Talk:Paul McCartney's Liverpool Oratorio/Archive 1

Discussion
Now that I have made my points, I'm going to revert back to my last edit. -Acjelen 13:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Why are you deleting content? I think the musicians playing on this record are just as important as the composer.
 * 2) Classical Album is redline, has improper capitalization, and is unnecessary. The album is an album.
 * 3) If it's a PM album, why is Carl Davis given equal billing in the info box
 * 4) WikiProject Albums has established a certain category structure for album articles. I made an attempt to fit the recordings of his classic compositions into that class structure by creating a subcategory.  Subcat's are jused very well throughout WP.  I don't see what's wrong with it.


 * Paul McCartney composed this piece with Carl Davis, thus Davis can't be left out of the credit, but seeing as "Paul McCartney's" is in the title, it IS one of his albums - even if he didn't perform on it. I'm well aware of WikiProject Albums policies, but it doesn't give you the right to remove this album out of PM's chronology, especially as his Wings albums technically aren't "PM" but are in there as well.  It's going back in with some of your modifications to the article.  This article was created some months ago and was discussed and approved by users at the time.  Additions of personnel is of course fine (I didn't see that bit, sorry), but the remaining body of the article is going back as there is no logical reason to overhaul it like that (especially as your edit removed the helpful chronology template I put in, as well as the track timings which are informational).  Please do not revert again.  BGC 13:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In the infobox, the type field is not the place to i genre. Whether the album is live or studio is indicated by the color of the infobox.  Is there a way to add a Carl Davis chronology?  I am positive he must have composed or co-conducted on another album.  As for the category structure, I feel using the subcat works better. -Acjelen 17:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a way to extend the infobox to include Carl Davis' other work. But you have re-introduced redundant text from your edit which needlessly describes McCartney's other classical works, as if there is no article on them, when they are already in the chronology box.  Secondly, the notation of a live album is necessary for those who are unaware of color schemes (and there are many).  The article should be left as is.  Paul McCartney is not a classical composer and you changing the style to suit a classical style is out of continuity with the rest of his works.  Furthermore, this album is called "Paul McCartney's Liverpool Oratorio".  I have been more than accomodating on the changes, but you reverting everything again for the 3rd time is beginning to show bad faith.  BGC 17:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have only reverted this article twice today. You are on number three.  I don't really care and will leave this article alone.  Usually one warning is enough.  I am sorry that we weren't able to work this out.  As usual, I'll blame myself for using the word "vandalism" for your first reverting this morning.  It was uncalled for and I apologize.  My only request is that you take out "stuffy".  I've learned since moving to Texas that calling traditionalists stuffy only makes them more narrow-minded and closes their blinders tighter. -Acjelen 19:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I counted three reverts. And I have removed the word "stuffy".  BGC 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The work is described as PM's "first official foray into classical music," but that's an incorrect use of "official," which means "authorized." I've changed it to "major" but "public," "formal," or "significant" might be a better fit. Infophiliac 11:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)