Jump to content

Talk:The Smiths discography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listThe Smiths discography is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 26, 2014Featured list candidatePromoted


Singles section

[edit]

1) Have listed the re-issues separately, otherwise it reads as if This Charming Man got to #8 in 1983 which it obviously didn't.

2) Although Sweet and Tender Hooligan was released to promote Singles it wasn't actually on that album, so I'm just wondering whether it's misleading to put this as the album that it's associated with.

3) Should the list include all singles released in all territories? If so then there are a few missing (e.g. The Headmaster Ritual was released in some places). If not then maybe it should just be a UK discography and therefore removed "Stop Me..." etc.

Cheers, MFlet1 (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The re-issues shouldn't be listed separately. There should be no confusion about when the "peak" chart position was due to the foot note. So I've reverted that edit, this is the method used on featured list articles such as Echo & the Bunnymen discography. You're quite right about "Sweet and Tender Hooligin" so I'll change that to a non-album singles as it wasn't released to promote it's previous album either. The list should be for all territories otherwise it isn't comprehensive, so if you know of any that need adding please do. --JD554 (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on the "all territories" thing;
- "Still Ill" - released in Germany;
- "The Headmaster Ritual" - released in the Netherlands, Australia and had a limited release in the UK;
- "Barbarism Begins at Home" - released in Germany, Italy, Australia and also had a limited release in the UK;
- "Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others" - released in Germany.
Info from Passions Just Like Mine (http://www.passionsjustlikemine.com/smiths-d.htm). Ss112 (Talk here!) 06:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hand in Glove

[edit]

Wasn't Hand in Glove on their eponymous album? So it shouldn't be listed as a non-album single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jss367 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. The album was released around nine months after the single and the version that appears on The Smiths is a remix of—but the same recording as—the single. That said, itdoesn't necessarily follow that it's a 'non-album' single. Have edited the article, for the reasons below.

In an archived peer review for this article, the case is it put that Heaven Knows..., William..., etc. are non-album singles despite their appearance on Hatful of Hollow because Hatful is a post-singles release compilation album. However, The Smiths is a studio album. Also, the song was re-recorded during the Troy Tate sessions and again during The Smiths sessions. Although neither recording was used, this does point to "Hand in Glove" having been intended to appear on the first album.

Also, the case with Hand in Glove is similar to that with The Boy with the Thorn in His Side, which predates (also by nine months) its album release in remixed form yet is considered an album single in the article. Pololei (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very like you're trying to read their minds. Unless you can provide a reliable source to verify that it was intended to be an album single, it should remain a non-album single. Please remember WP:BRD. --94.4.175.152 (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SS112 - Edit warring

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Capping: the usefulness of this thread has come to an end: next time, come here a lot earlier than you did.

