Talk:New Adventures in Hi-Fi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New Adventures in Hi-Fi 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents 1 Removing reviews 2 Song-by-song credits 3 Why I removed Metromusic reviews 4 Please stop the revert wars! 5 Revolution claim 6 'X' Side and 'Y' Side

[edit] Removing reviews

Please do not remove professional reviews that are deemed acceptable by WikiProject Album standards. --Fantailfan 22:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Song-by-song credits

I don't like this. Not at all. I'm trying to find out why this would be more useful than a straight track listing. I would like to revert it but am kind of tired of doing snap reverts without a reason. Unfortunately, I cannot contact the user who made the changes, because its an IP address. I'll give it a few days. --Fantailfan 17:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted song-by-song credits but used info to indicate bandmembers' instrumental contributions when not general. --Fantailfan 22:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I removed Metromusic reviews

(1) It's not on the list of WikiAlbum Project professional review links (2) It refers to a San Jose newspaper review (3) The redlink.

If you're interested, here it is. Metromusic (positive) link

[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) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revolution claim

Really? I have both the Batman and Robin soundtrack and Out of Time, and I don't recall any differences between the two. If no one provides a source for this, I'm deleting it. And besides, this was recorded for Monster as memory serves. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'X' Side and 'Y' Side

I believe.... that we should not include R.E.M.'s charming elpee side designations, except as a note below the track listing. --Fantailfan (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What about in the track listings of those albums initially released on vinyl only, and as notes below in albums thereafter? - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed you (had) said as much on the talk page of the Reckoning article... - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To add to that... which I was trying to save when you posted...!

Upon reflection, what you say makes sense to me. Keep in mind that in the long run, idiosyncrasies of vinyl side nomenclature are ultimately insignificant. The larger issue is that separating track listing by side is important only so far as track sequencing goes, and only to the extent that conscious artistic effort was made to make each side more than a mere collection of songs.

(If you look at cassette track sequencing you will frequently find it is different than the vinyl sequencing. It is probably not worth noting because it is most likely a marketing decision rather than an artistic one.)

In the case of R.E.M., whose releases through 1996 covered the transition from vinyl to CD (for the vast majority of music listeners) determining whether vinyl-side sequencing is important should be possible. I think that category applies only to Chronic Town, Murmur, Reckoning and Fables of the Reconstruction. Every other album (I believe) was subsequently released on vinyl, CD and cassette simultaneously and we should relegate the 'charming side designations' to notes below.

-- Fantailfan (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I don't see the big deal, honestly: it provides a little bit of information and it doesn't really harm the credibility of the article, so I don't see the argument for deleting it. The name of the album itself is just as fanciful and arbitrary, it's simply a necessity to discuss it. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a big deal, but article-to-article consistency is among WikiProject Albums biggest problems. Well, to me it is. No, I'm not compulsive.Fantailfan (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Consistency I'm all for consistency myself, so I would be in favor of consistently naming albums that have this feature. And it's definitely the case that the album articles on Wikipedia vary widely in quality and content. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's completely unnecessary. Just give a straight tracklisting. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

...in your opinion. It seems the consensus is to include them. - Dudesleeper / Talk 03:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the WP:ALBUM guidelines [1], listing separate sides for primarily-vinyl releases is fine, but the sides should be listed as "Side one", "Side two", etc. No need for the cute side names. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

From March 30. - Dudesleeper / Talk 04:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I still stand by that comment. I don't see how not listing "Side 1" or "Side 2" if we're going to list vinyl/cassette sides is helpful, though. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Idiosyncratic side naming is a notable (if only marginally for WP purposes) part of the presentation of R.E.M. information. However, I argue separately that discrete vinyl-side listing is completely unnecessary ONLY for CD-age releases but (probably) necessary for releases that came out when vinyl was the chief release medium. (I am deliberately ignoring the brief period when cassettes were the best-selling medium.) It is a question of at-the-time consistency rather than Wikipedia article presentation consistency. I'm sure that this argument has been made many times before. Besides, I don't like peremptory page reversion without discussion. --Fantailfan (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)