Talk:Buzzcocks discography

Discography guidelines
This article should be adhering with Wikipedia's guidelines on discographies. Things like track listings should not be in here. Are all of those references to the actual release liner notes or something? It's also not particularly relevant listing the extended details of a charting (weeks, first seen) - especially in the reference section (it is quite unclear). Anyway, just thought I'd point you in the right direction. k.i.a.c ( talktome  -  contribs ) 07:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Many Buzzcocks' recordings (compilations, live albums, EPs, Singles) have not their own article, so I thought to add [and hide] some information that can be easily and quickly copied/moved to their own articles when they are created. Also, I think that having information about Released/Recorded dates, Label, Formats, Writers, Producers, Track listings, Personnel, Reissues, etcetera (especially for those recordings without an article) will help readers to get an idea about recordings without having to leave the page/article, and [IMHO] this would be great. Some references are to the release itself. About the extended details of a charting, I read those guidelines, but again, many of those recordings have not their own article, so I'm not sure if it is better to remove them all or to move them to their Charts sections when articles are created. Anyway, thank you so very much for your help. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am but an anonymous Wikipedia user, so I know my opinion is not weighted particularly heavily, if at all, but I have to say, this sort of discography setup is tremendously handy. I don't think it's necessary for every artist discography, but for artists who are, say, "Tier 2" or lower, if you will (IE not The Beatles, Rolling Stones, that caliber artist), where the act is noteworthy and has a large enough discography, then why not? Phish and DMB's live discographies certainly don't need an individual page for each separate release, for example. -C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.174.229 (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Compilations, EPs, Singles discrepancies
I'm not sure where to put some recordings: Any idea's on what to do? –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Parts 1-3 is a Compilation and an EP (12" vinyl and cassette), and it is actually listed on both sections
 * The Fab Four is a Compilation and an EP (7" & 12" vinyl and CD), and it is actually listed on both sections
 * Spiral Scratch is an EP and a Single, (7" vinyl) and it is actually listed on the EPs section
 * The Early Years Live is a 4-track EP recorded live, (12" vinyl) and it is actually listed on the EPs section
 * Innocent is an EP a Single and a CD Maxi Single, (7" & 12" vinyl, and CD) and it is actually listed on the EPs section
 * Do It is an EP and a CD Maxi Single, (12" vinyl, and CD) and it is actually listed on the EPs section
 * Libertine Angel is an EP and a CD Maxi Single, (12" vinyl, and CD) and it is actually listed on the EPs section
 * I noticed these duplications as well. You can make a decision, take one out, move things around. Anything we do can always be undone and redone ad infinitum. Morganfitzp (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at it, certainly the three 90s entries are singles - 3 tracks doesn't really make it an EP (especially if the running length is a mere 9 minutes). CD singles usually have more than two tracks but still qualify as singles. Aside from that, the layout of this discography is awful and quite hard to digest.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

'Time's Up' is not a compilation. None of the material released on it appear on other Buzzcocks recordings. Spiral Scratch was recorded at a different session. Time's Up was the band's first demo session and was originally "released" as a bootleg. It is not a live album either although it was recorded in one take. The best description is as a studio album.Nomadic Tribesman (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)