Talk:Paul McCartney discography

146: 125: 53: 454:

artist has a chance in "bloody hell" of appearing, is accurate. However, it does not represent a complete picture of chart performance in the U.S. where music formats are very silo'd and fragmented. Other major artists have these "alternatove format" charts on their Knowledge page. Whoever has decided that they are the "king" of the Paul McCartney discography page and continues to delete these charts is off-base, to put it mildly.

71: 250: 592: 903:– Adding release details about singles and maxi-singles is counter to discography guidelines and conventions. I don't agree with those guidelines, but as things stand now, if there is any hope of making this a feature list, those details would have to be removed. I removed a lot of those details a few weeks ago, adding the details to the song articles if they weren't there already. At that time, 22: 224: 406: 951:– I think most if not all of that content is in the discography now. I changed it to a table format a few weeks ago. I am not sure if such content is appropriate for a discography. If not, then it should be a separate list. If it is appropriate, then I'd support a merge though I strongly recommend keeping the tabular format. — 1410:. So I'm wondering: a) are others okay with "Paul McCartney's musical career" having been binned (i.e. did you know/notice?!); and b) is the idea of having a dedicated article on an artist's musical career innately WP:CFORK, or is it just when the content happens to mirror what can be found in the artist's bio article? 1119:

solo career, and as such is actively misleading to readers. There is absolutely no harm in including it, and excluding it can be misleading. If duplication is the only reason to exclude it, the better resolution would be to redirect the Wings article here, not to exclude the Wings material from this article.

1264:

somewhen on 1990 or 89 there was e Single "Party Party". which had no B-Side (there was an engravement fitting zu "flowers in the dirt" instead. Song was written by Paul Linda and 3 or 4 others (I think McCollugh was one of the nemes mentioned). I owned that single several years till I sold it to a

1165:

chart. While there are reliable sources that support this, an examination of the actual chart indicates otherwise. When the record debuted on the Hot 100 the week ending April 26, 1980, it was listed as "COMING UP – Paul McCartney" which was the solo, studio version on the A-side. It continued to be

924:

Adding separate lists (like the ones you propose merging here) seems like a bad alternative: it spreads the information around and is essentially splitting up the discography to get around the rules/guidelines. The existence of such articles and links to them from the discography would probably also

1818:

I remember hearing a version of the old Mickey and Sylvia/Peaches and Herb/Buddy Holly song "Love Is Strange" on a Washington, DC, area radio station in the early 1970s. And this song and a presumed B-side, "I Am Your Singer", are both on the box set of 7-inch singles released in the past couple of

1306:

Then should there be separate discographies for Paul McCartney, Paul & Linda McCartney, Wings, and Paul McCartney & Wings? It is important to remember that the members of Wings were employees of McCartney and that all of these records were made under McCartney's recording contract with EMI,

1118:

No, that is not enough. As I said before, Wings' discography is almost always included in lists of McCartney's, and it is generally agreed that Wings was basically a McCartney solo project in all but name. Not including Wings albums and singles in this list gives a false impression of McCartney's

989:

I've re-joined this discography from two pieces. McCartney's discography covering Wings and solo work does not need to be split by albums, singles, maxi-singles, etc. One discography is far more useful for readers and the page is not excessively long. Any such change is a major change and should be

929:

Given a choice between (A) dropping the details by deleting the other list articles or (B) merging them here and thus making it harder to get this article to featured list status, I'd choose A. I don't like that choice, but I don't think it's likely the discography guidelines will be changed and I

453:

The Singles charts listed here SHOULD have Paul McCartney's chart performance on major US charts like U.S. Adult Contemporary (AC) and U.S. Adult Alternative Songs (AAA), where he consistently appears to this day. To continue to put dashes for his singles in the U.S. Top 40 charts, where NO legacy

1797:

Regarding the instrumental, if you can provide a source then it can go up, if it was officially released. As for the score, if it wasn't released as a soundtrack album/EP, and the music was only featured in the film, then it wouldn't go in any discography table, but maybe there could be a mention

1174:). The live version continued to be listed for the next eight weeks as it descended the chart. Generally speaking, I think it is reasonable to say the live version was more popular in the U.S., but to state that it was number one on the Billboard Hot 100 seems inaccurate, if not blatantly false. 1031:

I've noticed that Canadian chart-positions are not columned in the stats but Canadian sales certifications appear as appropriate. Is there a problem with obtaining the Canadian chart stats? If not, can these be marked for addition as they're certainly missed here among other territories' stats.

