# Talk:Modern Vampires of the City

A draft was created at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Modern Vampires of the City that has much more content. Danger High voltage! 05:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Robert christgau gave the album an A+ - the first non compilation A+ he's given since 2007. Someone add it!! http://social.entertainment.msn.com/music/blogs/blog--vampire-weekend-deerhunter  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.249.18 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 
Someone posted a review by Aesthetic Magazine Toronto...is this a reputable source? it doesn't seem like a major publication.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.44.63 (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 
Question: is AbsolutePunk considered a reputable publication? Their review is quite well written and contains several sentences and phrases that would be helpful to include in the reception area. I wonder if someone might include its 95% grade in the ratings.

As always, notability of the critic/publication should be considered, which is gauged by its reputation and coverage among reliable third-party sources (ex. PopMatters' "about" page summarizing its notability). AbsolutePunk appears to be a relatively insignificant publication (at least in comparison with those used in this article or at Metacritic), and they cater to music that is outside the mainstream. The reception section is dense enough, and unless the writer of this particular review is a "notable individual", I think their reviews would be more appropriate to include in a lesser known album (article). Dan56 (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop changing the genres...the current "Indie Rock, alternative rock, indie pop, baroque pop" describes the album full well and more importantly is fully consistent with the band's other album descriptions on Wikipedia, which wouldn't be in place without backup by reputable sources. All 4 of those genres are listed under the band's main page and both their first two albums. To remove that continuation b simply listing one hugely vague description is to do a disservice to readers. 
To be clear, there are indeed sources to describe the band as all of those genres. Citing them all on the actual page just looks cluttered.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elie-lichtschein/god-death-and-modern-vampires_b_3367759.html
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/171217-vampire-weekend-modern-vampires-of-the-city/
http://social.entertainment.msn.com/music/blogs/blog--vampire-weekend-deerhunter 
http://www.allmusic.com/album/modern-vampires-of-the-city-mw0002489977
all four genres are referenced in description of the album in these articles (chamber pop often used in place of baroque pop, but as the two are nearly indistinguishable, lets simply keep it consistent with their other entries on Wikipedia,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.44.63 (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC) 

Thank you for explaining your content removal from the background section. Unfortunately, you still need to cite sources that specifically deal this album, not the band. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia articles are supposed to explain sides, not just take them. You're "consistent" argument smacks of genre warring symptoms and will not be accepted. Whose opinion is it that "the current indie rock..." describes the album "full well"? CITE A SOURCE please. And you don't have to use the infobox, which is merely intended as a reflection of what is theoretically supposed to be cited in the article's prose (WP:IBX#References in infoboxes). Use the "Music and lyrics" section, where "indie rock" is sufficiently sourced and explained in one of the critics' interpretations dealing with this album (WP:SUBJECTIVE). There's no one source that calls the album "indie rock, alternative rock, indie pop, baroque pop". If these are different sources, then conflicting sources should be given content and explained in the relevant section's prose. Dan56 (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
How about this source, which describes the album as all four of the genre's the person listed above. Also, the guy above seems a bit steamed. Relax everyone. No need for caps and italics and all.
http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/vampire_weekend/modern_vampires_of_the_city/index.html
Kbrito162 (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a professional review site (WP:ALBUM/REVSIT#Non-professional reviews), just a group blog (WP:BLOGS) whose entry for this album probably mirrors a past revision of Wikipedia's article. Again, the point is to have things explained, not just listed, especially for subjective interpretations. If offers readers little to have those four listed if they are not explained within the context of the article. And the caps are shortcut links to the guideline pages; the italics for explain are exactly how WP:NPOV shows. And if it is you, please sign in to your account before editing; 74.105.44.63 and your edit history appear to have edits to similar articles. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

[Thoughtless complaint about review removed by author]— Preceding unsigned comment added by  03:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 

"To wit" is an idiom for "Namely"; there's no reference to the "musical wit" (whatever that means). Although he hasn't believed Sgt. Pepper's to have fulfilled a "concept album" fruitfully in a past article ([1]) he doesn't even comment on its "concept" in this review being discussed. His list of elements ("verse/chorus/bridge/​intro melody...") is continuing and explaining the idea he began when he called Sgt. Pepper's a "truer precedent". Furthermore, his line about the music and lyrics working so that no "concept" is suggested is just a comment on how smoothly it flows, without coming off as "overworked". Dan56 (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, the reception section should not be one huge block paragraph, it makes it quite difficult to read. Space it out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by  

