Talk:Buddy Williams (country musician)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Music Low‑importance

	Australia portal Buddy Williams (country musician) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

untitled

does anyone know where to get the song lofty?? been looking for it for ages now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freerpg (talk • contribs) 00:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buddy Williams (country musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150101072554/https://online.brisbane.qld.gov.au/cemeteries/cemeteries_step3.jsp?mapdisplay=31939 to https://online.brisbane.qld.gov.au/cemeteries/cemeteries_step3.jsp?mapdisplay=31939

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts of copy edit and cleanup

@Bodyswerve: You reverted all of my copy edits to the article. I believe these were basic edits for clarity, conciseness, and tone. I also put the long discography into a table per the maintenance tag and Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE. You did not leave any reason for your reverts in your edit summaries. What did you find objectionable? – Reidgreg (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC) (copied from user talk page 13:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

You haven't responded on your user talk page so I moved discussion here. You also haven't made an edit since the reverts on 16 July. If you haven't responded in a few more days I'll probably restore at least part of my edits. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, You have edited my work and put the Discography in a tabled format which has removed a lot of additional information that I researched extensively. I have reverted it back to show the additional information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodyswerve (talk • contribs) 00:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodyswerve: I feel that the copy edit of the prose (i.e.: everything but the discography) should be retained as an improvement to the article. As for the discography, I appreciate the work you've done but I feel that it goes into excessive detail that would only interest a very small readership. All of that detail makes it difficult for the reader to see the more important information. If the information isn't trivial, it should be cited to reliable secondary sources to establish notability. (Please see WP:NOTEVERYTHING.) – Reidgreg (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodyswerve:, @Reidgreg: Reidgreg is correct. The extremely long and overly detailed discography does not allow the average reader to find information quickly and easily. It should be pared back to the simpler, more concise and clearer display (see here). Go for it Reidgreg, you have my support.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaidar cuebiyar: thanks! I was going to ask for a third opinion after a little more discussion. I'm going to go back in the page history and put back (1) the copy edit and (2) the discography tables. @Bodyswerve: I think if you take a look at other articles like The Beatles discography or Aretha Franklin discography you will get an idea of the level of detail we're going for, even for highly notable recording artists. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodyswerve: you have again reverted without discussion. This back-and-forth reverting is unproductive. Please explain the reasons for your edits here and perhaps we can come to some form of consensus. I empathize if you "worked really hard", but that isn't a good reason. Effort does not necessarily equate with merit. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and provides a summary of notable subjects. See Wikipedia:Summary style, and the other links above. I feel that many of the additional details detract from the article. If you want to report all of your research, I respectfully suggest that you consider hosting it on some other website. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on discography format

The consensus is that the "Discography" section should be presented in tables as looking better and being more concise than lists.
Cunard (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "Discography" section be presented in a series of lists (example with lists) or tables (example with tables)? – Reidgreg (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tables – as indicated above, I prefer Reidgreg's more concise and clear format.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tables look better here (although I'm not keen on the centre-alignment of the titles). --Michig (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tables: although it's a proposal and not a guideline, WP:DISCOGSTYLE suggests tables as a standard format, and I agree with it... it's easier to read and pick out information. Richard3120 (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tables per the previous comments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)----[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.