1084:

The Wings material should be included here. I've tried a couple of times to revert, but it doesn't seem to be taking. But it's just totally ridiculous not to include it. Wings was basically a McCartney solo work, and reference works tend to group them together. That somebody created a Wings

1792:

I have examined this otherwise thorough discography and have found no reference to either McCartney's short film score for the 1992 DAUMIER'S LAW or the 1999 "Clean Machine" instrumental (initially released on the Linda McCartney Racing Team website). Are these eligible for listing here? Mark

829:

The line between Paul McCartney and Wings was blurred during the entire Wings tenure. McCartney was the founder and leader of the band and one of the three people who were in the band for the entire time. Separating the purely-McCartney material from the Wings material would yield two separate

637:

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

1398:

and the former music career article, but (to my mind anyway) an article dedicated to McCartney's career is a valid inclusion here, and WP:CFORK would only be applicable if such an article were underdeveloped and offered little that wasn't already covered in McCartney's biographical article.

1315:

under his own name instead of the Fireman. The point is that these are all McCartney records whatever name he chooses to put on them. The creation of the Wings discography was an ill-conceived idea to begin with and it should have been changed to a re-direct long ago. Duplicating, moving or

1167: 1744:

I agree that since there is a Wings discography page, the information shouldn't appear here. Or, at least, the current approach doesn't make sense – we should either delete Wings discography, or remove all Wings content from this page and retain the separate band discography.

1357:

My point is that such distinctions are immaterial and grouping them that way, whether in separate articles or separate sections within an article, is pointless and unnecessary. Again, re-arranging existing content to suit your personal preferences is not constructive editing.

1171: 1334:

Why not start a consensus about deleting the wings discography article and having them grouped like that on Paul McCartney's discography page (have them grouped in a separate section from the other studio albums under the title (albums released as Wings.)

1406:. When working on his song and album articles, I find much of the background details are so general that it would be useful to have a separate article on Harrison's musical career, because there's simply not the space to include a general discussion at 874:. There is neither a precedent nor a necessity for splitting up his discography into these more particular lists (especially one reserved solely for maxi-singles!), so any content that is not present in this article from those two should be merged. — 1064:

I can only verify "Mull of Kintyre" as a UK number one for Paul, and at least one source says he only had one #1 in the UK solo, but these other two songs claim to have been #1 in the UK on their respective Wiki pages and in Pauls WP Discography.

1290:

I know that Wings is basically McCartney in all but name but that band has it's own discography page so I can't see a reason to include it here as well, especially as it is linked at the top of the page alongside the Beatles as see also.

531:

There are so many chart positions on here that are not correct. For example, on "Mull of Kintyre" it was listed that it went to #3 in the US, when it really went to #33. The singles and the albums for the most part are all wrong.

723:

Paul McCartney; the Beatles was a collaborative band. Virtually all major reference works list McCartney's work with Wings together with his officially solo work. None of them put the Beatles with it. We should follow suit.

807:

The changes since October 1 were going in a bad direction. This discography should not include any Beatle material; there is a page for that already. Also, material should not be split off into subpages. Time to start over. —

1822:

I've never mastered the technique of signing my stuff on Talk pages. I am RSLitman, and I am posting this at approximately 9:45 pm Eastern Daylight Savings Time on April 27, 2024 (not 02:45 UTC on 30 April 2024).

1009:

I noticed that in the table with the chart positions for his albums the U.S. chart positions are listed first. Considering Paul McCartney is an English musician, I'd suggest putting the UK chart positions first.

948: 871: 634:

is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

1311:

under just "Paul McCartney" as evidenced by the name on the spine of the jacket but changed it to "Paul McCartney & Wings." Similarly, he has expressed regret that he didn't release

479:

Seems fair to list those, but only in a separate column. Songs that were hits on the AC or rock charts should not be listed in the column simply headed "US." It's misleading at best.

1713:

exists, Wings releases should not be on here. This page should be exclusive to his solo discography solely. I plan on removing all Wings material unless anyone has any objections.

1170:). The following week, July 19, the record appeared on the Hot 100 as "COMING UP (Live At Glasgow) – Paul McCartney & Wings" but it had now dropped to the number two position ( 273: 1386:, has now become a redirect to this discography with all its text deleted (obviously). I'm kinda shocked that this was never discussed on the article's talk page – the 165:

and related topics on Knowledge. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.

