Talk:Automatic for the People

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Automatic for the People article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Alternative music Portal This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents 1 Previous discussion 2 Removing reviews 3 Star Me Kitten 4 The Cover 5 Please stop the revert wars! 6 Reversion of April 10, 2008 7 Weeks on Chart 8 Full list of Certifications vs. Highest only

[edit] Previous discussion

"Automatic for the People was embraced as a masterpiece upon its release, and, after 1983's Murmur, is, by common consent, generally considered to be R.E.M.'s second best album"

Is this actually "common consent"? A statement like this needs some references. I know that various music reviewers like Pitchfork and AMG have given Murmur higher ratings, but this doesn't qualify as "common consent" in and of itself. --Dantheox 08:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. POV seems to be pervasive on REM's pages unfortunately. It's a silly statement and I've changed it. Badgerpatrol 03:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The review does sound like a fawning press release. It is my favorite album but I find some of its statements silly. I've tried to NPOV it but since I'm not a music critic I can't add substance, though I will continue to try. Some changes I have made:

"As a consequence, R.E.M. were lauded as purveyors of the new-fangled "alternative" scene, alongside new acts such as Nirvana and Pearl Jam."

changed to

"As a consequence, R.E.M. were marketed alongside new acts such as Nirvana and Pearl Jam as purveyors of the "alternative" scene, despite obvious differences in outlook, style and musical influences between the older band and the newer ones. It is said that Stipe said, "If we're alternative, who isn't?"

"Arriving on the heels of the previous year's breakthrough smash ...

changed to

"Arriving on the heels of the previous year's breakthrough album ...

deleted

"Approval of the album has remained so high that Automatic for the People has since become the yardstick against which all future R.E.M. albums are compared"

Fantailfan 16:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing reviews

Please do not remove professional reviews that are deemed acceptable by WikiProject Album standards. --Fantailfan 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Me Kitten

Does anyone know if the Automatic for the People version of this song is the same as the one on Songs in the Key of X? If so, a note about William S. Burroughs' involvement should be added.

Second, is there any source for calling Star Me Kitten "the worst ever R.E.M. album track", or is this merely the prejudice of the author? SabineLaGrande 07:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cover

"The photograph on the front cover is not related to the restaurant: it shows a sign on a motel in Miami, where part of the album was recorded." Does anyone know what motel this was, or where I can find a picture of it (other than on the cover)? I just can't picture this being a sign, or even part of a sign. It always looked like some sort of weapon, or old tool to me, and I'd like to see it in its entirety. --BennyD 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop the revert wars!

Hey! Between the two of you, you have edited over 10,000 pages; I have edited over 3500. As a disinterested observer, I am citing the unofficial "way too much time on our hands" doctrine: Let's compromise!
a) Dudesleeper is correct on the dating. The reason for this is very simple: for many years now release dates have standardized on Tuesdays in America and Mondays in other places. The difference of a single day is not worth this craziness.

• Proposed: We can use (as as has been the case elsewhere) one date with the UK release date and the second with the US one. You can even use cute little flag icons for them. (b) There are no explicit guidelines on how to incorporate an album article in a discography.
  
• Proposed: We add a second discography using this format, with the albums discography taking top spot, the chronological one the second:

| Misc         = {{Extra chronology 2
  | Artist     = 
  | Type       = 
  | Last album = 
  | This album = 
  | Next album = 
  }}

Discuss, please. -- Fantailfan (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of April 10, 2008

Wesley Dodds, why did you revert the whole article? Please explain-without discussion it seems premature to have done so. Fantailfan (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weeks on Chart

Per policy on Record charts, "[w]ithin the table, no chart positions should be boldfaced, as this violates Wikipedia's policy regarding neutral point of view. Weeks spent at peak position should be mentioned within the article text and not inserted into the table." Which I did previously. <– Fantailfan (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC) –<

It's not actually a policy, just a guideline. Wolfer68 (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

well, ok. I happen to like it. (a) I don't think 'weeks on chart' is meaningful unless it's three years or more and (b) my source (allmusic) doesn't have weeks on chart so I can't do it for all album articles I work on. that's my imho. Fantailfan (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. I was just fixing up someone else's mess who put the weeks on chart in parentheses next to the peak position. It looked bad, so to avoid deleting the info, I created another column. Wolfer68 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC

I need to stop working on Wikipedia when I should be ... um... working. Thanks for the cleanup. Fantailfan (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Full list of Certifications vs. Highest only

While only highest certification needed is a good idea for discussion, it is not policy nor, as far as I know. (It may have been 'wikipolicificated' elsewhere, but such policy is not referenced on WP:ALBUMS). Listing all certs may be, from some points of view, an indiscriminate collection of information but I don't believe so myself. <- Fantailfan (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC) -<

No problem. I don't mind leaving it. It's just that if an album has gone 2X platinum, it's obvious that it already went gold and platinum. Wolfer68 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

sometimes it is significant - like if it takes ten years to go platinum after it goes gold in the first week - generally it's just clutter, but I'm an either-or kind of guy when it comes to these kinds of lists. shrug. Fantailfan (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)