I'm married to a lovely girl named Amie, have one child, am Roman Catholic, come originally from Europe, and currently reside in Canada (her home-place).
Messages
Hello, Discographer. You have new messages at Casliber's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sure, but what were you gonna do? Please leave me example, so I have no problem, okay? (Show me something on this page, Mike, please, then you have my blessing!) --Discographer (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-Butting in- Looks good so far, but you need to remove the tracklistings and b-sides. Indicate B-sides only if they charted (this is how the American charts worked, because they charted all songs separately for a long time).WesleyDodds (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, however this is not just for charted songs, as it's intended to be of "the complete discography". So, absolutely everything will be shown. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Discographer, I appreciate what you are doing, and I think that it is a vast improvement over the current mess. However, all I'm saying is hang on: there is no hurry, and we shouldn't be adding incomplete work to article space. Also, let's grind out the details of how exactly the discography should look, on the talk page first. Thanks, indopug (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Indopug. We won't agree to how it should look, as I'm for universal as opposed to UK/US/CAN, though for the labels and release dates I support them in usage, as shown. B-sides absolutely must, as it currently is, stay present in the discography because several A-sides have different B-sides, and then that leads to what single are we talking about? I am neutral on the matter of whether to show the (label) numbers alongside its respective label. I will talk about track listings, colorisation and canon on the talk page, as well as what is said above. Best, --Discographer (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Discographer ! I'm happy to see you again on Wikipedia. I didn't know if you continued to participate in the encyclopedic project, but now I see you've only changed your username. For the Beatles' discography, I can't checked the accuracy of the article, as I'm not familiar with the subject (and I don't speak English very well !), but I really think it's a very nice job ! The article may pass WP:GA, it should be good to ask for a detailed opinion by a peer review. Keep up on the good work ! Cheers, Europe22 (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We had an edit conflict on The Beatles timeline (You said you were done! <g>) and I had done lots of edits that would be difficult to repeat. I saved my version over yours and intended to re-do your edits. Then I saw what you hd done; you linked songs that were previously linked. I think that's over-linking, and while I'd probably do it in this case, I've seen lots of people remove those links. I'll add them, but I wanted to make sure you think it's necessary to link those songs multiple times in the same article. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've definitely been a help, and I appreciate it and I am sure the other editors involved with the page do, too. If you feel strongly about the links, I'll put them back. As I tried to describe, the removal was due to my having added all the horizontal rules suggested by DenDodge. I didn't want to start over on that. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you at all John, you did right. I would have done the same thing if I was you. Oh, I did fix the link for the 1976-relleased "Yesterday". Best, --Discographer (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Discographer! Yeah we've done a bit of work over there, lol. I would love to work on the timeline for The Supremes, they were in need of one so I can definitely work with you on it. I don't know about Furious Freddy but I'm definitely down for it. :-) BrothaTimothy (talk·contribs) 22:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a lot of work adding entries to The Supremes timeline. I've been watching from afar though I jumped in today to adjust the ToC. I noticed that you aren't adding any references, and I am curious why. Are you planning to add them later? — John Cardinal (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hi John. My references are, besides the discography page iteself, British Hit Singles & Albums (19th edition) book edited by David Roberts, and also this 70-page book included in The Supremes CD. I have no other sources, as Allmusic only lists years and not the entire dates. I'd appreciate it if maybe you could place these in for me, please. Thanks for checking up on me! Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This 70-page book is amazing! It lists the entire singles discography and albums discography. It is my main and primary source. British Hit Singles I used for the singles released in the UK. Otherwise, everything came from that 70-page book. Oh, the book is untitled. Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not practical for me to add the citations for you. I can give you some tips on how to do it, but it's probably better for you to look at The Beatles timeline and follow the model there. I'll watch the page and if I see something that doesn't look right I'll try to fix it. — John Cardinal (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re: The Supremes
Thanks for what you said about my work: when I first got here, there were gaping holes in coverage on R&B and soul music while there were 500 articles on The Beatles and such, so I did what I could to try and help balance things out.
As far as exact dates for when Supremes members joined the group, I don't know of any other than the ones already listed. Exact dates really aren't necessary for a list article of group members; unless people came and went within a month's time, just the month and year will usually suffice. Also, I don't think you need a second page for a Supremes timeline: the one at the bottom of this article seems to work fine as it currently exists. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just saw The Beatles timeline and realized you're basing The Supremes timeline off of that. To be honest, I think both involve a level of minutiae and redundancy that I don't think is neccessary for an encyclopedia, but if no one's trying to delete the articles you certainly have the right to work on them. Good luck though, and happy editing. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Message
Hello, Discographer. You have new messages at Halls4521's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
