lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Sweaty Handshake

message: :Image:PetLamb-SweatyHandshake.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.
— Save_Us_229 19:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:PetLamb-SweatyHandshake.jpg
Talk:Passion (Peter Gabriel album)

message: Any reason why Passion: Sources shouldn't have its own article? There's already a track listing. I've just uploaded a photo so it wouldn't take much effort to create an infobox. Just thought I'd ask first in case these two albums had been previously merged into the present article. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I decided to go ahead and split Passion - Sources to its own article. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split ''Passion: Sources''? 

message: Maybe include some review sources to cleanup the area mentioning his other work as "muddled" in comparison  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.121.97 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews
Talk:Bossanova (Pixies album)

message: *All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen Talk 16:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>'''

message: A question: The Trivia sections that that the first two verses of the song "Hang Wire" are written in the Japanese haiku form. Does anyone know of any documentation for this? gK 01:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an article/interview here , transcribed from a magazine, they discuss a little bit of the haiku thing.  Hmm, a year old question. DarthInsinuate 16:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I only know as much as I can look up, and all I can find is that it should be Velouria, and Redonditos de Ricota are some Spanish words :/ ---- DarthInsinuate 16:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: It seems that all musical information on this album has been placed on The Pixies' main page, while it should rightly belong here. Do we correct?
:I wrote the Pixies article first (bringing it up to featured status). Don't worry about moving the text, I'm planning to expand this in the next few days. CloudNine 20:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misplaced information?
Talk:Doolittle (album)

message: This older FA needs some work to get back up to the current FA standards.  There's two tags for clarification in the lead, there's uncited text, and iffy sources such as rocklist.net and the user-generated genius.com are used.  If improvements are not made, this article will likely need to be submitted to WP:FAR. Hog Farm  Talk 03:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: hi Hog Farm, will take a look tonight. Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]]
Talk:Trompe le Monde

message: *All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen Talk 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>'''

message: I could place [citation needed]s on almost every sentence in this article, but that would clutter it up. So... Dingbats 14:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - I agree. The article's on my to-do list; I've been going through the band's albums (Surfer Rosa and Doolittle are the ones I've worked on so far), bringing them to featured status. CloudNine 15:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: Hey guys, I'm asking here, since its probably the most likely to have Pixies boffins here. I'm contemplating "Bird Dreams of Olympus Mons" as a pop culture reference in the article on the greek Icarus mythos. (Guy jumps off Olympus mons and crashes to the ground, after a 'good fly') even if its a very impressionistic take. But is there any references out there to the meaning of this pixies classic, or am I just tripping here? 124.178.179.96 (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bird dreams of Olympus mons 

message: Letter to Memphis was the highest charting single from the album yet's the the only single without an article, I can make an article for this song right? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: I Don't Get It

message: It's currently pretty sparse, as it contains short bits of information from only two critics, and as such does not have as wide of a viewpoint as it maybe should.
Nomadben (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could use more content under "Critical Reception" section 

message: Most sources I've look at show the release date as September 24, 1991 but here it's Sept. 23. Is there a controversy on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotdragon (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: BPI has the release date as September 23 and so does blender. --Muhandes (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date
Talk:Dry (album)

message: Since this appeared in the album chart in April 1992, the stated release date of 30 June must be wrong.  MFlet1 (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date 
Talk:The Presidents of the United States of America (album)

message: I hate to tell you people this, but "Little Blue Dune Buggy" was released in the early 1970s by a little known band known as the 'Presidents of the USA.' The later Seattle grunge band shamelessly not only ripped off their name, but their song as well. -- Elaich  talk 05:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little Blue Dune Buggy 

message: Did they really meet at the Bush School in 1993 when Dave was 29?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:84C2:7701:3470:9C19:7097:BA31 (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  1993? 
Talk:Purple Rain (album)

