Talk:In Rainbows/Archive 2

message: Here are some figures on the amounts that people were willing to pay for the "in Rainbows" record. Reliable enough for inclusion? //Knuckles 08:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we include some of the information from specified, be sure to leave the following statement out:  "...this shows pretty conclusively that the majority of music consumers feel that digital recorded music should be free and is not worth paying for." I think this is not a very solid conclusion, there could be many other factors involved as to why most people downloaded it for free. //Narcolepticpathos 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  From a statement released by the band: "the figures quoted by the company comScore Inc are wholly inaccurate and in no way reflect definitive market intelligence or, indeed, the true success of the project." ComScore: "based on data obtained from comScore’s worldwide database of 2 million people" Andrew Lipsman, Senior analyst for ComScore: "observed the activity of nearly one thousand people who visited the "In Rainbows" site", "observed several hundred paid transactions" If ComScore actually only used less than 1000 people, then Record of the Day's survey (of 5000 people) would still be the most accurate. - kollision 10:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pay what you want, figures 

message: I've withdrawn this article from Good Article nomination as I think it's still too early. In particular, the article doesn't meet the 'broad in its coverage' criteria especially in the music and commercial reception sections. As the commercial success of the album won't be seen till January at least, I don't think this article should be renominated till then (at least). I'll add a To do list with a list of things we can improve on later today. - kollision 06:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't you read the footnote to that criteria? "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed." The "broad in coverage" criteria only states that the article must "addresses the major aspects of the topic". Now if the article lacked a music or commerical reception completely, then it wouldn't be addressing the major aspects, but that's not the case.--SeizureDog 09:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't think this article is good enough. Things such as track durations for the second disc, authors for songs, a personnel list are actually required for Start and B class articles. We probably won't know these things until the discbox comes out. The album also came out just over a month ago, it's just too current to become a Good Article. It hasn't had time to sell, chart, be nominated for awards etc. These are major aspects of the topic. - kollision 10:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not of this is a fault of the article itself. Lacking information that doesn't exist yet doesn't make the article not good. Besides, none of these issues will entail sweeping changes to the article. Most of the current prose will likely be the same months from now.--SeizureDog 11:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess that where we disagree. I think lacking information that doesn't exist yet but will be soon does make the article not good, especially important information such as the commercial reception. Future/current albums do not pass GA nominations. Here are a few examples,    - kollision 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Withdrawn GA nomination

message: I've reverted edits to this article by User talk:207.244.169.105 twice now, and I'm about to revert them again for the second time today -- these edits are vandalism.  My reverts have been reverted by User talk:Hereherehere twice now, so I should probably justify my edits.
Some of the edits by 207.244.169.105 don't match up with the cited sources -- in at least one situation, words are being inserted in the middle of a quote, where the sources don't mention eliding anything.  Also, at least one edit is completely ungrammatical ("Several reviewers attributed the album's quality to the band's performance in the studio" is changed to "Several reviewers attributed the album's quality of the sounds in the studio") and another doesn't make sense in the context (talking about not releasing the album on the Internet because some people couldn't afford it, vs. some people not being able to download it).
There are a few changes by 207.244.169.105 that are arguably legitimate -- changing "songs" to "sounds" comes to mind (I'm not a Radiohead fan myself, and that seems about accurate *ducks*) but given the context of malicious edits, I've been inclined to revert these questionable edits by this anon user with the others.
This is pretty pernicious vandalism -- it's plausible, and likely to persist if allowed to remain.  Please, look at the diffs, check the cited sources, and help me keep this trash out of this article.  jhf (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "songs" to "sounds" edit isn't legitimate because it's directly quoting The Guardian.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 08:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism / edit war of this article 

message: Wasn't 'All I Need' featured at the end of the last episode of the NBC Life?--24.58.159.152 (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently it was. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Life

message: Is this the official title ie. printed on the discbox? Not owning it, I wouldn't know. U-Mos 16:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure it's Bangers + Mash, but I'm more curious as to what the official title is for Last Flowers. —Vanishdoom (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The correct track listing is Last Flowers and Bangers + Mash, based on the CD scan here: http://incoherent.net/musicbrainz/rainbows_bonus_cd.jpg —Vanishdoom (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bangers + Mash 

message: Would it be possible for somebody to put up a fuller, bigger image of the discbox up? The current one doesn't really do it justice as it's not very detailed, and plus everyone's seen that picture from Radiohead official - it would be better if we had one that showed the other details of the box.
Thanks, Sebrat (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discbox - better image? 

message: For the discbox there is about 70000 to 80000 out there. 
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,2221299,00.html
Chandrasonic (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sell figures 

message: Why claim they gave it a 9.3 when they didn't rate it at all? I know metacritic also ranks it as 9.3, but I assumed they made up the score subjectively based on the qualitative part of the review.  Rm999 (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because on the Pitchfork review, if you click the question mark, and then click it again, it says "NO REALLY, IT'S 9.3" - kollision (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitchfork 

message: Wired article where David Byrne interviews Yorke about In Rainbows. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good source to add 

message: ..is "All I Need" the only track from the original album lacking its own separate article? This song is as notable as any other on the album, being mentioned in many reviews I've read and selected by Pitchfork as one of the top tracks of 2007 (the only Radiohead track to be selected, if I may add). Either it should have its own article or some of the other tracks should be de-article-ized (err, merged). -albrozdude (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because nobody has yet written an article. Click the red link and start typing! Staecker (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they have, which is what my concern was. Some redirect-happy person chose to redirect just the All I Need article, which I contend was a misjudged action, thus my comment here. -albrozdude (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why... 

message: Has anyone included this?  The NY Times ranked the album #1.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/arts/music/23pare.html?_r=1&oref=slogin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.158.89 (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times Ranking 

message: The article gives release dates for Japan, Australia and North America, stating that it will be released "elsewhere" 31st December. Presumably this includes the United Kingdom, too, but I was in HMV earlier today (30th December) and it was already out. Am I missing something, or does anybody know when it came out? The Baroness of Morden (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the official release date for the UK is 31 December, although according to some people at the ateaseweb.com forums, some stores have starting selling it early. - kollision (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date for the United Kingdom