Talk:Vapor Trails

message: 149.166.112.178 added "Tom's review" in April 2004. Who is Tom? I have to wonder if this has been copied from another website without permission? RedWolf 20:02, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
A page on about.com (http://experts.about.com/e/v/va/vapor_trails.htm) seems to be a straight copy-paste from here. Not even a good copy-paste job. I'm confident that this Wikipedia article is the original. SandyFace 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

message: It's been down for a long time and Rip Rowan's article on the problems with "Vapor Trails" is a great analysis. Fortunately, there's a cached version of the page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060423231848/http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E005DAF1C
--Alvabass 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prorec link 

message: I am opening up this discussion in the hopes that consensus can be reached on this topic - I'd like to avoid any heated editing "oscillations" since they are counterproductive and altogether frustrating. It is essentially a violation of WP:NOR to insist upon  changing the info box to reflect your opinion on what genre Vapor Trails falls under, especially with the only reason given being "time signature changes". Many rock songs display irregular or shifting time signatures - it's a rather indefensible reason. Rush has not belonged to the progressive rock genre for some time now. Wisdom89 23:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard rock covers it well enough. Any other genres added are just superfluity....or just plain false(like Prog metal). As mentioned...Rush hasn't been "prog" for many years. 156.34.232.31 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I support it being Hard Rock. In fact, I seem to remember articles about the change in producers to someone who could give a more 'hard' sound, and a less 'prog' sound. ThuranX 01:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre category

message: The image :Image:RUSH onelittlevictory.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:RUSH onelittlevictory.jpg

message: Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the  template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:
* http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A4z841vd3zzza
--CactusBot (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011 

message: (Please see existing discussion at Talk:Vapor Trails Remixed.) Ubcule (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I notice this doesn't get mentioned, but Andy VanDette remastered the album shortly before the remixed version was released. This was then replaced by the remix on a lot of sites, but e.g. Qobuz still has the remaster: https://www.qobuz.com/de-de/album/vapor-trails-rush/0603497923021
Jules TH 16 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013 remaster