Well, as you can see, Miles Davis was a prolific jazz musician. He started his career as a sideman, but he later formed his first nonet. Davis is known for his complex music style, ranging from bebop to hip-hop jazz; no wonder that he is one of the who-is-who of jazz music. But yet this discography is incomplete and it is unlikely it will ever be complete, but I believe it is an overview of his most important albums and compositions. The lead is, unlike other leads of discographies, a very short and concise summary of his musical career, and it does not contain any duplicated information already mentioned in the several tables. GoPTCN 15:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Quick query why is there a separate section for "vinyl records" when almost every album on the rest of the page was released on vinyl? Were these releases actually singles? If so, they should be labelled as such, as "vinyl records" is a confusing heading....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I changed it to "singles". Regards.--GoPTCN 09:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
"By 1945 he had abandoned his academic studies making his first recordings as a sideman." Comma needed before "making".
What is intended to source "although the data is not conclusive"? Without a reference, it sounds like original research.
Several sources state a different number.--GoPTCN 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
In that case there should be a footnote here giving some of the various numbers. My point about that part sounding like OR stands without some evidence to the contrary, such as a note. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Who says his second quintet was "great"? That seems to be editorializing.
This is the official name of the quintet. Capitalized as proper noun.--GoPTCN 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Below multiple charts: "denotes releases that did not chart or was not released." Tense conflict between "releases" (plural) and "was" (singular).
Forgot to edit that. Done.--GoPTCN 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
In the Singles table, the footnotes don't need to be sortable.
Below the Video albums table, consider removing the unnecessary comma after "denotes".
What makes All About Jazz (reference 3) a reliable source?
For every jazz enthusiast, AllAboutJazz is of course THE source for jazz music. It is the most comprehensible and reliable source for this genre. Several authors are former writers of magazines and the content is maintained.--GoPTCN 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Brittanica (ref 6) is not unreliable per se, but it is a tertiary source and I feel a stronger secondary source could be found for such biographical information.
What makes 78discography (ref 18) a reliable source?
The source is simply the liner notes, but as it is not permitted to use that as a source I had no other choice to use a well-known source for vinyl records. Note that the author says that he maintains the content.--GoPTCN 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Also unsure about kind-of-blue.de (many refs).
Again, the source are the liner notes. It is only used to proof they are no hoax recordings.--GoPTCN 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
And Jazz Discography Project (several refs). Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. Also maintained by a trusted team.--GoPTCN 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll leave the source comments out for others to consider, but for my own education why wouldn't the liner notes themselves be considered a reliable source? Sounds to me like they would be roughly equivalent to primary sources. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This template is useless as the liner notes are always the principal reference, so this template does not make sense. Also, as you can see, I added a book as an additional source. Regards.--GoPTCN 07:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I share Giants2008 concerns over the use of those sources he has picked out as dubious. Even if they're "back up", we shouldn't be using sources that we don't consider reliable.
These are the only sources available. The source are the liner notes. As I said before, the content there is maintained and the German kindofblue.de has even covers. Otherwise I can put a general reference from a German book.