message: I just added it in but I just wanted to double check: for those who don't know, Guitarcloud is an archive site for all the equipment that Prince used to record his albums, and it spans his whole career. Everything is backed up with sources, whether it be recently sourced from new books, or interviews with Prince and his bandmates, then and now. I'm aware this is new to an already established section but I hope it's good enough to be featured on the article.
Also, whoever keeps adding sources to Prince Vault should probably not use that as a source, as that website is not as accurate as it may seem, and is pretty much a Wikipedia dedicated entirely to Prince, like Fandom.
Thanks so much for your time and patience! 2601:147:4700:B420:84CB:59B7:57A4:E199 (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purple Rain personnel: new information 

message: New information I found from Duane Tudahl and Benoit Clerc also works as sources for the personnel section, and it also reveals that Take Me With U wasn't performed by the Revolution, it was just Prince.
These are the sources. 2601:147:4700:B420:A120:68D7:12B2:55A6 (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purple rain info part 2
Talk:All Hail the Queen

message: The information given in the box titled All Hail The Queen Charting Singles does not agree with the chart positions given in the Wiki-article Queen Latifah Discography – Solo Artist – Chart Peak Position for the singles: “Dance For Me” and “Ladies First”. Whoever is in charge of this Wiki article should verify the chart positions and make the necessary corrections. 184.76.56.97 (talk)JSJR 201500527   — Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 
Talk:Rated R (Queens of the Stone Age album)

message: There's a good JH quote along the lines of "How can it be Rated X if there's no penises?" from an interview about the record. I'll add it in when I find it again.--*smb 23:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rated X

message: my copy of the album is labelled R [Japan Bonus Track], but only has one track that is 8:40... there should be two :/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.23.140 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: huh

message: Should there be a mention of the special edition version and a track listing for it?  I thought there previously had been a description of it.
::Yes, it should be mentioned in the text. At the moment, the "X" is only viewable in the LP cover picture and between the brackets for the Japanese bonus track. A further explanation would be a nice addition. regards, IP 92.231.216.124 (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rated X 

message: This album was listed by Rolling Stone as one the top 100 of the past decade. Does this warrant inclusion into the article? 98.196.78.26 (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accolades 

message: In the Deluxe version of Rated R, we can read in the back cover: "Monsters in the parasol" (Disc One, The Album) and "Monster In The Parasol [Live]" (Disc Two, The B-Sides) without "S". Anyone knows why this difference ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by H'Monkee (talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monsters In The Parasol/Monster In The Parasol 
Talk:Rage Against the Machine (album)

message: Is there a reason why it says "Guilty Parties" next to the "Personnel" heading? - Ozzykhan 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not mistaken, that's how they listed themselves in their liner notes. --Onorem 20:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that is true, so maybe it would be more accurate to put that into inverted commas.--Macca7174 11:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that note, I know that Tom Morello is always credited last in the liner notes and as "guitars" not just guitar.--86.136.131.159 (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Guilty Parties" 

message: Why did They just decide to skip the lyrics for Killing in the Name? I think that should be added to the article if anyone knows wwhy. KMFDM FAN (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motive behind Skipping KITN Lyrics? 
Talk:Down to Earth (Rainbow album)

message: Lyrics were by Glover, music by Blackmore, Airey and Powell
Except for the best known track: 'Since You Been Gone' - written by Russ Ballard and actually recorded by Clout before Rainbow made it a hit. 81.31.97.129 00:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 
Talk:Rocket to Russia

message: On the LP Rocket to Russia the songs are credited to the Ramones and the copyright registrations for these songs show words and music by Jeffrey Hyman, Douglas Colvin, Thomas Erdelyi and John Cummings. The source being offered, a youtube video, is far from definitive and the interview is peppered with qualifying phrases such as "I'm not sure", "I hear", "I think" and "I don't know." In fact, the interview begins by talking about how the Ramones collaborated. As far as exactly who wrote what within a collaborative songwriting effort should be addressed in the body of the article. Unfortunately, that may require an editor to compose a complete sentence or two, maybe even a short paragraph. Piriczki (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songwriting credits 

message: Shouldn't it be "lobotomee" in "Gonna get my Ph.D, I'm a teenage lobotomy"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.218.89 (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling? 

message: The album cover is arguably public domain per its publication in this issue of Billboard Magazine as an advertisement without a copyright notice specific to the advertisement.  I'm not sure how this works given the international issues involved, but likely is public domain at least in the US. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album cover public domain?
Talk:...And Out Come the Wolves

message: The link to "Roots Radicals" just redirects you to the article... 65.185.191.51 22:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It says in the article that: "As of 2007, the album has sold 979,000 copies." Yet later in the paragraph, it says that: "It was certified platinum on September 23, 2004."
If it was certified platinum 2 1/2 years ago, shouldn't it have sold 1,000,000 copies already? 24.174.67.72 21:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure how many copies this album made since nearly twelve years after its release, but I'm guessing it may have sold about over 50 million or less as The Offspring's Smash or anything by Nirvana, Green Day, Social Distortion, who knows? Alex 23:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your guess was so off it's astounding. 50 million? That would be more than Dookie and Smash combined. Tithonfury (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales 

message: I'm editing the reception slightly. It says that Erlewine said the music was "a veiled reference to the attention the band gained," but he was actually referring to the title. It's minor, but I feel it should be changed. Tithonfury (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 
Talk:Let's Go (Rancid album)

message: Alright, I'm getting very tired of people adding "hardcore punk" when they don't have a source and are adding "Do not change genres without discussing on the talk page. Changing the genre without discussing is considered vandalism." next to the genres. Technically, if changing the genre without discussing it on the talk page is considered vandalism, then your guys edits would be vandalism. So please stop now! --Blaguymonkey (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop adding "hardcore punk"
Talk:12 Songs (Randy Newman album)

message: Where did the composer credit for "Underneath the Harlem Moon" come from?  My copy of the liner notes to this Reprise CD credit "De Sylva, Brown & Henderson - ASCAP".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.127.94.7 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm leaving this material here.  All of it is demonstrably true, relevant, and easily checkable, but the sources that were given did not satisfy a particular user.  Perhaps others can come up with sources that will do the trick. 
_____
As with all of Newman's early albums, several of its songs had been previously recorded by other artists. In this case, "Mama Told Me Not To Come" had originally been recorded in 1967 by Eric Burdon, and that same year The Beau Brummels released their version of "My Old Kentucky Home". Three other songs originally appeared in versions by other artists just a few months prior to the LP release of 12 Songs: "Yellow Man" by Harry Nilsson on his February, 1970 album Nilsson Sings Newman; "Have You Seen My Baby" by Fats Domino (as a 1969 single); and "Let's Burn Down The Cornfield" by Lou Rawls (the b-side to his 1970 R&B hit "You've Made Me So Very Happy").Everyone But You (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because something is true doesn't make it notable for inclusion in an article (WP:IKNOWITSTRUE). Third-party sources help establish notability. Without them, we're left with primary sources and an editor's opinion on why this is important and not trivia. Dan56 (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previously recorded songs 

message: Article says April 1970, but box says February 1970. At least one of them is wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.198.129 (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was this album released?
Talk:Tim (The Replacements album)

message: Does anyone know where the album title "Tim" came from? If you have a source, please edit the article to reflect this. I'd be interested to know Stuart mcmillen (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This source is a little sketchy, but states that Manager Peter Jesperson told a Minneapolis radio station, "I clearly remember Paul [Westerberg] saying one day, 'I think we should call the album 'Tim.' I said, 'Why?' And he said, 'Because it's such a nice name.'" Seems believable enough, but I don't know if it would hold up as a verifiable source in the article. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The album title
Talk:Raising Hell (album)

message: User:isento, with all due respect, but theboombox.com is a user blog, unregistered media outlet, and is not a reliable source. Plus you just removed from the article album nomination for the Grammy Award and the fact that the album won the 1987 Soul Train Music Awards. I don't think this edit is the best decision in favor of choosing a blog called "The Boombox" where everything written is not confirmed by anything. I agree that rockonthenet.com is also not the best solution to confirm the Grammy nomination, but it's better to confirm with a link to the Grammy website: https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/run-dmc/8333 and not delete forever! And the nomination for the 1987 Soul Train Awards can be checked in the article of the same name. - Felix Montana (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Boombox
Talk:Hemispheres (Rush album)

message: The first Cygnus X-1 part is intense, fast-paced, harrowing. Just the way entering a black hole could in fact be. This second book is lousy. I guess touring got the best of them. If I was Terry Brown, I would have been ashamed to sit behind the mixing board for this one. This album as a whole is good...Strangiato, The Trees...but Book II is a poor sequel. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but what does that have to do with the article? MFNickster (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been through black holes before and Book II, while not containing all of the wisdom found in The Revised New Syllabus, is quite factual in its description and sonic representation of what Valhalla is actually like.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.126.132 (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Book II is lousy

message: The overall track time for Cygnus is 18:04.  In the article, times are also listed for each section (movement) of the song.
Someone left out the time for the "Apollo" section. I thought I could deduce this by adding up each section time and subtracting from the track time total (18:04).  However adding them all together results in over 18:00, so that means all section times are suspect.  I lost my Hemispheres jacket so I can't check on this. Please fix.Bobroberts248 (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  track times 

message: The article says that the cover art includes "a figure that resembles the one in the painting The Son of Man". As far as I can tell, this is true only insofar as both figures are wearing a suit; the figure in "The Son of Man" does not even have a cane. Is there a reference for this, or should it be deleted?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstar3k (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Artwork
Talk:Moving Pictures (Rush album)

message: A very long time ago, in 1990s, I remember a discussion on a BBS or USENET about this cover, but unfortunately it's been too long for me to remember the source.  I remember the final description was very elegantly worded.  Though I can't remember the exact wording, I think these are very close or dead-on.  Using the exact two words "moving pictures" more than once is key for the description.  If you don't like these, the please propose a more elegant version.  • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover visual pun 

message: The Morse Code for YYZ in this article is confusing. Why is it this () instead of this (-.-- -.-- --.. )?   For me it looks like the dashes are individual blocks. It's even like (-.-- -.-- --.. ) in the YYZ main page. Venyanwarrior (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morse Code for YYZ 

message: The sentences: "During the sessions, they experimented with a pressure zone microphone, a type of boundary microphone that picks up direct sound and no reverberated signals, that was taped onto Peart's chest as he played. The audio captured from it was used to pick up the ambience in the studio room in the final mix" is in error. Of course pressure zone mics pick up reflections ("reverberated signals [sic]"). Any mic not picking up reflected sound would be impossible. Moreover, with these mics, it's all reflected sound (from the plate to the capsule). What boundary mics do is rectify phase distortion between sound waves from the source interacting with reflections. Also, to then suggest the mics were used to pick up "ambience in the studio room" is a direct contradiction. The citation from Neil Peart's article in the drum magazine isn't authoritative. Neil Peart was a drummer, not an audio engineer, and he likely either flubbed this explanation, or (just as likely) was fed faulty information by his studio engineer for those sessions. I would remove the pseudo-science, and just leave it as "During the sessions, they experimented with a pressure zone microphone . . . that was taped onto Peart's chest as he played" and keep the link to the boundary microphone wiki page. O0drogue0o (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Background and Recording 

message: Moving Pictures was on the Mercury Label and marketed through Polygram, not Anthem, as the article states. 
If you want proof, just search on “Rush Moving Pictures LP label” and see for yourself. Or if you have an original copy from 1981 (as I do) you can pull out the vinyl and see it for yourself on the label. 24.113.82.188 (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  It was released on Mercury/Polygram 

message: Rush did not record Moving Pictures on a 48 track digital machine. That machine  - The Sony 3348 - wasn’t released until 1989. The 24 track version wasn’t released until 1982. 
Le Studio had Studer 24 track analog tape machines at that time.  They used a synchronizer to lock 2 machines together for 48 tracks (I don’t know if Rush used 48 tracks) Vrsound (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error