# Talk:Random Access Memories

To clarify, there hasn’t been a official deal yet for Daft Punk to do the Black Glasses film score. See source here. jhsounds (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed that edits to the opening sentence seem to be going back and forth between adding "and final" and removing it. What's the consensus on this? jhsounds (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

My interpretation on it comes from WP:CRYSTAL where stating "it's their final album" is providing an unverifiable statement. If there is a verifiable resource of the duo making a statement where they reference RAM as their final album then it can be stated. We could possibly word "no studio albums have been released since Daft Punk's disbandment announcement in February 2021" as that statement can be verified but at the same time it's a lot of words that really don't add much. Stating it's their fourth studio album is sufficient and straight to the point. – The Grid (talk)  18:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
That makes no sense. They have broken up, ergo it is their fourth and final studio album. Adding a separate sentence at the end is just cluttering up the opening paragraph ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
To save further angst, final can be stated and if anything needs to be changed in the future - that's when adjustments can be made. – The Grid (talk)  16:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Popcornfud I'm no longer fighting over the technical writing and think it's ok to say "and final album" for RAM, if you're seeking some discussion about it. The New York Times article about Thomas Bangalter yesterday [1] did give some insight about his thoughts about the robot suits for now. – The Grid (talk)  12:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
This is an issue that regularly comes up on album articles, so I created a discussion at WP:ALBUMS here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Consensus_check:_"Final_album" Popcornfud (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

What classifies/justifies a separate page being made for the Random Access Memories (10th Anniversary Edition) reissue? It's gotten a good bit of attention and coverage the last few weeks, with reports on singles, global events, music videos, interviews, and more. Still kind of unsure about the policy for stuff like this, but I think it's got enough attention from secondary sources to have its own page without bogging down the middle of the original release's article. Jzahck (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The content about the 10th anniversary edition has to maintain WP:NOTABILITY on its own. For an album reissue, it's looking at WP:NALBUM but also considering if a split discussion would bring consensus. Perhaps the first thing is to see if there's an album reissue that has a separate article from its initial release. – The Grid (talk)  12:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jzahck and The Grid: Sorry to bring up this stale discussion, but I think there would be value in splitting the 10th anniversary edition into its own article. Notability is clearly established by the 20 sources in the section alone, and I would argue that it is more notable than Homework (Remixes), which has its own article, despite being a similar "anniversary" release. Do you two (or anyone else) have any additional thoughts on it? Should I formally propose a split? StartOkayStop (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd be okay with a separate page. I'm not sure if it's necessary, but I think it has enough notability and reporting done about it to justify a separate page. Would allow a bit more in-depth reporting on the track lists and histories of the songs, I guess. I made the separate page for Infinity Repeating for that reason (and because it has had more significant notability than a lot of the duo's previous singles).  Jzahck (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

As (briefly) discussed at § RAM10 separate page, I am proposing that the section Random Access Memories#10th Anniversary Edition be split into Random Access Memories (10th Anniversary Edition). As it stands, the section contains enough content to warrant being given its own separate page. It would certainly clean up the main article by moving the infobox, tracklist, and charts info to another page where it can stay separate. The album Homework (Remixes) already has its own article and that has even less information about it, so the precedent exists. I believe that there is currently enough coverage listed in the article to be able to establish notability but I also believe more references could be found if needed. StartOkayStop (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems we may be getting another more releases for the RAM anniversary this year too. So that's definitely way too much to put on one page. I second making a 10th Anniversary Edition separate page and adding any new info on that page instead of it all being added to the original page and cluttering it up. Jzahck (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

For some reason, Giorgio Moroder is not billed as a featuring for the song "Giorgio by Moroder", even though he is providing the vocals and is clearly credited as such in the booklet, and all other artists who have provided vocals for the other songs and are also credited as such in the booklet are billed as featurings, so I see no good reason why Moroder shouldn’t be. I’ve already made an edit to add his name, but another user reverted it, arguing that Moroder is also credited as the co-writer of the song, and so billing him as a featuring would be redundant (if I understood their argument correctly). Well that maybe so, but again, all the other artists who have provided vocals for their respective songs are also credited as co-writers of those songs, and yet they are all billed as featurings in the tracklist, so out of consistency, I see no reason why Moroder should be excluded. This a simple matter of logic. Waiting for a good counter-argument. If I don’t receive any, I’ll go ahead and make the change.
--Johnn Francis (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe the previous consensus was that the "featuring" billing should be consistent with how the artists are billed in the liner notes and store listings. For example, Nile Rodgers performed on and is co-writer of "Give Life Back to Music", "Lose Yourself to Dance", and "Get Lucky", but Rodgers is only billed as a "featured" player on "Get Lucky". jhsounds (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting what you're saying about Nile Rodgers, I indeed hadn't thought about the fact that he co-wrote three songs but is only billed as "featured" on "Get Lucky". I guess I had paid too much attention to the vocalists and not enough to the instrument players. Your point kind of makes sense, but I still have one problem. Do you actually have a source for the "liner notes" and the "store listings"? About the liner notes, if you're talking about the booklet, then I have found a digitized copy of the booklet on the web (yeah, sorry, I don't own the album) and it doesn't seem to contain an overall list of the featured players. It only lists them on a song-by-song basis. As for the store listings, I'm afraid I don't really know what you're referring to (sorry, I'm bit of a dinosaur, sometimes), but I would appreciate it very much if you could provide a source. Thank you for your reply. Johnn Francis (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
I misremembered. Looking at the physical booklet myself, it merely contains a list of "starring" artists on the opening page. The store listings on the other hand (such as the iTunes Store or Amazon Music) have either had a "featuring" parenthetical next to the song name, or combined the featured player with Daft Punk in the artist field. jhsounds (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Glad to see I wasn't wrong about the booklet :) Oh, so that's what store listings are all about, gotcha. Well, since we now have a source (two actually), I'm okay with leaving the page as it originally was, even though I admit I find it a bit odd that these websites didn't include Nile Rodgers as being featured for "Give Life Back to Music" and "Lose Yourself to Dance" and especially Giorgio Moroder for "Giorgio by Moroder". But hey, I'm not the one who makes the rules! Anyway, glad to see that we have this whole affair sorted out, even if it was all a bit for nothing in the end :/ Cheers. --Johnn Francis (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
@Johnn Francis, sorry for getting on the wrong foot. I apologize for my bitey response yesterday, as your reply was understandable. Not trying to stonewall you, just wanted to have a discussion about it before more reverts. Giorgio's work is spoken word but if that's what streaming media sites are showing these days, I wouldn't be against it. (I like the new style with listing all the artists versus the featuring parentheses.) The duo kept the same type of style tracklist from Discovery and HAA for RAM with naming just the songs. – The Grid (talk)  12:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and don't worry about all this, I do have my bad days sometimes as well :) About the whole business, user Jhsounds in a previous reply has provided me with two sources regarding the featured artists, namely the album's store listings on iTunes Store and Amazon Music, which indeed don't include Giorgio Moroder as being featured for "Giorgio by Moroder". They also don't include Nile Rodgers for "Give Life Back to Music" and "Lose Yourself to Dance", but they do include him for "Get Lucky". This all seems a bit inconsistent in my view, but I'm not the one who makes the rules! And since those are proper sources, I'm okay with leaving the page as it originally was. Anyway, glad to see that we have this whole affair sorted out, even if it was all a bit for nothing in the end :/ Cheers. --Johnn Francis (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)