SS112, as I have requested several times now, STOP EDIT WARRING and USE THE TALK PAGE. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SS112, Further to the most ridiculous question I've seen posted on my page in a while, you have to use the talk page to DISCUSS, not try and force your preferred version onto something. The source you have put in is useless. If you could actually look at the article, you'll see the books are in a separate section and referred to by the sfn template. You've not bothered to do that, but just forced what you wnat in the wrong place. Page number? It's useless as a source without it. It may be that we have to tweak the Aussie sources, but yours is - as it stands - useless. - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book that I'm citing, David Kent's Kent Music Report in published form, actually contains the Australian chart information in it. The page for "Ask" on Hung Medien's australian-charts.com that you linked to when you "overhauled" the discography to make it a featured list is entirely useless as it contains not one Australian chart position written on the page. If anything, you forced your preferred version onto this page just as much as I did, like adding an entirely useless sortable function to every column. Ss112 17:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. You have not addressed the point raised above: do you have page numbers? If not, the book is useless as a source to us. I have already said that we may have to tweak the Aussie refs, but if you remove one set of flawed refs for another, then you're not doing anyone any faviours.
2. I put back the page to the form it was when it was it passed FLC, which means it is the consensus of the community (as it passed through a community process). It is, therefore, not my preferred version, but 'the community's.
3. The sortability is an advantage that will be useful. If you don't want to sort, don't use it, but don't deny the facility to others.
4. You added rowspans: this means the tables fail WP:ACCESS provisions for computer readers: not exactly an improvement there, is it?
5. You've been round long enough to know about WP:BRD: next time, don't edit war - use tyhe talk page to DISCUSS changes and concerns, rather than try and slam errors back onto a page. - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid I don't have the page numbers on hand, but that doesn't invalidate it as a source. It's far more useful than a page that shows absolutely nothing, so it's a bit rich to claim I tried to "slam errors" back on the page. Clearly "the community" didn't look hard enough at the reference for that.
Also, I understand the accessibility issue, which is why I said in one of my edit summaries that I get restoring individual years and album entries for each single or music video, even if there will always be such issues with accessibility for vision-impaired readers. But sortability (order chart positions by highest, descending or ascending chronological order for releases, titles by alphabetical order—so what?), in this case at least, is useless and is not on the majority of (featured) discography pages, so I don't see why it needs to be on this one. Ss112 17:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. No page numbers makes the source useless (and the formatting is poor here, as I have already indicated), so I will replace it in the morning with something more appropriate
2. Sortability is useful, and although some people don’t like it, others do. If you do not like it, you do not have to use it, and it does not affect how you "use" the table if it is there. Some featured discogs have it; some don't, so there is no hard and fast rule on its use. As the community consensus on this page (through the FLC) was to keep it, it can stay until a consensus overturns it.
3. Your edit warring to remove the slash in the break was one of the most pointless things I've seen: both forms are valid (so there was no need for you to remove it) but our software converts all varieties of versions of the break tag to <br /> in any case. As there is no difference in how it appears on the page, there is no basis to removing what the software needs to put back there anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The slash in the break thing is my personal preference. If it makes no difference, there was no real need to revert it back again, was there? Also, a lot of this seems to be about preserving what the article was like when it became featured because you asked for it to be. Articles evolve; this won't stay the same forever. So, even if your "more appropriate" reference isn't suitable or doesn't actually contain the information you claim it does, if I don't object, I'm sure, in time, somebody else will. Ss112 18:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. At last you've been honest enough to admit you edit warred to your own preference on something. It does make a difference: it means the software has to work harder to covert to a web standard, which can cause problems with some computer readers and makes the software work harder, which slows page load times. So not a wise move then
2. There is nothing about preserving anything here. My second post (after telling you to stop mindlessly edit warring) clearly stated "It may be that we have to tweak the Aussie sources", so I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that I am unwilling for things to change. If the additional sources are correct, I really am not sure on what grounds you will object: perhaps you could enlighten me? - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, look, you "edit warred" just as much as I did, to your own preference. That's where I'm getting that you're unwilling to change—because you think not having things the way you want them is "a step backwards". And I won't object if the source contains the information. But if it's like the reference that was here when "the community" made your version a featured list, I won't be holding my breath. There's really not much more to say. Ss112 18:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I said that something may have to change: that's exactly why I don't want change... There's a major logical flaw there, if you open your eyes just a little. The "backward step" is fairly self-evident: you added rowspans, and removed functionality for no other reason than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Brilliant. And on top of that, you didn't bother to use the talk page when reverted, even asking the most ridiculous question I've seen on Wiki.
Next time you are reverted over anything: talk about it on the talk page. You'll find it's useful (you can learn things like you have here) and you won't piss people off pointlessly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only reason you admitted something had to change then was because I pointed out the source you provided for the Australian positions contained no such information, which you also never gave an explanation for. Your hypocrisy over criticizing me for not liking it and reverting it then doing the exact same thing to me and slavish devotion over this because it's one of your "featured" articles is what's really ridiculous. Ss112 19:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I have to wait another half an hour for a holier-than-thou reply, please really don't bother. I'm sick of checking this already. Surely we both have better things to be doing than not moving anywhere with this pointless "discussion". Ss112 19:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (Thank you, and please get rid of the petulance: I am not under any requirement to reply to your message in your timeframe) Nope: you introduced a stack load of ridiculous errors: I reverted them because they were bloody awful and ridiculous. I said in my second message that the one useful thing you pointed out could be changed. That's all, no "slavish devotion", and your ridiculous inability to use a talk page at the start of this was ridiculous. End of story. - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody awful and ridiculous... in your opinion. It's still not your page and you don't own it, and other people will edit and undo what you've done. Thanks for also never addressing that you deliberately inserted false information into the page. I'm not going to take "advice" from somebody previously blocked for edit warring. Ss112 19:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being a WP:DICK: I have never claimed to own it, so drop it. Your edits were (again) bloody awful and ridiculous. Grow up and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I bid the same to you. Ss112 19:42, 11 September 2014 (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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Smiths discography. 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:

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) 22:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Smiths discography. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on The Smiths discography. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Smiths_discography&oldid=1195552864"