Contents

Template talk:Elvis Presley

	Elvis Presley Unassessed (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elvis Presley, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Elvis PresleyWikipedia:WikiProject Elvis PresleyTemplate:WikiProject Elvis PresleyElvis Presley articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Cleanup please

[edit]

Could someone go through these links and make sure they're pointing to an appropriate page? e.g. Double Trouble, Little Sister and Seeing Is Believing are disambiguation pages, "Help Me" is the title of a Joni Mitchell love song that she first recorded for the 1974..., Swing Down, Sweet Chariot is "a funk song by Parliament" Thanks! A redlink would be better than a wrong link. Ewlyahoocom 03:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been corrected. Lara❤Love 23:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to separate the list of Christion songs into a separate article. It is not a direct aspect of Elvis; if so we would expect a same kind of lists with "Blues songs", "R&R songs", "R&B songs", "C&W songs" in this template, even with higher Elvis-relevance (what I do not advocate here). Of course the new article will be linked in this template. -DePiep 11:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, they make the template crowded and the three Christian/Gospel recordings articles I checked don't even mention Elvis, so they're not directly related to his him. As no one has opposed your suggestion, and it makes sense, I'm going to remove them. If anyone wants to create a list of these songs, they're in the edit history. Crazysuit 03:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. This was one of the most important categories of Elvis' music. In fact, these recordings are still selling in double-CD packs. These were songs that he sang in his concerts and many were international hits. He recorded more Christian songs than rock-n-roll when you add up the numbers. Hoserjoe (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have slightly reconstructed the template, view it here and scroll down. Tell me what you think! ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 22:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's impractical of course to include all compilation albums, whether they have Wikipedia articles or not, I do feel the RCA Camden releases with previously unissued material need to be included under compilations. Seeing as there were only 3 of these releases, I'm going ahead and adding them. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are A Date with Elvis and For LP Fans Only considered "compilation" albums? Because they are a mix of RCA sessions and older Sun recordings? By that logic, Elvis Presley should also be considered a compilation.—Chowbok ☠ 22:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to sill have a problem despite our guideline on the matter. Not sure how unlinking related articles will help our readers. I think this disruption should stop. Hard to help our readers when we have editors going out of there way to fuck things up. -- Moxy (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What were you all thinking by letting "Elvis' Greatest Shit" on the compilation's list? Why are you going to list a bootleg, for one, and two, something that's inappropriate? Doesn't it occur to anyone that every single album on that list is actually a legitimate release and this one isn't? Or am I the only who isn't oblivious around these parts? Then I try to be reasonably polite about it and I get the starch remark of, "it wasn't broken so why change it?"

Well... it stands out like a sore thumb that it's not supposed to be there. So don't bother reverting it.

WolfSpear (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why we would not link a topic related article. Is the article no good? if so it should be fixed or deleted...never orphaned. Are you trying to make it so people cant find the article?--Moxy (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you going to put a bootleg on a list with legit compilations. How does that seem logical? You can't even find that in a store so remove it WolfSpear (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]