This website is probably one of the most comprehensive encyclopedias on any specific topic within popular culture, bands that would have otherwise been forgotten will now forever be remembered. However, if this is website is dedicated to recording all 'things' metal, I believe it is also important to include magazines and radio programs that focus specifically on heavy metal. This website already includes record labels and supporting staff such as producers, photographers and executives. Why not create a record of all LEGITIMATE magazines, radio programs and other forms of popular media? I believe it would be cool to learn more about metal media from other countries. As for what constitutes a legitimate form of media, I am not quite sure. I still this is something that should be considered, the importance of media to metal culture should not be unaccounted for or forgotten. At least that's my take on things. What do I know.

It's not though. This site is dedicated to archiving bands with a valid metal release.

Not to mention the volunteer force is swamped as it is.

That said, we have no problem if someone wants to start a thread that aims to compile this information.

I'm curious/interested... but what format do you envision for that kind of archive? like, the page for kerrang! or metal forces, what info would include? it's not as straight-forward as a band...

There's this site https://sendbackmystamps.org/

Speaking of things to include, would it really create that much additional work to include compilations? It'd really just be like splits with a few more artists, no? Wouldn't even matter that there's a bunch of compilations that have one metal band and a bunch of non-metal bands, it's the same as splits with unlisted bands, no additional data load, just a mention of the band names.

Heh, that's probably the most requested addition to the site, excluding the "multiple labels for albums" feature. It's been an ongoing discussion, although there remains lingering concerns about it.

You're right that the work to implement compilations would not necessarily be extensive, in large part because the system already exists for including them. And, in fact, we already do include compilations; we don't differentiate between a "split" and a "compilation" if it has six or fewer bands on it. There's no practical way to do so. That limitation is also, as you point out, an arbitrary one as well. Over the years it has gone up from 4, to 5, to 6 bands because legitimate splits have warranted it. The inclusion of compilations with six or fewer bands has just been an unintended, but inevitable consequence of needing to include splits that have six or fewer bands. Likewise, the rules for splits also govern compilations; we do include splits (and compilations) that just include one metal band on them, and we also do manage lineups and other album data to reflect that reality. It wouldn't be too difficult, or even impractical, to continue to increase the arbitrary limit from 6, to 7, to 8 bands, either. I'm sure there's legitimate splits that might warrant it. It also wouldn't be difficult, or impractical, to remove the arbitrary limit entirely. In fact, objectively that'd be a much better situation to be in then to continue to draw the line ever higher and try to justify why an arbitrary line is even needed. As that number has gone higher over the years, the rationale for excluding compilations has gotten weaker.

The concerns aren't with the technical feasibility of including compilations, but with the policy implications. Some people are opposed because they do not see the value of including compilations. While it's true that could apply to some of the other things we include as we try to be a comprehensive encyclopedia - I'm sure there's some people who question why we include label pages, for example - the concern is that compilations aren't fundamentally a part of a band's discography - at least not in the same way as splits. There's also opposition over the vast number of compilations that would be included if the doors are opened up to include all of them. For most bands that might not be much of an issue, but for a band like Metallica that would mean the inclusion of almost 400 compilations. Many of these compilations might be nothing more than a cash grab by a label. While some of those probably already exist on the site, as a consequence of what was mentioned in the previous paragraph, we've been reluctant to outright endorse them. For some people, imagining Metallica's discography filled with hundreds of dollar store compilations is an awful thought. That would easily oversaturate and devalue the "discography" section of a band's page.

Yet, on the other hand, there's a case for including compilations, too. Not only does including compilations add value to the site - since we'd be working towards that goal of being an exhaustive, comprehensive source for metal band information - but there's definitely compilations that are incredibly valuable. These might be compilations that are historically relevant to the metal scene, or which are just as popular as any band's full-length material to fans of the band. For many people the exclusion of these compilations does a disservice to the site, and shows that we are not as good a source of metal information as we could be.

