Talk:Radiohead/Archive 4

message: Link to: historical moment of this article with the bear image to which I here shall write.
The bear graphic was removed quickly under the heading "collaborations." It is a small image, it has visual impact and is not only both informative and representative of Stanley Donwood's work for the band (appropriate for this heading "collaborations"), but it is a commonly identified icon strongly associated with the band as well. The reason for removal was "superfluous." Is this because it is not a genuine artisic collaboration? The subject matter of the text is not limited as such. Is the image genuinely superfluous to the article? If not, might there be other important reasons to keep it off of the article?  - Steve3849 talk 22:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An image very similar to the current one being discussed was once on the article; however while it is and was informative, a convincing fair use rationale could not be created for it, so it was scrapped. ErleGrey 22:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that's what I suspected. Sorry about the bother.  - Steve3849 talk 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bear graphic 

message: Sorry but I don't see how this improved the history section.
I didn't have a chance to read the whole thing over again, and I'm not going to get into changing things back too much, but why for example was the mention of the poor sales of the Drill EP removed, just to give one example, and irrelevant quotes from Radiohead's former music teacher at Abingdon added in? How does this bring the article closer to featured status? I would say whoever made those changes doesn't have much conception what information is relevant or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.130.215.123 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About the recent additions of references to the article- it's best to standardize them in the   template. An easy way is to use this page. ErleGrey 19:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I may look into that after I add the references. I'm not familiar with that template yet, but it seems it will be quite easy to do it afterward. Now will someone please stop removing the sentence about Radiohead's first gig being at the Jericho Tavern in 1986. If any sentence in that "Formation..." section is relevant, it's that one. Of course, it does need a good citation (but that's not why it was removed, as it did have one before!). 172.132.243.101 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: *US and UK, not U.S. and U.K.
*favourite colour to see while travelling, not favorite color to see while traveling
*band members, not bandmembers (actually I think this is just a rule of English, period- oh sorry, full stop)
*The best Radiohead albums are The Bends, OK Computer and Kid A. Not: The best Radiohead albums are The Bends, OK Computer, and Kid A.
*I hate "Creep", but I love "Anyone Can Play Guitar". Not: I hate "Creep," but I love "Anyone Can Play Guitar." (However, Wikipedia does use double quotes for quotations and song titles, in line with American usage)
Anyone else have any more to standardize the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.132.243.101 (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 simple rules of British spelling... from a non-Brit 

message: I suggest that this article be put up for a second peer review. I was the only one to respond to the first one, so more eyes and voices would be helpful. Probably not now (Peer Review is somewhat backed up at the moment); maybe in a week. I can also use that time to contact users who would be very helpful reviewers. WesleyDodds 09:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, this article looks very close to featured status.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: F-ed up citations, entire paragraphs without cites, badly written style and songwriting section...add to that an album coming out within the year-yes, this article will never reach FA, in large part because nobody (myself included) gives a shit. 71.170.157.141 00:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I count at least three people who do care. And I've seen much worse articles get fixed up and pass at FAC. What it takes is concentrated effort. If no one objects I'll put the article up for another peer review myself. WesleyDodds 12:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second peer review 

message: I think there are three major things that need to be done to get this page up to FA.
#Citations-many complete paragraphs lack them.
#Citation standardization-include all information, especially publisher. This destroyed the last FA attempt. I posted a convenient link to create an acceptable citation somewhere on this page.
#Copyedit.
If some people could do this, (that's not to say I won't, but it's a pain to be the only one) this article would surely reach FA.
71.170.157.89 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll help... eventually. –Pomte 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Well, if anyone's interested, this is the "quick" citation page. 71.170.157.89 22:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA pass 

message: I've slapped a trivia tag on the Radiohead trivia page, I'm guessing it was sectioned off this article. WP:TRIV details that Trivia sections should be integrated into the article thus the content of that page should either be integrated into the relevent Radiohead articles or dispensed of if it cannot be. See also WP:HTRIVIA. Thanks. - JVG 03:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: New and unregistered users have as much right to edit articles as anyone else.  The best solution is to build a strong consensus on this talk page.  If this degenerates into an edit war, then individual blocks are strongly preferred to page protection. Papa November (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection request declined 