1651: 1647: 1633: 908: 1766:

exists means it shouldn't be here. If that page were to be redirected then both can be here but it exists, so this page should be just his solo discography. –

1872: 365: 196: 186: 551:

Is there a format to putting in information for non-album tracks? There is much information that I could give, but don't know to whom I should give it. --

1862: 615:, 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 1270:

but in that studio-version which lastet arround 5 minutes or so, it was plaed faster and slightly different. Does anyone know more bout that single? --

1882: 1877: 91: 1085:

discography page is really neither here nor there. I'm not sure whether that should exist, but the Wings stuff should absolutely be listed here.

612: 1509: 639: 631: 627: 608: 1559: 1867: 1857: 1762:

Thank you. It doesn't make sense for both to be here. Whether Wings was solely McCartney or just a backing band is irrelevant, the fact that

1226: 1200: 364:

to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles

1316:

re-arranging content without adding anything of substance is not particularly helpful and does little to improve the articles in question.

754: 1549: 1539: 1017: 967: 900: 867: 643: 512: 87: 78: 58: 1048: 693:

Especially those albums credited only to 'Wings' (and perhaps also those credited to 'Paul McCartney and Wings'?) should not be here.

486: 469: 269: 1629:

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

1529: 296: 281: 157: 130: 1819:

years. Why isn't this single shown in the singles discography here? Should someone add it? It would be a non-LP single, I suppose.

1730:

I object wholeheartedly. The earlier post made by Piriczki was perfect in explaining why the Wings discography should remain here.

826:

Re: Wings/Beatles inconsistency mentioned above and the reason why Wings material should be included and Beatles material omitted:

1383: 921:

Whether or not the details are available in song articles, if they are not in the discography, where can the reader see a summary?

1307:

and later Columbia. McCartney could have put whatever name he chose to on these records. For instance, he considered putting out

1138: 1109: 706: 359: 311: 1599: 1579: 1569: 1499: 1469: 747:

Off the top of my head, his work with Apple artists includes work with Jackie Lomax and Mary Hopkin, which is not mentioned.

1838: 930:

think it's more important to get the list to featured list status than it is to gather the release details in one place. —

1609: 379: 1807: 1694: 262: 33: 1403: 1134: 1105: 883: 328: 1489: 1479: 1519: 1433: 378:

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not

1166:

listed that way up through July 12, when the record was in the number one position for its third and final week (

623: 599: 1650:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1459: 1803: 1589: 1230: 1204: 758: 1510:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110616145338/http://www.ifpi.se/wp/wp-content/uploads/guld-platina-1987-1998.pdf

1021: 516: 1685: 1619: 1449: 1441: 995: 956: 935: 887: 846: 813: 566: 431: 336: 234: 1560:

http://www.webcitation.org/5kjdcdHb5?url=http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/certification-award-levels.pdf

915:

Adding release details about singles and maxi-singles is counter to discography guidelines and conventions.

1720: 1340: 1296: 1245:

Could someone please fix the 2010s albums table so there is a "—" in the certifications column? Thanks!

1044: 974: 797: 778: 490: 465: 1419: 1735: 1669:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1657: 1124: 1090: 729: 287: 39: 1440:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1275: 461: 1731: 1550:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090124001155/http://2m-online.ru/gold_n_platinum/detail.php?COUNTRY=5077

1540:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090124001149/http://2m-online.ru/gold_n_platinum/detail.php?COUNTRY=5075

1513: 430:] The anchor (#2010 Paul McCartney Archive Collection reissue) is no longer available because it was 1826: 1563: 1250: 1222: 1196: 1036: 1013: 970: 750: 696: 508: 482: 457: 603:

is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under

21: 1799: 1271: 647: 570: 439: 342: 145: 124: 918:

It's not always possible to move the details to song articles because not all songs have articles.

1834: 1530:

https://web.archive.org/web/20121105012246/http://www.ifpi.no/sok/lst_trofeer_sok.asp?type=artist

1363: 1321: 1179: 991: 952: 931: 842: 809: 604: 1654:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1670: 565:

I don't like the structure of this. I'd rather it be strictly chronological and look more like

1763: 1715: 1710: 1553: 1543: 1336: 1292: 1162: 1157:

I have always accepted the prevailing thought that in the United States, the live version of "

1101: 1040: 793: 774: 665: 438:

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |

1158: 1120: 1086: 1070: 725: 690:

Why are his albums with Wings here but not his albums with the Beatles? It is inconsistent.

676: 418: 230: 70: 52: 1677: 1600: