Talk:The Who discography

	This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.DiscographiesWikipedia:WikiProject DiscographiesTemplate:WikiProject DiscographiesDiscography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Rock music List‑class Top‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject The Who

Genre

Personally, I think these genre classifications are stupid and should really be deleted. It's all rock music, even the first three albums. For details of the particular sub-sub-genre The Who were exploring on that particular album, people can visit the particular album page. Besides, who are we to say that, for instance, the first album is "Maximum R&B" above all else? The Who described their music as such at the time, yes, but they also described it as "power pop", so why not call it that? Or "mod", which is how most people referred to it then and now? I'm not saying we should dispense with these descriptions, I'm saying they should be discussed in detail...but on the particular album page. For the first three albums, the descriptions are too narrow. For the later releases, the labels of "Rock." ad nauseam are redundant. Who's with me on getting rid of this? We could just replace it at the top with something like "The Who explored various rock subgenres on the first three albums, such as mod, power pop, and psychedelia, before delving into the hard rock idiom on 'Tommy' and 'Who's Next', a direction they would continue to pursue for the rest of their career."

i second that, but it mihgt be important to find something worth mentioning in the genre column. Joeyramoney 23:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. When not screwed up by ill-informed edits, it gives useful information about the evolution of the band's music, and hints of what to expect for people who are considering giving an album a try. – B.Bryant 06:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't. When the genres are accurate, they're too vague (Pop, Rock, Psychedelia). "Maximum R&B" isn't a genre at all, it was a marketing gimmick for their early gigs, and I don't even want to comment on describing an album as "satire". These terms cannot be understood by anyone who hasn't already listened to the albums, and they don't need to be told what it sounds like. I say chuck 'em. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 12:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why the hell do I get directed here when I type in...

when I type in "magic bus" ????

I noticed that as well and fixed it. It's more appropriate for it to go to the song. OsFan 14:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live Albums

How about adding The Blues to the Bush as a live album? It was an internet-only release, but it's still an official live album.

Merge

I reckon The Who Songs should be merged into this page, like The Beatles discography, if not deleted completely. There's very little point to it being its own article. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 08:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume that the two months of silence means that nobody cares if the List of The Who songs page just gets deleted outright? Good to know. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 05:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Songs

Is "Notable Songs" NPOV? Should we use a more objective standard, such as "top selling songs"? Or at least "Songs with individual articles"? – B.Bryant 06:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Album/Film

The only Who album I own is "Who's Better, Who's Best". I had hoped to find some info about it here. It is not included on this page. I would request that a Who fan who knows about this album please update this page. Here is what I see online about the album.[1] TonyTheTiger 05:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there seems to be a similarly title film "The Who: Who's Better Who's Best"[2]. I could add the album, but I think a bigger Who fan should incorporate both of these into the page. TonyTheTiger 16:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The album is a minor compilation (not particularly widely available, didn't sell that well), and The Who have released dozens of them. Unfortunately, because we can't practically list them all, this is one of the many to be lost by the wayside. The film is a VHS compilation of various music videos and a few early live/mimed performances. Again, it's not particularly worth a mention when compared to everything else that's not included on the page. I'm sorry that it happens to be the one that you've got and that this page wasn't as helpful as you had hoped, but I'm sure you'll understand that we can't include everything, and we do unfortunately have to draw the line somewhere. Sorry again. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 16:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Better, Who's Best is a "minor compilation" that "didn't sell well"? It went Top Ten in the UK and is a gold seller in the USA. Clashwho 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying this is a minor omission. Could you describe what omissions are closest to the borderline on this discography so I can understand this decision. TonyTheTiger 00:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as there are literally dozens of them and I wouldn't know where to start. Take a look at all the links on this page for example. Could you describe why Who's Better, Who's Best is more worthy of inclusion than all of the others? MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 19:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why are these live-albums not in the list?

1990 · Join Together
1996 · Live At The Isle Of Wight Festival 1970
2003 · Live At The Royal Albert Hall
2006 · Live From Toronto

you could add them in "other appearances

(I'm Dutch, so my English might not be that good...

They're all unofficial releases.

All official albums are released by Brunswick, Decca, MCA, Warner, Track, or Universal/Polydor.

Join Together was released by Virgin
Live at the Isle of Wight Festival 1970 by Sony
Live at the Royal Albert Hall by SPV GmbH

I haven't got Live From Toronto, so I don't know who released that. The problem is that the copyright belongs to whoever made the recording, so a release doesn't have to be anything to do with the band or their record label.

But if you want to make a new Live albums section and put them all in (including the 1982 MCA release Who's Last) I don't think anyone will burn your embassy for it. :)

Those are all official live releases no matter who released them. They're not bootlegs. Join Together was released by MCA in the USA and it's included in The Who's official discography from the box set. Clashwho 03:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Those are all official live releases no matter who released them." That's a contradiction. The definition of "official release" is that the band (or at least their label representatives) had something do do with it. "Unofficial" is not the same thing as "bootleg". I stand corrected on JT, though... And I've just noticed the Eel Pie logo on the TCT Albert Hall recording, so I was wrong about that, but IOW is definately unofficial. As I said, I don't know about Toronto.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.6.83.187 (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Don't you think the appeareances on Live Aid/Live 8 should be mentioned? Joep Vullings 18:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Missing and Two's Missing

I think these albums are worth adding to the compilations section. They contain material not found anywhere else. Clashwho 10:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "Teenage Wasteland" on "Who are You?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Dookie95]|Dookie95]]] ([[User talk:Dookie95]#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dookie95]|contribs]])

No, Teenage Wasteland is on the The Lifehouse Chronicles. You're probably thinking of Baba O'Riley, which is on Who's Next. —Erik Harris 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jointogether.jpg

Image:Jointogether.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Odds and Sods track listing be from the original version?

This list is from the 1998 reissue which includes a lot of bonus tracks. Just wondering, as none of the other albums list the bonus tracks.204.73.103.253 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of track listings?

Would anybody have any problems with me removing the track listings from this article? Let me just explain why I think this is a good idea.

Currently, the article is slightly confusing. You see the name of an album followed by a listing of all the tracks. So, to find the album you're looking for, it's necessary to scroll through many screens of information trying to visually pick out album titles from the track titles. This makes it impossible to get a quick overview of the released albums.

The track listings are, in most cases, just duplication of information which is already available on the relevant album's article.

So, my proposal is to make this page more like Pink Floyd discography in that it should contain a listing of albums with release dates and chart positions with a link to the album articles for those who require more information. As well as making this article more usable, this would also ensure we only have an album's track listing in one place, making it easier to ensure its correctness and keep it up-to-date with information on bonus tracks from re-releases.

Thanks, Thebrid (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Demos 1968

Would this fit on here, and if so, where? It was released by Yellow Dog in 1993, and is definitely an important document in Who history. 97.112.192.230 (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]