message: Someone removed mention of Radiohead's confirmed tour of South America next year, which is the band's first ever tour of that continent. This is only the latest example of the recent "bold" deletions for the sake of deletions. Some so-called trimming can be useful, but it was the STYLE and wordiness of those parts of the article, and a few excessive quotes, that could have used some improvements and condensation, not all the actual facts which needed to be removed. Anyone who still cares about this article, please go back, look at this featured article a month ago, and correct citations and context since destroyed in lazy, careless edits. I understand there are different Wikiphilosophies, but that's why, if the state of this still "featured" article was so bad as made out by opponents of the longstanding text, the first solution would have been to ask for re-evaluation of its "featured" status & peer review to see which ways it could be improved, not to play with massive unilateral changes with no consensus (and often, no given justifications).
In any case, I apologize for editing only with an IP. If you want to revert me for that reason, go right ahead. Thanks. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't accuse people of making "lazy and careless edits" - I'm sure they were acting in good faith.  Great care must be taken when including details of future events (WP:CRYSTAL).  Also, there's the danger of it being seen as an invitation for people to include details of every announced tour date.  I'd guess the content was removed on that basis -  Papa November (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LATIN AMERICAN & OTHER NOV/DEC '08 DELETIONISM WARNING 

message: For some reason, only the US chart peaks for Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief are mentioned. As the band is from Britain, their chart placings in their home country should be given priority. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart positions 

message: I've been looking through the edit history on the albums and there seems to be fighting over the album genres. After getting a consensus on the band genres, how about we do albums as well? I really don't see why Experimental rock shouldn't be listed on every album they've done since OK Computer, especially Kid A and Amnesiac. Those albums can't be sorely defined as Alternative rock (and Electronic for Kid A and Amnesiac) and every time someone adds that genre to any of the albums, someone else removes it. So, what should we do here? Kokoro20 (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since genres seem to be such a sore point, I'd suggest finding some solid references for anything that could be disputed. Papa November (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With genres in album infoboxes it's best to kept it simple. Many forms of experimental rock fall into alternative rock, so it's more concise to list as few genres as possible. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's no reason to keep Experimental rock out. And how do many forms of Experimental rock fall into Alternative rock? All the albums they've done since OK Computer have been experimental, hence why Experimental rock should be added to them. Kid A, Amnesiac, Hail to the Thief and In Rainbows are all also listed as Experimental rock on Allmusic (although, OK Computer isn't). That's really the only source I could find and besides, it's harder to find sources for genres of the album than genres of the band. Seriously, having just two or three genres for the albums isn't going to hurt much. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album genres 

message: Hi. I dunno if this will be at all helpful to you guys, but I was watching an interview with the band on YouTube and the band members explicitly state that they formed On a Friday in 1985, rather than 1986 which is what this article says.
Here is the interview. I didn't upload it so I can't find the original source for it, but perhaps you can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVTq2BqNDx4  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.58.96 (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I would add it, but it would probably end up getting reverted. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we find a transcript for that interview somewhere better than YouTube? Zazaban (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere "better"? You're looking at the ORIGINAL INTERVIEW right there. That is a first hand source, less risky than any transcript on some website. You don't cite YouTube itself! You cite the original interview you saw on it. The problem is that, on YouTube the facts about a video's source are often lacking, as in this case, so we don't know the exact info and therefore, we cannot source it properly. But that is simply a rule we have to work around. If we have a video (with all appearances of not being doctored) where the band frontman directly states a fact in contradiction to a fact given in the article, we have to eventually find some way of correcting the information. Changing the date, with only a YouTube clip to back us up, isn't ideal but neither is leaving a date we know to be wrong- assuming the clip is accurate- which it's likely to be, whether or not we have the technicalities available to us to write it out as a proper citation. Maybe the only solution: ask the video uploader?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.58.96 (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know it's the original interview; that's not what I'm disputing, I'm just worried some wiki bureaucrats will come along and throw a fit because YouTube is being used as a source. You know what, use it and we'll see what happens. Zazaban (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation year new data 

message: One year ago our article was promoted to featured. Late last year the text took a sharp turn with several contentious editors making large changes and attempting to delete or spin off major portions of the article. They were ultimately overruled on the largest changes, but through creeping edits the text today is beginning to diverge significantly from what it was one year ago. I just submitted this again for FAR, with the hope that the article will be removed from featured status until it can be sufficiently improved to again merit the distinction. Following are the criteria for featured articles, along with my personal highlighting of areas where I feel this article now falls short.
(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; 
(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and 
(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. 
Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: comment: Featured articles can't be delisted until they have gone through a review.  You may want to consider listing the article at WP:FARC and briefly summarise the issues there. I guess your concern seems to be that it no longer meets criteria 1a (well-written) 1b (comprehensive) or 1e (stable). I agree that it has changed dramatically since we pushed it to FA, and it could probably use some more sets of eyes. Papa November (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I honestly don't think the article has changed that much. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Radiohead]] 

message: IN the Introduction, OK Computer's new sound is described as simply "expansive"; wouldn't it be more fitting to mention the album's beautifully complex harmonies and contrasting calm and chaotic moods? Spettro9 (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Words like "beautifully complex harmonies" sound awfully POV-laden: while I personally agree with the sentiment, my girlfriend would probably choose words like "horrible wailing" instead.  The safest bet is just to use the most neutral, matter-of-fact description possible. Papa November (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music description in Introduction 

message: So we're not even gunna mention the fact that EMI is reissuing the first three radiohead albums with bonus tracks and dvds? i mean, i know it's a shitty thing for the record label to do, but last time i checked wikipedia has an article on the cashgrab boxset that the same people released two years ago. these re-releases were announced months ago, and will be released in two weeks, and yet nowhere in the main article or any of the individual album's articles does it mention anything about it. wikipedia ain't what it used to be.99.153.29.112 (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why don't you get on it instead of complaining? faithless (speak) 06:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeez, it's like he thinks people get paid to put useless crap on Wikipedia. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 10:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really? 

message: the Lead of this article is too long and it has some information that seems better to be moved to the Style and influences section. Solinothe Wolf 10:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: At the request of EMI, the band changed their name to Radiohead, inspired by the title of a song on Talking Heads' True Stories album.[8]
While it may or may not be true (I could not verify it), the article cited does not state that the band changed their name 'at the request of EMI'.  Quote from article:
     
The band's early songs were all over the map, sounding variously like the Smiths, R. E. M., Sonic Youth, and the Talking Heads, whose song "Radio Head" gave the group its name. (At first, they performed under the name On a Friday, but they wisely changed their minds.)
Recommend an accurate source, or removal of statement.
--Twomikewho (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited material does not contain alleged statement. 

message: Can a link be added in external sites to Radiohead's Official Ultimate Fan Page? http://www.radiohead.ultimatefanpage.com/ --Sezzawarb (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think it meets the standards of the external link guidelines.  Papa November (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

text: But what useful information about Radiohead does it have that would be of encyclopedic value?  Wikipedia isn't a link directory; external links are for verifying the information in articles and providing expanded encyclopedic information. A directory of fan pages doesn't appear to do either of those things. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  websites 

message: Why when Radiohead are considered one of the greateast band of all time (not my opinion)- there are many many polls that have them top 10 top 5 is this condescending posistion given by a publication that rates bands like Greenday (gah!) highly, given priority. I mean when its not hard at all to find MAJOR polls that place both thier albums and status as a band MUCH higher: why is this relevant at all? Im actually hard pressed to find any other publication that rates them as low as this (spent 20mins looking and all i can find are excellent and flattering posistions Q, NME, Pitchfork, Drowned in Sound etc etc etc), its very silly. Its actually a slur upon the band, as I cannot find a poll that places them so low. 
Sure I like Radiohead and all, just very shocked to see this included. 
Megathrone 5/6/09 86.159.20.0 (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think "best of" lists are particularly useful.  Each magazine has its own target readership and point of view, so these lists show nothing more than the personal preferences of journalists or their readers.  You're quite right that other publications give entirely different rankings so it may be misleading to single out the RS position in the lead section.  I guess the argument for inclusion is that Rolling Stone is probably the most famous music magazine in the world and a lot of people will have seen the list.  I think the solution would be to make a more general statement like "Radiohead's work has appeared in listener polls and critics' lists in widely-read music magazines including Rolling Stone, Q and NME."  As a final point, Wikipedia articles should not attempt to "slur" against or to promote a band.  Our job is simply to state neutrally what has been written about the band in reliable sources.  Singling out either the best or worst ratings in "best of" lists is a very bad idea!  Papa November (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling Stone so called best artist no.73 

message: 1991: Ok let's through the dice. Personally I prefer 1991, since that's the year they got from college, started using Radiohead moniker and became present on the music scene. That's what I vote for. What say you? The Mad Hatter (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They still existed in 1986. To claim 1991 would be original research. Zazaban (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

text: So, the fact that they were schoolboys means their band cannot be thought of as legitimate? Claiming that a name change signifies the creation of a new band even if the lineup is identical is utterly insane, and 1989 seems totally random. Zazaban (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I have added a source stating they were active in 1986. Happy? Zazaban (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1986 for sure - no question. 88.110.207.23 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1986 or 1991 

message: Radiohead DID NOT perform at the grammys. they were introduced as radiohead, but it was just thom & jonny + the USC marching band. the article should probably state the facts.99.153.29.112 (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: wow ok, i didn't mean completely delete any reference to them being there, i just meant note the fact that it was introduced as radiohead, but was only 2/5's of the band. also stanley donwood won for best limited edition recording package for the in rainbows disc box.99.153.29.112 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the text because it seemed like undue weight on a fairly minor event in the band's history.  The band have been around for a long time, and everything needs to be put into perspective.  In other words, is that performance really worth noting in the grand scheme of things?  It seems a bit much to talk explicitly about two band-members performing one song at an awards ceremony when three entire tours are summarised as "Radiohead toured North America, Europe and Japan in 2008 to promote In Rainbows."  Papa November (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Hi, I added the sentence since it seemed relevant to the preceding part about Radiohead's recent Grammy nominations. Also, while the older tours may not have been notable enough individually for their own descriptions, I felt that playing at a venue so important as the Grammy Awards warranted some mention. However, if the community disagrees or wishes to downplay the fact (I suppose if it matters so much, one could stress that only Thom and Jonny played) then I won't cause any fuss :) Banjaloupe (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  i think it does matter so much :) 99.153.29.112 (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe i was not clear enough, i think that the article should include the the awards which they were nominated for and the ones which they won, and it should also include the fact that thom & jonny played with the USC marching band but were introduced as radiohead.99.153.29.112 (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Grammy Awards were a serious award in the field of alternative rock, then the awards should be mentioned in the main article. But the Grammy Awards hardly constitute notable critical opinion in progressive and alternative rock - such legendary acts Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin had won only a few Grammys in their lifetime, and such critically-acclaimed albums by Radiohead, such as OK Computer, never won a Grammy. The Grammys are a show marketed to young teens, nothing more. I'm sure that any serious critic will agree with me that having suddenly won three Grammys this year means absolutely nothing to the band or to the music industry, except that perhaps their music has gotten worse. Naur (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Young teens, huh? I guess that explains why Robert Plant was the big winner. Wait...no, no it doesn't. :-P I'm not sticking up for the Grammys (all awards are worthless in my opinion), but to say that the Grammys are not a major music award is absurd. faithless (speak) 06:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammys 

message: Why the insistence on keeping the initial sentence to contain "Radiohead are..."? It's unnatural and I think it should depend on the band name itself, e.g. "The Beatles are..." and "Radiohead is..." Radiohead is the moniker for a single group of people and grammatically should be treated as such. What authoritative English source, British or otherwise, says to treat all band names as plural?  --Henryrm (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Common usage. Zazaban (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not common usage. You'll need to cite something if it's against the rules of standard English. Blue Danube (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

text: This is a British band: we use British English for British things, American English for American things.  End of discussion.  Jubilee♫clipman 23:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  plurality of band names? 

message: I think the HEADER "In Rainbows andindependent work(2005–present" should read "In Rainbows and independent work(2005–present)". I cannot edit this (i'm not sure why, I think I have been a member long enough, however I rarely change articles. If this talk/comment on this page is in the wrong section (see previous! - I am a Noob) please put it where it belongs, If that is in the bin then put it there. Thanks :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuliwil (talk • contribs) 09:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. You couldn't edit the article because it is currently semi-protected and although you have been registered for long enough, you did not have enough edits (10) to edit semi-protected articles. - kollision (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting error in the "In Rainbows andindependent work(2005–present)" 

message: Who added the tag and why? What exactly is questioned: the whole article (unlikely as it is a featured article!) or a particular part?  Which part?  Where is the discussion?  Is the immeadiately preceeding discussion relevent?  If so how?  A few people just seem to be ranting about genre.  There is no NPOV problem there.  Confused... Jubilee♫clipman 23:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have subsequently removed it. 119.224.57.190 (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag? 

message: Clearly, it is time for another discussion of the genres in the infobox, given that there have been a great many changes of late.  Currently, the three genres listed are Alternative rock, art rock, and electronic music.  Can we agree to leave it at that?  If not, why not?  The floor is open. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. faithless (speak) 23:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, everything they have done falls into one of those broad categories.  There's no need for anything more specific. I'm really tired of the constant changes to this list.  Papa November (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see why Experimental rock shouldn't be added to the genre list. Their Kid A and Amnesiac albums in particular, could fall under Experimental rock. And they are labeled as Experimental rock by some sources  Kokoro20 (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if "art rock" needs to be there, it is a very vaguely defined genre. Rather than describe a certain sound (like heavy metal) or a movement (Britpop/Grunge), it just implies a rock band with "arty" pretensions. indopug (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm for replacing "Art rock" with "Experimental rock", mainly because that's what Allmusic lists. "Art rock" primarily applies to the likes of 70s groups ranging from prog (Pink Floyd) to glam (Roxy Music) to protopunk (The Velvet Underground). In contrast, Radiohead members have gone on record saying they hate prog (although they like Krautrock), and their influences actually pull primarily from 1980s post-punk and alternative rock (I read in Exit Music that the band teases Johnny Greenwood because he really doesn't know that much about music prior to the 1980s, and he has said he's rather listen to Dinosaur Jr's "Freak Scene" than the Rolling Stones). They have more in common with Sonic Youth than with Pink Floyd. While we're at it, change "electronic music" to "indie electronic" (or Indietronica, as it's called here on Wikipedia), once again per Allmusic and because it's more specific. "Alternative rock" stays, of course, since there's really no argument that the band fits in the genre (in fact, they are one of the genre's most notable and most important groups).WesleyDodds (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also be in favor of replacing "art rock" with "experimental rock."  It seems much more appropriate. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Small note: Both indie electronic and Indietronica redirect to electronic dance music. indopug (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd that, since there's an Allmusic page on the genre and I've read about it in other places. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see, there was an AfD a while ago. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, Indietronica should just be changed back to Electronic. The fact that Indietronica redirects to Electronic dance music suggests that all Radiohead's Electronic songs sounds like the song Idioteque, which it doesn't. Also, Art rock shouldn't have been removed, but Experimental rock should be there alongside of it. Some sources also cite them as Art rock.    Kokoro20 (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first two links are concert reviews that can't be really used to determine genre, since it's an offhand comment. The Time article says "combining punkish attitude, tasteful art-rock grandeur and judicious electronic sampling". It says the group combines elements of art rock, not that they are an art-rock band. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I think Electronic music referes to a wide range of music.If you take a look at it's article you'd see what I mean.It contains a wide amount of musicians in many genres.I think maybe we could change it to Electronica which referes to a specific kind of Electronic music which is more associated whith Rock.Any thoughts?Solino the Wolf (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres 

message: I know experimental rock already probably covers this, but what would people think if I added progressive rock to the list of genres? --LordNecronus (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think prog is a bit of a controversial addition, given that the band tried to deny any connection with prog around the time of OK Computer.  However, more than one critic has stuck the prog label on them.  The prog labelling is discussed in the Kid A article, but it's probably safer to leave it out of the infobox in this article.  Papa November (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prog rock 

message: i think it should state somwhere that Radiohead had a incident with Miley Cyrus where they said they didnt want to hang out with her can sombody add that if its possible? 81.96.254.143 (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miley Cyrus 

message: Radiohead's lighting designer Andi Watson has also worked with them since circa The Bends. Also, perhaps some mention of Sandbag, the company they founded which produces ethically sourced merchandise and web hosting for bands (REM, Sigur Ros)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.169.33 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andi Watson & Sandbag