It doesn't really matter if they're the only sources available. Can you prove them to be WP:RS? If not, we shouldn't be using them as references, especially as you already link to them as external links. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Good, then I will simply remove the references; is this what you want me to do? --GoPTCN 09:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The references are the liner notes, and they are reliable. So either I remove all references or I keep them.--GoPTCN 10:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
But you're not referencing liner notes, you're referencing unreliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The sources are not unreliable. They clearly state that the information is from the liner notes and they say that they maintain the content. Anyway, I used a book which has the complete discography.--GoPTCN 11:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose on sourcing - the entire Prestige/Debut table is completely unsourced, and many many other releases further down are not sourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Click on the several articles listed in that table and you will see they are not hoaxes. We simply do not need sources here as self-evident.--GoPTCN 09:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean "unsourced"? The other tables do not have any references, apart from the chart footnotes; this is not a requirement to add those. Regards.--GoPTCN 09:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Well where are the release dates sourced from? That's not "self-evident" is it? And what about those releases which don't even have an article e.g. in the Live albums table? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I will try to add sources from the online (!) liner notes I recently discovered. Please don't close this list; I will work on it soon. Regards.--GoPTCN 14:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Plosin is probably equally unreliable, right? --GoPTCN 10:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
What I do not understand is that I need to cite the release dates; we have articles and several sources such as Plosin and jazzdiscography and they use the same release dates, as their are from the liner notes. An example is this, it clearly says that the recording took place from January 17, 1951 to October 5, 1951, and the dates are even linked to the session details. So explain why these references are not reliable and name me the type of references you think are reliable. Regards.--GoPTCN 10:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I need to you to provide evidence that sources used are reliable. I need to see a source which references each release date (or otherwise how do I know you haven't made the whole lot up?). It's pretty straightforward what I'm asking for. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Not a single discography cites the release dates! It is pretty clear it is nonsensical; the release dates are correct and several sources agree with me. Regards.--GoPTCN 11:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
"or otherwise how do I know you haven't made the whole lot up?" -> ?? You really believe I would put hoax recordings? --GoPTCN 11:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
No, of course not, it was a hypothetical question. How does any reader know that those dates are genuine? By the way, discogs which have releases that have charted use the chart references for release dates. You can't do that if the single/album in question has never charted anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
It does not need to be charted if released... I am not sure when the Top Jazz Albums chart was created, but it seems like Jazz albums and singled did not chart in 40s, but there was only Billboard 200 at that time. The release dates are all from Allmusic--GoPTCN 11:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that a song may not chart if released, but the links to the various chart organisations used at the top of those tables will provide a release date for the songs that do chart in that territory. Songs which aren't released or don't chart need independent verification as the charts won't list them because, obviously, they didn't chart. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Have you done this yet? For instance, where is the specific reference for the recording dates, release dates and formats of Milestones? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, forgot those.... Done--GoPTCN 14:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I finished the first and the live albums table; will do the compilation tomorrow.--GoPTCN 21:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I referenced all the uncharted albums.--GoPTCN 07:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Tables from the singles section down do not meet MOS:DTT. NapHit (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I have hoped someone would skip that... I am not sure where to put the scope rows in the "Singles" section, so I'll wait for suggestions. Regards.--GoPTCN 14:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd go with putting them in the A-side column. NapHit (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Fully disagree. Please look properly. You can clearly see the covers on that site.--GoPTCN 10:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The website seems to be a fan site maintained by one person, just because all the information is factually correct does not make the source reliable. It is for the nominator to prove the site is reliable, I see no indication of this, nor does it seem this is used by others to verify data, so I don't think it can be considered a reliable source. NapHit (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The covers are the sources. Period.--GoPTCN 08:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
If it is a fansite, it is indeed reliable as the author does the work voluntarily. Again, the covers are the sources, so do not even start to view the website body but only the covers. It is impossible that a fan would falsify the covers.--GoPTCN 08:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Fansites are not considered reliable sources, plus stating the covers are the sources does not solve anything as on those scans there is no mention of miles davis anywhere. Anyway you use Allmusic for the majority of the sources, why not use it for the majority. For instance ref 95(which is a kind of blue.de), that info can be sourced at Allmusic see here just use that source instead. That's the problem using sources which can have their reliability questioned when reliable sources are available. NapHit (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I was not aware that some information on allmusic was updated. I replaced nearly every kind-of-blue.de site with allmusic. I replaced the normal pages with the one showing the cover with his name.--GoPTCN 19:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
There are still a few kind of blue sources there, one in particular is troubling. The kind of blue source states that the la villette dvd was released in 2001, yet allmusic has the release date as 2009. As all music is a reliable source I'm going to go with them on the release date, there are still a few kind of blue sources remaining and these will need to be replaced and checked against allmusic to ensure we are displaying the correct info. NapHit (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Allmusic is often known to include wrong release dates...--GoPTCN 10:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
And I was correct. Allmusic does not list many releases. Several sources state "2001", including discogs. Now you call Allmusic "reliable"?--GoPTCN 13:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm holding back until after the referencing issues are fixed, but a quick comment: etc. should generally not be in articles (first sentence) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.