Talk:How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul?

message: The article currently states that this "album is one of their more critically acclaimed albums of the decade." However, it doesn't give a source to back that statement.
24.131.94.66 (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: { do not move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul? → How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul??? —
How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul? → How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul??? — The album clearly has three question marks on the cover, the spine and the interior booklet. It's an artistic choice, not a simple interrogative. All other mentions of the title on the page reflect this. Also see allmusic, Robert Christgau and other official critical sites that refer to the album with three question marks intact (iTunes quotes the allmusic review and Rolling Stone, I believe, quotes the Christgau review but both lazily use only one question mark in the title. Do we really want to follow this kind of example for Wikipedia?) Wikkitywack (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose - as one can see, a significant number of the sources in this article either use 1 question mark, or omit it entirely. There is no valid reason to ignore WP:MOSTM (for example, the iPod validly follows the trademarking, because no one spells it "Ipod." That's not the case here). Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, what harm is there to allow the actual title to be used as the name of the article? If there is harm, then just note in the article of the album's actual title (which shouldnt depend on how publications refer to it as) by saying that the ??? part is a stylization. Dan56 (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Heard that one a few times before.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, so then just note in the article of the album's actual title (which shouldnt depend on how publications refer to it as) by saying that the ??? part is a stylization. Dan56 (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments: Wikkitywack (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose - as one can see, a significant number of the sources in this article either use 1 question mark, or omit it entirely. There is no valid reason to ignore WP:MOSTM (for example, the iPod validly follows the trademarking, because no one spells it "Ipod." That's not the case here). Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, what harm is there to allow the actual title to be used as the name of the article? If there is harm, then just note in the article of the album's actual title (which shouldnt depend on how publications refer to it as) by saying that the ??? part is a stylization. Dan56 (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Heard that one a few times before.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, so then just note in the article of the album's actual title (which shouldnt depend on how publications refer to it as) by saying that the ??? part is a stylization. Dan56 (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments: Wikkitywack (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul?. 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/20091012054246/http://www.blender.com:80/guide/new/54794/how-you-sell-soul-to-soulless-people-who-sold-their-soul.html to http://www.blender.com/guide/new/54794/how-you-sell-soul-to-soulless-people-who-sold-their-soul.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081008003305/http://blogs.usatoday.com/listenup/2007/08/this-weeks-re-3.html to http://blogs.usatoday.com/listenup/2007/08/this-weeks-re-3.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 08:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified