with the key. 82.1.63.98 (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you inadvertently reverted my change to the number of singles - it's 42, not 41 (I counted 'em). If you revert again, please at least keep this latter change. 82.1.63.98 (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, there is no reason for Brian Eno to be listed as one of the musicians who played on TLLDOB, as his contribution was nothing more than providing his equipment for Gabriel to use on his voice in The Grand Parade of Lifeless Packaging. MarkRae (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And he's not credited in the sleeve notes, so I agree 82.1.63.98 (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fly on a windshield

Chaps and chapesses, would it be worth considering including the various remastered albums at some point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.152.15 (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy the Man single

there should be a page for the 1972 Happy the Man single, and it should be listed on the Genesis discography template that appears at the bottom of the various album entry pages

dicogs entry here

J Edward Malone (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Genesis 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128093558/http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Genesis to http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Genesis
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://austriancharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Genesis
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dutchcharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Genesis
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024010704/http://norwegiancharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Genesis to http://norwegiancharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Genesis
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202125638/http://hitparade.ch:80/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Genesis to http://hitparade.ch/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Genesis
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626050454/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Singles list

I don't think it's necessary to subdivide the singles list according to the decade. After all, there are only three items in the 1969s, and in 2000 there are only one. Nor is it that they are many singles. --JoMaAl 312 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing Stuff

I think Turn It On Again - The Hits (Tour Edition) should have a separate entry under compilation albums as it was a very different album to the 1999 release.

Music videos section should include Paperlate as it was included on the Video Show DVD as a separate video, even though it was just a Top Of The Pops edit.

Video Albums should include the latest releases: Genesis: Sum Of The Parts (2014) - (documentary) and Three Sides Live (2014) - remaster of the 1982 release

If we are including Knebworth '90 (1990) then there are VHS, DVD (2008) & BD (2015) releases of that under slightly different names at different times.

And as someone else mentioned, need to find a way to show the release history of the album remasters as they are more than just the old albumns copied onto newer media. Wiki strider (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)