Talk:Paranoid Android

message: * - Pink Floyd influence/musical info
*reception-ish snippet
* - reception
*http://www.ateaseweb.com/songs/paranoidandroid.php
*http://colin-greenwood-interviews.blogspot.com/2007/04/circus-magazine-81997.html
Giggy (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes to self

message: We need to tidy up the references somewhat - I'm happy to do it, but I'd like some opinions before I start.  The specific issues are:
* The "sources" use the  template, which uses the <last name>, <first name> convention whereas the "footnotes" use manual formatting, with <first name> <last name> convention.  WP:REF says that articles should use a consistent style, so we need to make a decision.
* The more usual section layout is "Notes" (containing footnotes) followed by "References" (containing the book sources).
* If we're aiming for an OK Computer good topic, then we may want to adopt a consistent style between the following articles:
** OK Computer
** Paranoid Android
** Karma Police
** No Surprises
Let me know what you think! Papa November (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I formatted all the footntoes to be <last name>, <first name>. Feel free to change the section headers to whatever you like (IMO). Giggy (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, looks much better now! Papa November (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

text: No need for a consistent ref style between articles. Internal consistency, yes, but we don't have to make all related articles the same. Also, the order of "References" and "notes" is purely determined by preference. I for one like having the fulll book references first, but that's me. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was more concerned with the headers rather than the order.  I've changed it in the article - does it look OK to everyone? Papa November (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: There's a lot going on in this section, and I think a cleanup is needed.  The History section follows the order:
: <paragraph 1> Writing the song, interpretation of lyrics, influences, recording.  <paragraph 2> sections of song, influences, evolution of versions of song, early performances, inspiration, editing
There's a bit of overlap with the "Composition and lyrics" section, which we may want to move there.  In other Radiohead articles, we've split the sections up to firstly describe the background and set the scene, and then to describe the actual writing, recording, production and release of the record.  Should we consider doing this here too? Papa November (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's two examples of how I typically structure a song article: "In Bloom" and "Losing My Religion". WesleyDodds (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I like the new heading - seems much more appropriate Papa November (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I also like the current layout :) Giggy (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: That's what I like to see!
I'm thinking we have all the content necessary (though I was thinking that before the cover art section was added (nice work, BLZ!) so I may be wrong), so it's really just a matter of polishing for mine. Any other thoughts on what needs to be done? Giggy (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I do want to perform another prose check, but I think most of the major things are taken care of. Might want to ask some editors who hang around at Radiohead if they have any additional sources to provide. The main thing I'd like to see is a single review from NME or Melody Maker, if one can be found. This seems like the type of thing they'd award "Single of the Week". WesleyDodds (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's nearly done. I agree with Wesley that we could use a copyedit to make sure everything's written well. I'll check out the Single of the Week thing. Do you think any other images should be used for the "Packaging" section? I'm thinking the back of the CD 2 single, which illustrates both the color change and the stuff on the back of the single. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that'd work. As I said in the GA review I haven't been able to find anything free. I've found a few more snippets of information, but nothing major, so it does feel pretty complete. Giggy (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also contacted User:Mad Hatter and User:Everyking to see if they wanted to add anything. I think we're just about ready to nom this at WP:FAC, unless anyone has any objections. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say also ask Ceoil, NSR77 and Indopug to look at it. I probably trust the three of them the most to give the article a good, thorough review. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now contacted the three of them. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onwards :) 

message: From the first paragraph of the music video section;
Eventually he devised a scenario that was to the band's liking after locking himself in his office and staring out the window at a distant bridge, while listening to the song over and over.[45] As Carlsson did not have access to the lyrics, the concept for the video was completely unrelated to the content of the song.[46]
I can't imagine how he could listen to the song repeatedly but still make a completely unrelated video, and still claim to be without access to the lyrics. Is it just me or do others find this odd too? Giggy (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessarily a contradiction; Even though he listened to the song repeatedly, he may not have understood Yorke's vocals, and he wasn't ever given a lyrics sheet. I reworded it a bit and added some additional info. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps; that seems like the most plausible explanation. Your reword was good. Giggy (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction? 

message: Giggy has asked me to do some copy editing on this article, and I've gotten a start tonight (well, I  guess it's this morning!). So far, I have worked on the lead, the Background section and the Cover versions section.  A couple of questions for when I work on the rest of the article:
*Can the "Packaging" section be retitled "Artwork"?  
:*The section's purpose is to cover "Paranoid Android"'s artwork and B-sides, and essentially all the information about "Paranoid Android" as a single rather than a song. Thus, "Packaging" is a more appropriate title than simply "Artwork". --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: re. the charting question, see the charts section; that's all we've been able to find. Giggy (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: * Added how long these parts were --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing notes 

message: In O'Brien's quote about the original live performances of the song, he uses "pissing ourselves" to mean "laughing" while the literal meaning is quite different!  Does this make sense to non-UK readers?  If not, we might want to substitute "[laughing]". Papa November (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense to this Australian (though we use British English so I'm not sure how much use this comment is of). I think your suggested substitution might be a good idea but I'd wait for someone non-UK to comment first. Giggy (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a godless American, I have to say it made perfect sense to me. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It made perfect sense to me and I am also an American. I think that the quote probably shouldn't be changed (or added to, for that matter). Apolloae (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pissing ourselves" 

