Talk:McCartney III

Vinyl tracklisting
Hi - I have a vinyl copy of the album (mine arrived a day early) and the tracks are in in a different sequence to the CD. Slidin' is track 6, Deep Deep Feeling is track 7. This is presumably so it breaks better over the sides - Deep Deep Feeling opens side two. I suggest the vinyl edition is listed this way, with the break between sides noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDRobson (talk • contribs) 14:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect album cover image
Hi I believe the photo being used on this page isn't the album cover. If you check the iTunes pre-order, press coverage, and his store they all use a more tightly cropped image. Hundopundo (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Recordings on the album made before 2020
An official interview with Paul McCartney has been released mentioning the fact that 'When Winter Comes' is an unreleased outtake from the 3 September 1992 recording session with George Martin that produced 'Calico Skies' and 'Great Day' off of Flaming Pie. I have attempted to add this information to the article, but it has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoraniusCupilily (talk • contribs) 01:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe this is correct. The source doesn't mention the year 1992 however, but if you look in the booklet of the Flaming Pie album, the exact recording date for the two other songs mentioned above is stated there (3 September 1992). Kontrapunktus (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Track listing format
A track listing should generally be formatted as a numbered list ... In more complicated situations, a table or the template may be a better choice.
 * As required before filing a report at AN/EW, first a discussion should be attempted at the article's talk page. I've repeatedly told you when reverting your re-formatting of the track listing that the nearest thing we have to an album style guide favours a straight, numerical track listing. Per MOS:ALBUM:

This album has one singer, one featured performer, one producer, one writer. As I've said repeatedly, it doesn't get any less complicated than that.

That point overrules any other considerations, but there's also the fact that, back in October, this article's preliminary track listing was a straight list (here, then here), not a template, so the usual approach in matters of style is to follow the original method. In addition, the non-template track listing is consistent with album articles such as McCartney and McCartney II. And you don't seem at all familiar with WP:BRD either.

You wrote in your last edit/revert "There's no such thing as an 'original track'!" I don't know what you're talking about – I never said anything about an "original track".

So, in light of all the above, the track listing should be presented as a numbered list. Why do you disagree? Apart, that is, from your personal preference (eg, here and here). I'm quite happy to take this to WP:AN/EW. JG66 (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A request to WP:RFPP has led to the page being fully protected, so at least things will settle down for a bit. I agree that a template is unnecessary.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think when the article is unprotected that it should be changed "back". A dispute over this was exactly what got the article fully protected in the first place. As for what we go with, I don't particularly care either way—I generally use the template myself, as it's now seen as somewhat of a standard amongst contemporaneous pop music editors, but I have also restored significant amounts of original numbered lists from newbie users unnecessarily changing them to templates. Here I think it's being misunderstood that a lot of editors, even those who will later add a template when there is a track order, will list tracks announced up until that point with bullet points because the order is not known. That being said, it's a bit more telling that when the "Bird" tracks were announced as the opening and closing tracks were announced, they were presented as a numbered list. Perhaps we should go with that, but I'm not so sure. I don't change lists to templates, and I don't believe, regardless of what a style essay suggests, that we should change templates to lists even if it's "simple". My vote therefore is just leave as is.  Ss  112   13:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that at all. Although in your comment you step both ways, you seem to be saying ultimately that because this issue resulted in FPP, no change should be made.
 * At the heart of the dispute was another editor's disruptive behaviour and unwillingness to cede to or engage with the idea that a style had been set beforehand, and more importantly that the quasi-style guide stipulates when a template or table might be needed for a track listing. And this album couldn't be further from a complicated situation, however one defines "complicated". (The style essay was downgraded from MOS status last year, from memory, but it was still generated via consensus, way back when. Following the downgrading, some steps were taken to have it recognised as a bona fide style guide, one editor was particularly keen; will add link when I find it.) The same user, Wild.Reputation, displayed the same juvenile behaviour at All Things Must Pass recently – eg, here.


 * In this article, it's just come down to their personal preference. The idea of the Track listing template becoming the standard option was proposed back in March 2018 and was knocked back (and yes, I was one of the editors doing the knocking). So what, are we saying if an editor's really disruptive, we just bow down, to avoid further disruption?


 * The only thing that stopped me reporting the user was the stipulation that a discussion should first be held here on the talk page, which I started at 13:24 on 15 December. This was just after Wild.Reputation once again changed the format, at 12:53. Two or more hours pass without W.R responding here, and then Deepfriedokra protects the page. I agree with P-K3 that FPP was probably a good idea, but I think it was always going to be enacted the more W.R continued to disrupt – in other words, the axe came down on the wrong version, because they won't engage with the rationale I put forward, let alone follow WP:BRD.


 * Further to that, as I've said, a numbered list is consistent with the two previous McCartney albums. JG66 (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You might see it as "bowing down", I see it as avoiding further disruption, regardless of whom said disruption is from. Personally I don't care much for the "consistency among series of articles" argument, because in most circumstances when users suggest this, the articles inevitably differ on other aspects said users are not concerned by. Regardless, that's getting off-topic. You are right—I did ultimately say we should maintain the status quo (in this case, the way the article was when it was locked)—because there has not been a formal consensus on the matter. One has not been reached yet, even if the other editor concerned has not yet responded. I don't have anything else to say on this.  Ss  112   15:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 December 2020
Change the Metacritic score to 82 based on 12 reviews. TheDarkKnight180 (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not in Billboard Charts?
McCartney's new album does not show up at all in the weekly Billboard 200 charts of Dec. 26? How can that be? It was released on Dec. 18. Does anybody now why his new album does not show up in the Billboard 200 album charts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:27C1:A980:68F3:8205:2224:A4A3 (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)