User talk:67.177.195.177

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Re: Paul McCartney Albums

In general, albums which are similar enough to possibly be considered the same album are almost always given only a single article, with a few exceptions. It so happens that some of those exceptions are in this discography. I think the cases you mention could very well all be contained in single articles. For consistency, it is probably best to have exactly one entry in the discography per album article.

As for splitting the albumsbased into sections, in my opinion that's not necessary, and would just complicate things for a reader who is looking for a certain album. It would also be somewhat subjective, which we should try to avoid.

BTW, the reason I changed the discography to use "*" rather than ":" is purely technical. The latter renders as a HTML DD element, a definition description, which should not be misused for this purpose. "*" renders as a HTML UL element, a proper list entry, which is more appropriate. --PEJL 02:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm okay either way when it comes to listing the McCartney albums. I just thought it might be less confusing to list the non-rock albums separately, as McCartney does not actually perform on them. (As you know, the artist on a classical album is the composer, not the performer.)
As for the many variations on some of the albums, I can see your point, especially if it was carried to the extreme case (ie, different bonus tracks on different issues of CDs). Still, with Back in the US being as comparable to Back in the World as the American All My Best! is to the British version, I thought listing certain variations might be something to consider.
Also, I'm okay with you usnig a "*" or a ":", or whatever you think appropriate. As I said, you seem to be the person who is keeping this site under control, and I defer to your judgment.
I think I am almost finished adding my two cents to this article. I might add a few more entries under the "Composer, Producer, or Session Musician" subsection, but, other than that, I can't think of anything else to add.
Thanks again for this well-managed site. MCB/Boulder 7/11/2007
Hi again. I don't doubt that the label says that. Our convention however, is that such notes are not considered part of the song name, and the song name should be in quotes. See also all the other examples in this article, with various "(live)", "(remix)" and similar notes. Therefore I'm reverting this change once again. --PEJL 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with not putting the subtitle of the song in quotes (or not capitalizing it, for that matter). As I said before, you seem to be maintaining this site well, and my hat is off to you. However, if the B-Side of "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" is only distinguished from the A-Side by simply putting the word "version" in parentheses, don't we risk countless well-meaning revisers erroneously inserting the word "instrumental" in the parentheses? The B-Side is not merely an instrumental version of the A-Side, it is an entirely different arrangement, don't you think? ---MCB, Boulder 7/22/2007
Possibly, but I don't really consider that a problem, mainly because I don't think these designations to really be subtitles, and therefore not unalterable. If it really is an instrumental track (I'm not familiar with it) I would think it would be more useful to a majority of readers to see "(instrumental version)" than "(version)", sacrificing a little bit of consistency with what is written on the label for a relevant piece of information. Or perhaps "(alternate version, instrumental)" which would be even more descriptive. BTW, feel free to respond here to keep the conversation in one place as I'm watching this page. --PEJL 23:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Golden Horseshoe, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.There is a proper way to cite articles, as shown in WP:CITE. Johnny Au (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] The Beatles Collection

You should know that the British issue of The Beatles Collection box set is NOT a limited edition which the American edition was. The British issue remained in the EMI catalogue for many, many years. You may want to read this article at [1] Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know the British version was not a limited edition. As I said in the note I left on your page, I totally misread what the original entry said. Somehow, I thought the entry was arguing that the American edition was only released because of the popularity of the British edition. I'm sorry for the confusion.
Also, I left the citation on your page with the Nov. 10 and Dec. 1 release dates of the British and American boxed sets. I'll leave it to your discretion as to whether or not you want to be that specific on the release dates.
Finally, I think we used to know each other, many years ago on a Beatles dicussion board, first on Prodigy and then on GEnie. Is that true?
MCB in Boulder, March 24, 2008.