Talk:Accelerate (R.E.M. album)/Archive 1

message: I don't really care if there's no songlist here, but can I have a reason for it's absence? I haven't reinstated the songlist in awhile, but someone else did and it immediately disappeared. I think we should put it up for a poll and see who wants it or not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Songlist or No Songlist

message: Hey the album background is in terrible terrible condition, and really needs massive overhaul and or deletion. I don't think the person that first wrote it speaks English very well. Actually the whole page needs a massive overhaul into proper English, please. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrusianscholar (talk • contribs) 
:no way, it's the most precious source of information of the whole article. about my english, I do speak it greatly, sorry to let you down buddy. (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Agreed, the whole article is pretty awful currently. Most of the background section is irrelevant/probably inaccurate, and can be removed. I've tagged the article as such, and will try and tidy it up in a few days if nobody else gets there first. Thegreatcurve (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Album Background

message: Before going forward, I think it's prudent at this time to come to an agreement on certain things, so that there's absolutely no misconceptions, misunderstandings or misgivings about the process. Can we all agree on the following;
:*No edit or revert warring over content.
:*Remain civil at all times.
:*No "finger-wagging" or "finger-pointing". The past is just that, the past.
:*Work together for the sake of the article, and Wiki as a whole.
The sooner that everyone concerned can embrace these, progress can begin. Edit Centric (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed measures for success 

message: Hey guys, what do you think about combining the Web promotion and touring sections? Edit Centric (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. One 'promotion' section sounds fine to me. While we're at it, is it actually notable that the band mentioned the wikipedia article on their website? That sentence can probably go. 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would be notable here, in a weird, "come full-circle" sort of way, I guess. I don't know, that's a subjective thing, depends on who you'd ask... Edit Centric (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In all honesty, I strongly disagree. We are merging and merging over again till this is becoming a one-paragraph-only-giant article, almost. No offence AT ALL intended, of course, but there just GOTTA be paragraphs. The Tour section, also, will dramatically grow and at LEAST deserves a paragraph of its own, if not a whole actual article external to this like others I wrote: A Bigger Bang Tour Eyesbomb 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging works well when it's done correctly. -  Dudesleeper  Talk 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it does! I agree with you on this one, but I am saying something else. I am saying that merging can even be done at a state-of-the-art level, but still, we can't merge E V E R Y T H I N G into one single paragraph, it makes it tedious, unredable and pointless! Get it, my friend? Eyesbomb 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is this one single paragraph you speak of? -  Dudesleeper  Talk 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess I should speak the truth less often. Apologies. -  Dudesleeper  Talk 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are a ridiculous person, this guy is trying to help us from the beginning and you just keep on acting as the child you are. He didn't deserve your idiotic comment. Eyesbomb 22:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey now, you two... Lets not start this again.  You don't have to like one another, but you do have to avoid expressing that dislike publicly.  Lets not undo all of the progress we have made... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It was a genuine apology, actually, to him. Your attempt to get me into trouble is very transparent. -  Dudesleeper  Talk 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: oh PLEASE. :D Eyesbomb 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh yes and, one more thing, no revert warring. We're not only pushing the limits of civility here, but also 3RR. I suggest that everyone take a step back, and breathe for the next 24 hours. I will keep vigil over the house here, no worries. Edit Centric (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall previous forthcoming R.E.M. album articles being this much of a hassle. Hopefully we'll get back to constructive editing some day. -  Dudesleeper  Talk 22:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I propose no reverts being permitted without a follow-up explanation on the talk page (beginning with the previous edit). -  Dudesleeper  Talk 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now THAT is an excellent idea. It's not a matter of the reverts being permitted, but that they should be accompanied by a reasonable explanation. It's called "self-policing", requires a bit of discipline, but again is a great idea. Edit Centric (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Centric proposes.. 

