Talk:Time (Electric Light Orchestra album)

message: :Image:ELO TIME 1981 .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 this Wikipedia article 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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ELO TIME 1981 .JPG

message: Dear anonymous, who edits under several different IP-adresses. Wikipedia does *not* allow unfounded speculation without sources. The claim about the story that is told in this album neither makes sense, nor fits very well with the lyrics, nor has any reliable source to support it, and hence, it should not be here. Stop adding it back. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfounded speculation 

message: A count of which album this is was added very recently to this article.  And, as often occurs, it has immediately caused a dispute.  The issue here, as I see it, is not whether this is the ninth or the tenth album by ELO, but whether this is of any significance that it needs to be in the lead sentence.  Does the reader, on being introduced to the subject, want or need to know this right from the start?  Why does it matter?   I've reverted back to the lead as it was before, without the count, and invite responses.  Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The count should not be a matter of debate (because it's a count), and I don't see how the gains of excluding one word helps the article in any way. Do as you wish, but if there's going to be a count, it should be right. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it is a matter of debate; the question is whether Xanadu counts as a studio album or not.  I suspect those who first added it thought that Xanadu didn't count, possibly because it was a soundtrack album, or maybe because it is half Olivia Newton John.  But as I said, the importance of the count escapes me.  No-one really cares.  The lead should stick to significant facts.  --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care too deeply, to be honest. Leave it out if you want. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album count 

message: have added a section on the storyline of the Time album, based on one (of several) sources that describe one (of several possible) storylines for this album. However the albums author Jeff Lynne in an 1981 interview (ref the 1981 Innerview hosted by Jim Ladd here) makes no mention of a story line, and actually mentions that he no longer writes stories, and that he himself does not know what his songs mean, but leaves it up to the listener. I therefore claim that we can't let this article say that there is a definitive storyline. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion on Storyline 

message: * Yes / Keep – Any claims of Lynne disavowing a narrative do not exist in any referenced material, sources are reliable, they don't fail verification, everyone calls it a concept, Lynne speaks of the album as a literal story of a man who goes to the future, and the album's lyrics are far from oblique.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Clarification: I feel that the current (as of now) revision is what should be kept, not the horribly tagged revision that is addressed.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Addendun: earlier revisions of the article lacked a second-party source that explicitly used the word "story". I've since found one and integrated it into the article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Addendum "the author has virtually admitted that the album does follow a semi-coherent narrative structure". is an extremely weak foundation on which to build the claim that there IS a storyline, and to extrapolate what that storyline is. Pincrete (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Through much fighting I have been able to get agreement on the contents of the section, so there is no WP:SYN any longer. However, there is also no longer any discernible plot. I'd like to change the sections title from "Concept and storyline" to "Concept and lyrical content" or just "Concept" as there isn't any story line. Notice how the section now doesn't even mention most of the songs on the album, as they don't fit into the idea of a storyline. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Time (Electric Light Orchestra album). 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 http://www.archive.today/eeaOI to http://chartheaven.9.forumer.com/a/complete-uk-yearend-album-charts_post21.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Time (Electric Light Orchestra album). 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/20120215182433/http://www.infodisc.fr/Album_E.php to http://infodisc.fr/Album_E.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://chartheaven.9.forumer.com/a/complete-uk-yearend-album-charts_post21.html
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) 21:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article seems kind of revisionist to me. To its credit, there are citations, but they seem a bit like they’ve been cherry picked to paint a picture of Time being a more successful and widely known record than it really was. Don’t get me wrong, it’s my favorite too ... but someone unfamiliar with ELO reading this article would get the impression that this is what they’re known for, and that’s not really true.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:C680:CCC:8A8:1168:1E20:A2CF (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of article