So what's the solution? Well a few ideas have been bounced around. One idea would be to allow moderators (and possibly high-ranking users) to bypass the arbitrary limit on splits in order to add what we feel are historically relevant or notable compilations. This would have the practical element of appeasing those people who feel we should be including compilations that are relevant to the metal scene. It would also cause the least disruption to the site. However, it would add yet another arbitrary aspect to the site, which would mean another case of applying subjective rationale to the inclusion or exclusion of items on the site. And, it would lead to arguments and misunderstandings equivalent to our inclusion of non-metal side-projects, whereby users and maybe even members of the staff fail to understand why certain compilations are added while others are excluded. Limiting cases where we make arbitrary decisions is probably a good thing; it makes the site more credible and objective.

Another idea - and one I'm personally a fan of - would be to include all compilations, but not as part of the band's discography. Discogs does something like this already; it distinguishes between the band's "discography" (or "releases") and its "appearances." It has separate sections for both. It wouldn't be too difficult to apply the same logic to our site: maintain the "Discography" tab on a band's page to include only a band's releases, while having an "Appearances" tab include those albums that the band has made an appearance on. This would resolve the issue of oversaturating a band's discography with hundreds of compilations, and would allow users to choose not to be presented with a release type they may not care about - as "Discography" would be what users would see by default on a band's page. This option would also be the most objective and inclusive of actions we could take. That said, it also has its downsides. Since it's not easy to differentiate compilations and splits, and splits could be classified as "appearances" on their own merits, would that mean splits should also be included in an "Appearances" tab? For some bands that consider their splits to be a part of their "discography" that might not be the most ideal option. Likewise, for those historically relevant or notable compilations... would including them among potentially hundreds of other compilations on a band's page limit their visibility? Is that something we want to consider, or not? There's possible solutions to both of these issues (ie. allowing mods to select splits to be manually moved to the "Discography" tab, and allowing mods to bold or italicize notable compilations, respectively), but it's still worth considering these concerns. I'm sure there's other things to consider, too.

As you can see, we've definitely looked into this issue, and continue to look into it, but opposition to it is not without merit or (at least) consideration. I would love to include compilations, personally, but ultimately it's not my decision to make, and that's something for the powers-that-be to decide warrants inclusion (and whatever work necessary to implement). But let this post act as confirmation that we do take these suggestions very seriously.

I didn't want to use the "d-word", but yeah, I was thinking of something along the lines of discogs because it doesn't even need Metallica - a lot of much lesser known bands are on more compilations than they have releases of their own, and the discographies would just be a big mess.

I try to hold back on "hey wanna rip of discogs?"-ideas, though, 'cause it's kind of cheap, though I certainly wouldn't mind that drop-down menu to go straight to a specific version of a release...

Maybe the differentiation between material not appearing on a full lenght/EP but on a split/compilation counts as a discography entry, whilst material that is taken from another valid release can be included as a compilation. A lot of tribute cd's for example have material not present on the artists cd's, in my own collection it counts as a valid rec, whilst albums with material I already have on a full length (and multiple bands, so no compilations of own material) I put away somewhere.
Ok whilst writing I still see a lot of problems but I am just trying to think out loud here.

I've been basically trying to push something like this. A.k.a I think I mentioned it once three weeks ago. My whole thought process was from the Season of Mist compilation "One and All, Together, for Home" which consists of 8 bands but all of the material is original material made for that album. I think having some sort of criteria for the compilations would be needed. Something like I said like... a sentence ago: Songs specifically made for the compilation. That would weed out a lot of the useless compilations like the samplers and the mass amount of BDM 11+ band compilations that just send

This may sound like a silly idea, but we have label pages and we can use them for such entries. I mean, why not have a tab that's called "Compilations" on a label's page, where compilations can be added? Compilations belong on the label's page not the band's page, that's what I think. This way a compilation could appear on the band's page without cluttering it. It'd look something like this:


I think that's a neat way to do it. Not sure how easy it is to implement. However, for what it's worth, the whole compilation thing is of very little value, and it'll take a lot of effort to maintain it.