Talk:Dolly Parton discography
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Muhandes in topic Discography split
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dolly Parton discography redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | Material from Dolly Parton discography was split to Dolly Parton albums discography on 31 May 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
| Material from Dolly Parton discography was split to Dolly Parton singles discography on 31 May 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
You Are
editI can't find the song "You Are" in her discography. According to the Dutch Wikipedia it was a hit in 1983. [[1]] [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grushenka (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Discography split
editI am proposing a split of Dolly's discography. It's huge. How about doing Dolly Parton albums discography and Dolly Parton singles discography. Like Cher albums discography and Cher singles discography. Please leave your opinions below. Thanks 
EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 01:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I really like the idea. Dolly Parton has released over 50 albums and over 100 singles. It makes the discography a lot less lengthy. I also suggest using the new formatting proposed by WP: DISCOGSTYLE. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment — agree with new formatting. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 01:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support, I never knew this page was so large!! Agree with User:ChrisTofu11961 per WP: DISCOGSTYLE re-formatting, I also strongly suggest that sources be added to verify all peak positions and certifications, (RPM for Canada, Billboard and/or Allmusic for US.) — Gabe 19 (talk contribs) 02:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support seems uncontroversial enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support both are long enough to stand on their own. Eric444 (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support revamp of albums and singles separately would be easy. The present is too long. Novice7 | Talk 10:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support personally I prefer the albums & singles being on the same page so that I can easily view them together and go back/forth between them. But the drastic length of this page def. warrants they be split into 2 separate articles, so I support that. CloversMallRat (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not giving an opinion on this just yet, because if this is going to be split up it needs a heck of a lot cleaning up. It is hideous in its current state, and it's no need for this to be split up and still look bad, it would need to look respective on both sides. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 02:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, don't you worry my friend. It will be taken care of.
EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- In that case, Support, but it better be. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 17:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, don't you worry my friend. It will be taken care of.
- Approve Fine by me. Nowyouseemescreed 03:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- While I would have supported this, it was performed, in my humble opinion, in a suboptimal way. Only the albums were split, and they were not removed from this article. As a result both articles are now being edited by multiple editors and we have a content split of a headache. Would someone be willing to redo this, this time properly? Best regards.--Muhandes (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)