It's not--there are two. Since the album is reported as having received "universal acclaim", the rave reviews are in the first. Seven or eight sentences each is hardly "one huge...", and the first two sentences will not be spaced out for an awkwardly short paragraph. If it truly is difficult to read, then it should probably be trimmed of frivolous quotes that may repeat other quotes; no matter how you space it, the same prose is still there for readers. Dan56 (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by  
You're right on this, it seems it was I who misinterpreted it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by  19:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 

for the lyrics section, this article delves deeply into the religious allusions and themes present in the album. might be a good idea to pull a few quotes and ideas from it. http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/172143-god-and-man-on-modern-vampires-of-the-city/74.105.44.63 (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm drafting an article on "Ya Hey" as a user subpage, but I want to know whether to refer to it as a single. According to this article and the discography it's a single but I can't find anything on the Internet that would suggest it's a single. There's a video released on the same date as the release date given by this article, but that doesn't make it a single. Jon1901 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ya Hey article is now moved to main namespace. Jon1901 (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Modern Vampires of the City/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: EditorE (talk · contribs) 14:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Me and my sister are a fan of Vampire, so I'm happy to review this! 

First comments
It would be best if the "Background" section was renamed "Background and writing", since the last paragraph of this section is about how the members wrote the album.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Since Robert Christgau is a very notable critic and many other articles have presented his reviews in MSN Music as "Robert Christgau" in the album ratings table, the same should be done for this article's ratings template.
I disagree. Other articles crediting the critic's name instead of the publication publishing his review seems like a POV/undue weight issue when other notable critics (Ann Powers, David Fricke, to name a few) aren't given the same weight. More importantly, WP:MOS says "style and formatting should be consistent within an article", so it would be inconsistent to present the reviewer as "Robert Christgau" in the template and leave the other reviewers by publication name. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The word "ranked" is used in the "Accolades" section way too much.
I've replaced that quote farm with a brief summary. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Ref #5: The "Clash Music Exclusive General" part should not be in the title, and "Clashmusic.com" should be changed to Clash.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Ref #8: Page numbers, please.
I added a url instead to make it accessible. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Ref #31: since SpinMedia is a publisher, not an actual publication, the name should not be italicized. The publisher name should also be presented as "SpinMedia".
Removed; publisher not normally used for periodicals (Template:Citation#Publisher). Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Ref #38: The author field should be left blank if it doesn't specify the writers of the article.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Ref #14: Italicize "The Guardian" since it's a newspaper. Same for Ref #91: Italicize "UKChartsPlus" since it's a magazine.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
What is with the publication names being included in the "Author" fields of the source templates you're using (if you actually are)? They should be put properly in the "work" or "publisher" fields of the templates.
I didn't add those lol. Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, all newspaper/magazine sources, no matter if there's another source with the same publication being used in the article, need to present the publisher for newspaper/magazine sources.
Template:Citation#Publisher says "Publisher" is normally not used for periodicals, so I'll remove them from all such sources. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
For the Hung Medien sources, the website name should not be displayed as "[countryname]charts.com". They should be displayed as "[Country name] Charts Portal." Or something like that.
I reduced those sources to one (since each one shows all chart positions) and named Hung Medien as the publisher. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, every source/publisher that has a wikipedia article need to be linked only the first time a source from that publication is cited in the article. I'm noticing sources that have their publications never linked, or not linked the first time but linked in a later citation from the publication.
Fixing. Let me know if there are still any left. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
In the recording and production section, the paragraph discussing the title of the album doesn't really have anything to do with recording or producing an album. Maybe put it in the background section? 和DITOREtails 14:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Choosing the title and cover photo is a part of creating an album IMO, "production" in a broader sense than sound reproduction. If placed in "Background", it would seem anachronistic. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
More comments likely to come. 和DITOREtails 14:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

While not every bit of info is required for a good article, I'm noticing accolades on the "Misc List" section of this page listing several other accolades from notable sources that are not listed in this article, mostly first-half-of-decade lists and first-half-of-year lists. You should probably add them. 和DITOREtails 18:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
NME and Pitchfork's "so far" decade lists are already included, as is Time. I've added Billboard's list. EW is a particular critic's (Nick Catucci) as opposed to Entertainment Weekly's. I don't see any reason to add the others, either by minor publications, readers' choices, or lists published midway through a year, which seem irrelevant. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
One more thing, the first Rolling Stone citation needs to have "Rolling Stone" wikilinked. Same goes for the magazine name for ref 5. Otherwise, I'm glad to pass this. Good work! 和DITOREtails 23:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)