Talk:Zaireeka

message: It seems that folks keep "correcting" the references to "Riding To Work In The Year 2025 (Your Invisible Now)" to use the grammatically preferable "You're". The correct spelling in the song's title is "Your". Please refer to this photograph of the booklet in case of confusion. --G0zer 01:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Your" vs. "You're" 

message: Should we move that to the bottom maybe? Do we want to have that many samples? --Rajah 03:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the list of sample oggs

message: If you ever want to take this article to FA status, you might want to add more about the musical elements of the album. There is plenty about speakers and playing the different disks at once, but what about the music itself? Other than "experimental rock," there is not much to give me a very clear picture of the music. Instrumentation, harmony, rhythm, etc.; something about the music would be appreciated. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 23:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent idea, Cielomobile.  - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 00:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for expanding the scope of the article 

message: Here are some Featured Articles about albums for us to model: Adore (album), 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?), Christ Illusion, Doolittle (album), Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), Freak Out!, Reign in Blood, Surfer Rosa --Rajah 17:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Articles about albums to help guide the process 

message: Recently a DVD disc has leaked that was created by the band for the 10th anniversary of this album. It contains visuals for the album, introductions by Wayne, and, most importantly, TWO MORE CHANNELS OF SOUND FOR EACH SONG- a fifth disc!
Because of it's bootleg status and the lack of official release and official sources of info, it's probably a good idea to leave it out of the article for the time being.
- MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disc 5- IMPORTANT NEWS 

message: I don't remember exactly where, but there was a page here that said that almost no source is 100% reliable. And in this case, I think editorial discretion points out at removing a review that spends a large part of its time insulting the bands' fans and where the reviewer admits to never having listened to the record in the correct way. That's not to say that humor immediately barrs a review from inclusion, just that there's a (blurry, but existent) line between using humor to complement a review and a "review" where less than one paragraph is spent talking about the music. Of course, the review itself has garnered enough Internet fame to earn its place in the prose. 201.190.31.64 (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we keep the Pitchfork rating in the sidebox? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Zaireeka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051104130632/http://salon.com:80/music/sharps/1997/12/12sharps.html to http://www.salon.com/music/sharps/1997/12/12sharps.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified