Talk:Abacab

message: :Image:Abacab.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Abacab.jpg

message: It appears that the page I created for the song "Who Dunnit?" has been completely deleted, with the Wikipedia editors debating that "Who Dunnit?" did not deserve a page, as it was "never released as a single" and is "not a notable song". Huh??? I've also noticed that the other "Abacab" songs that were *also* not released as singles, such as "Like It Or Not," have also had their pages deleted as well. 
Since when did Wikipedia create this stupid, ridiculous, idiotic rule that only "notable" songs and songs that were released as singles can have Wikipedia pages? This is absolutely absurd! You're saying that only songs released as singles matter? Are you guys actually gonna wipe out *every single page* for every song on Wikipedia that wasn't released as a single? You have got to be kidding me....
I have contributed several things to Wikipedia in the past, and you have accepted them, and I thank you for that. You have also removed a few of my contributions too, but up until now I have been willing to accept the occasional differences. But to wipe out my entire page for "Who Dunnit?", along with the other non-single "Abacab" tracks, on the basis that these songs weren't released as singles, and therefore, are "not notable" and must be deleted from Wikipedia, is totally the last straw for me. The notion that only songs released as singles deserve a Wikipedia page is absolute bull---t. You guys at Wikipedia desperately need to rethink this ridiculous policy about what makes a song "notable". 
And that's it for me.AL9000 (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 110% with what you say... unfortunately, as of right now there is nothing anyone can do about it. CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  So....Who Dunnit? 

message: The AFD about this article was closed as a redirect leaving the option to merge open. Please review the article text and merge whatever material is appropriate. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Like It or Not]] 

message: After Wind and Wuthering, which is arguable their last progressive rock record, pop is more than accurate to describe every subsequent release. I'm not saying that progressive rock should be deleted, but pop rock should be added, so I'll do that. Revan ltrl (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop 

message: Has this word any meaning, and what's it's origin?
Abacab sounds like adding 'cab' from cabinet after ABBA a popular group of the seventies!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.64.146 (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember where I read it, but as I recall, in some interview or book the band members said that while they were writing the song, they labeled sections 'A', 'B', 'C' and that ABACAB was one of the arrangements. They liked the sound of it, so they kept it as the title even though the song was later rearranged to a different order. I see this is already in the article as referring to a radio interview. MFNickster (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning and origin? 

message: There seems to be a contradiction between the “Background and recording” & the “Working titles for the album” sections. In the former section it states : ... "Naminanu" and "Submarine", appeared as B-sides on the "Abacab" singles, but were originally intended to be part of "Dodo/Lurker", where the order would have been "Naminanu/Dodo/Lurker/Submarine". However, in the latter section the proposed track listing clearly shows : ... German I & II (Dodo/Lurker) 07:28 ;  Sub (Submarine) 04:21 ... ;  Vocal 3/4 (Naminanu) 03:55 ... - which is correct? Gwladys24 (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent contradiction. 

message: The article states that Tony Banks has explained the riddle in "Lurker" as largely meaningless.  However, Scott McMahan, in the Genesis Discography, available on the Internet since 1993 and long a comprehensive source for all band-related materials, insists that the answer to the riddle is a Submarine ....which, of course, is the name of a B-side, that -- as 
Gwladys24 asserts above in "Apparent Contradiction" was part of a long suite of tracks once joined together.  I'm convinced that this is indeed the case, but as I don't know how to cite properly, I will leave it to others to have a look at this.  67.214.29.186 (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lurker" Riddle 

message: I've again removed an undefined "ref" tag from the "Genre" list in the infobox. A ref tag that doesn't actually create a reference is not, of course, a reference.
A couple of links were added, and I removed those, too. One linked to an aggregation site with a brief capsulte review (about 175 words) that didn't describe the album as "progressive". Another was at a progressive music site, but the review there didn't describe the album as progressive, either. An album reviewed by a progressive music site doesn't necessarily mean the album is actually progressive.
I've alos marked "pop rock" with a  targ as it is not referenced. It would be great to provide a list of generes for this album, but they must be properly referenced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: Curiously, my the back of my physical CD (CBRCD 102) claims:
(P) 1978 Virgin Records
(C) 1978 Charisma Records
In the inlay booklet they are (C) 1981. 199.203.68.10 (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publish Date