message: The section feels a bit too congratulatory to me.  Wasn't there any neutral or negative criticism of the single?  For something so complex and risky to be released as a single, surely there must have been some critics who didn't "get it"?  Also, there are a huge number of quotes here - do we need all of them?  I mean, four quotes about the Queen comparison may be a bit excessive!  How about something like:
The style of the song was compared to that of Queen by Rolling Stones Mark Kemp,Kemp, Mark (10 July 1997). OK Computer. Rolling Stone. Accessed 4 October 2008. while other critics, including David Browne of Entertainment Weekly,Browne, David (23 May 2008). OK Computer. Entertainment Weekly. Accessed 4 October 2008. Jon Lusk of the BBCLusk, Jon (25 April 2007). Radiohead, Paranoid Android. BBC. Accessed 4 October 2008. and Simon Williams of NME wrote about its similarity to Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody".  Williams described the song as being "not unlike 'Bohemian Rhapsody' being played backwards by a bunch of Vietnam vets high on King's Cross-quality crack".
Papa November (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked through all of the negative reviews that are on the OK Computer page and... Nothing. The reviews that weren't entirely positive about OK Computer still either praised "Paranoid Android" (Time, The Independent) or didn't mention the song in any way in their review (Christgau). I like the rewording of the "Bohemian Rhapsody" bit, although Giggy's the guy to ask there because he wrote that section. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also yet to find a critic that didn't get it... =\ I've made some minor stylistic changes to the above chunk of text, but I have no objections to it. Giggy (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   OK, I've made the edit.  If there was no negative criticism in mainstream press, then well done to Radiohead!  Papa November (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release and reception 

message: That was a fun collab - well done all :) Giggy (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job everybody! This was really fun. BTW, "Karma Police" should be fairly easy to get to GA; I haven't found as much to work on it as I'd like to but this weekend I plan to give it a shot. Anyone else up for it? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Congratulations, all. Collaborations such as this are what Wikipedia is all about.  Risker (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Well done everyone! Sorry I haven't been as active recently.  I'll have a look for holes in Karma Police today if I get a chance. Papa November (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As will I - FT here we come! Giggy (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yay 

message: Ergo Proxy uses this track as a closing theme, would it be proper to make some mention of cultural use of a song such as this?  74.13.38.191 (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say probably not.  Most popular songs are used in multiple TV and film soundtracks, so this doesn't really tell us anything remarkable or important about "Paranoid Android".  Papa November (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd disagree.  This is a theme played at the end of every episode, not an insert played once or twice or whatnot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.5.10 (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The episodes themselves would suffice as a source. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: this line is from the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy. please add  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.124.204 (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase might've been popularised by the series, but it wasn't the original source. The quotation's been floating around a long time (probably as long as revolutions and shooting people have been.) See for example Citizen Smith, released a year before broadcasts of THGTTG began: Wolfie: That's it mate. Come the revolution, you'll be first against the wall bop-bop-bop! Ken: My God will be with me.  GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  when i am king you will be first against the wall 

message: You ought to qualify the censoring by MTV part - it was censored in the US but not in Europe.  The US isn't the world, you know. 81.156.125.51 (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nudity in the video 

message: Where would be a good place to insert the fact that it was licensed and used as the ending theme for the 2006 anime TV series Ergo Proxy? --Eyevocal (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ergo Proxy usage 

message: is this progressive Rock or not, can you please make your minds up, every time I go on the article it's changed and the big deal seems to be if it is, or isn't progressive Rock, well? 188.222.41.105 (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be inclined to say not, there's no elaborate soloing, no unusual chords, and no real shows of technical proficiency. There are a few bars of 7/8 thrown in, and the song's in excess of six minutes, which makes people wonder whether it's appropriate to label it prog. Yes, the song is undeniably prog-influenced, but no, it's not prog, and unless someone cites otherwise, it really shouldn't be listed as such 143.92.1.32 (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  seriously 

message: I reckon the fourth section starts at 5:38 (give or take a second or two) - long after the currently stated 4:58. 27.96.215.179 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section timings 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Paranoid Android. 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/20081210025422/http://www.avclub.com:80/content/node/11025 to http://www.avclub.com/content/node/11025
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 04:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: With over 30 quotations included, this is not currently an article of Featured quality. We would have to either greatly trim the quotes or consider delisting it. --John (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I might trim it myself sometime. Or I might not. 12:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Paranoid Android. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813213756/http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=1136 to http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=1136
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/track_review/29652-paranoid-android
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080901053328/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/39082-string-quartet-tackles-radioheads-ok-computer to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/39082-string-quartet-tackles-radioheads-ok-computer
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131018042138/http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement?page=2 to http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement?page=2
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hitparadeitalia.it/indici/per_interprete/ar.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Paranoid Android. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030192144/http://www.guitarworld.com/article/radiohead_the_golden_age_of_radiohead?page=0%2C0 to http://www.guitarworld.com/article/radiohead_the_golden_age_of_radiohead?page=0%2C0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Radiohead is so well covered here that I don't want to venture into the main Article page, but I've measured this tempo with a digital metronome, BPM Tapper, and liveBPM. It holds so steadily at 82 BPM that it's probably done with a click, but a lot of Radiohead isn't done with a click, so not sure (and I'd love to read more inside information about this topic on Wikipedia), The fast part is exactly double, 164 BPM, then 63 BPM for the "God loves his children" part. Then the frenetic part at the end reverts to a very steady 82 or 164, depending on you count it. It's a bit of a nitpick, but 2 BPM is much more meaningful at a slower tempo and this is a pretty important piece.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevintimba (talk • contribs) 06:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tempo is 82 BPM, not 84 BPM as per Griffiths 

message: I suggest that the band names are added in the image description under the "Music video" section of the article.
I am aware this addition is not vital. But i thought i would suggest it anyway.
I suggest an edit in the likes of:
"The members of Radiohead (from left to right): Thom Yorke, Colin Greenwood, Ed O'Brien, Jonny Greenwood and Philip Selway, as depicted in the "Paranoid Android" video. The video's protagonist, Robin, is shown at far right."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryagen (talk • contribs) 08:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: adding the band members' names in the picture description under the "Music video" section