Talk:George Strait discography

The discography really needs a ton of cleanup. I've been tweaking it some, but I need your help. Please consider the following criteria, which I think would make for a tidier discography.

For every album that's stub class, add one of the the following tags, per the appropriate decade:

Each album page must have the infobox.
The infobox must include the previous and next albums (unless there is no previous or next album).
Each album page should be put under the following categories:

[[Category:George Strait albums]]

[[Category:(year) albums]]

The individual album pages should not list the singles from that album, since we already have a singles table.

If anyone has any suggestions for other criteria, please add them to this talk page. TenPoundHammer 14:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure that each album has an infobox, all infoboxes have the album cover, and all but Fresh Cut Christmas have the previous and next albums listed. That's all I've done so far. Karanacs 01:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: We should also put in a See Also: George Strait Discography line. Karanacs 01:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I think putting in the See Also line is a good idea. TenPoundHammer 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another couple things I thought of: Make sure that the "type" field in the infobox says either studio, live, greatest, box, whatever -- the typical album codes for such pages instead of "album", "studio album" or whatever. I would also recommend putting slashes between each writer name, because names can sometimes contain commas (like "John Doe, Jr."). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 01:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number ones[edit]

Instead of the footnotes, should we make a table delineating which songs hit #1 on which charts? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 19:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That could make the page be awfully long and harder to read. How do other artist pages handle this? Karanacs 21:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, make a table on a new page. George is notable for the record-breaking number of #1's, but that figure is disputed heavily, so maybe making a new table at George Strait's number-one singles might help? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 01:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediabase vs. R&R[edit]

I think I've found a good way to settle the R&R/Mediabase issue. Between 1985 and 2006, R&R and Mediabase were the same; but now, R&R is the same as Billboard, and Mediabase is now the "other" chart. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chart of Number One Singles?[edit]

Why did we remove the chart of George Strait's #1 singles? I found this quite useful. Weatherworld (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The singles table. It should be split into three tables.[edit]

The singles chart is too long. I think that the 1980's songs should be splitted into the 1980's singles, the 1990's songs into the 1990's singles, and the 2000's songs into the 2000's singles. Dividing the singles table into 3 sections is what i'm saying. Like i said, since the singles table just seems too long to just remain one table, we should split the 1980's songs, the 1990's songs, and the 2000's songs.
I was told in a similiar situation that i had to wait until Jason Aldean's article was three or four times it's current length before splittling his biography and his discography.
This article, at least the singles table, however, i'm pretty sure is way too long to remain just one table, so we should do what i'm proposing.
This artist's discography ain't the only one that has a very long singles table. I'm also saying that we should do what i'm proposing here to some other artist's discography's that are probably too long as well. Well, should we do it? (Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Agree. However I had this idea a few months ago and did some edits to Reba McEntire discography, and it was soon reverted back. Here Langdon (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

Oh, it was you who did that? I remember that. She had so many singles that it was necessary for you to do that. I can't believe they reverted that. Both of the artists singles tables should be done this way, because they're both too long. I'm glad you agree with it, but let's wait for someone else to see this idea (if they see it, which i hope they do), and see what they have to say about it. (Ryanbstevens (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Number Ones[edit]

Count them yourself. Only 44 of his singles went to #1 on Billboard. We don't count other charts, but MCA counts all trade charts just to sound even more impressive (actually, I'm surprised they didn't count "Meanwhile"). For the sake of Wikipedia (especially verifiability), this discography should only say 44 American #1's. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't the other charts used? --Lost Fugitive (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because listing the other charts would be indiscriminate and unverifiable. The only source I could find that listed which of his #1's hit #1 on which chart (R&R/Mediabase, Gavin Report, etc.) was a personal fansite on Geocities, certainly not a reliable source. Since discographies only use Billboard for U.S. chart positions, the infobox should have a total of 44, a total which the reader can verify through the singles table. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]