message: Well, here we have yet another quandry. There are editors that support keeping the image of the back cover, and editors that support removing it. This started as a quick series of reverts, and was stopped before it became an edit war over something trivial. There are good arguments for both positions, so we need a consensus discussion. Let's begin.
:I support removal, based on the following rationale; the image in question is not only of extremely low quality (looks like a xerox of a xerox), but also serves no other purpose than to provide a track listing, something that is accomplished already within the article. There is a link provided within that section that leads the end reader to the image at REMring.com. The vast majority of album articles at Wikipedia do not show a back cover, nor do they need to to illustrate the subject. There is no indication that the back cover is part of a gatefold or multi-pane image. Edit Centric (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is supposed to look like that (see the front cover). And if there's an option in the infobox to display a back cover, I'm not sure why we're arguing the point. - Dudesleeper  Talk 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, probably not.  This is supposedly a "leaked" copy of the front and back covers; probably done EXACTLY the way that Edit Centric stated above (some intern probably photocopied it).  The whole discussion is somewhat silly, anyways, since once the album is released, we can ACTUALLY put the REAL cover on the article.  There is marginal value in the leaked cover to this article for the time being, since it is due to change when the real cover is released.  --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we'd better tell R.E.M.'s official website (linked as the source in the front-cover image description) because it's displaying the back cover in their rolling graphic. - Dudesleeper  Talk 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Keep Obviously. I would keep it because it gives the user a better understanding of the art design and direction of the album. Furthermore, I don't see the reasons for removing it to be compelling. As for the low quality of the scan, that is actually necessary for fair use. While it is clear that this is not part of one large gatefold image, it is also the case that many articles that have back covers are not gatefolds (e.g. the examples I gave above), so that is not compelling for deletion. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether or not any of this is true, in exactly 2 months and 6 days, this entire discussion becomes moot.  Keep it, remove it, either is pointless as, once the album is actually released, we will have some concrete material to go on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep. it just adds. Eyesbomb 23:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Is there a guideline that states as much? - Dudesleeper  Talk 10:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Basic fair use criteria. The fair use media needs to be discussed in the article to qualify as fair use. How does one discuss a back cover image that's merely a tracklisting? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back Cover: Keep or Remove? 

message: I have again removed "Released April 1, 2008" from the infobox. The album is scheduled for release April 1, 2008. It was not "released" April 1, 2008. The scheduled date is included in the body of the article. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Released 

message: Hello, release date of the album is scheduled for April 1, in Europe even March 28. Okay, now we have March 24.
So how could it be to download the album via Torrent or Rapidshare today before official release? Any explanations? Thx. --Mike551 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No Wait - do you want someone to tell you how to download it? That's not going to happen. The album was probably leaked from a promotional copy sent out to a radio station or reviewer. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album Accelerate leaked 

message: Unnecessary? Why would you delete the section on the tour? That seems relevant, and it's sourced information. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really relevant from an encyclopedic standpoint. R.E.M. plays shows all the time; these shows are not inherently notable, particularly in regards to a specific release. The most notable performances concerning this album are the Olympia dates, and that's all that really needs to be mentioned in this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tour

message: Common The article should have a section on single releases and chart performance. Right now it's a stub, but as time goes on, sources and information will be added. As for Murmurs.com, it's a completely legitimate source that gets information from the band themselves, and their information was itself sourced, so I don't see what problem there could be with Murmurs. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, there's no need for a separate singles section. That information can and should go into the "release" section. Secondly, the site is citing something said on Virgin Radio. A better, more reputable news site should be cited for the Virgin Radio interview in the text instead. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles and charts section 

message: Hey, I just noticed that for the Rolling Stone review it showed a 4/5 stars... well im looking at my Rolling Stone right now... and they gave it a 4/4... so wouldnt that equate to a 5/5?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.5.9 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure that's a 4/5. That's the only scale RS uses as far as I know. Here's the online link RS4_3_08, don't know about the hard-copy.Asst. Editor, Crawdaddy! FenderRhodesScholar | Talk 22:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rolling Stone Review

message: Yes, I know that Murmurs.com is a fansite, but it is probably the most offical R.E.M. fansite out there, given that Ethan Kaplan (Murmurs.com creator) does a lot of photography with R.E.M.
With that mind, I think information which Murmurs.com states is confirmed should be considered as such, even though possibly another source may not yet exist. (Was re http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accelerate_%28R.E.M._album%29&diff=202898703&oldid=202741530 , where the external reference does comment on the source of the information.) Steven Plunkett (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the information is confirmed, find a news site that confirms it. We should not rely on fansites for sourcing information, unless they're interviewing someone directly or the like. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Murmurs.com Fansite

message: Substituted at 14:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment