Jump to content

Talk:In Rainbows/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Personnel

Somebody just added a few instruments at the "personnel" section. While I know that at least one of those additions is correct (that Ed played autoharp is mentioned in here: [1]. But I cannot find any citations for the others. Credits for most Radiohead records are tricky because they are not specified in the credits of the records themselves and different members do not always stick to their role as drummer/bassist/guitarist for every song during recording. --Merijn2 (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and removed the instrumental things. If someone can find citations for them then go ahead and re-add them. Popcornduff (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Here are the instumental credits that Popcornduff deleted, in case somebody wants to look for sources to credit them and then reinstall them:
Colin Greenwood – bass guitar, sequencer, keyboards, double bass, percussion
Jonny Greenwood – guitar, Ondes Martenot, keyboards, programming, modular synthesizer, sequencer, celesta, viola, string arrangements
Ed O'Brien – guitar, backing vocals, effects, sampler, autoharp,percussion
Phil Selway – drums, programming
Thom Yorke – vocals, guitar, piano, keyboards, various electronics, drums--Merijn2 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would anyone delete them? All other Radiohead articles state what instruments each member plays on the album. If their unsourced I guess find a source then re-add them. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"All other Radiohead articles state what instruments each member plays on the album." This is not the case. Currently, for example, the King of Limbs, Kid A and Amnesiac articles do not credit members with specific roles. This is because in the case of those albums (unlike say HTTT), the album's liner notes don't specify any roles. Considering how freely RH members switch instruments when recording (and performing), we can't make any assumptions - for example, on some recordings, Phil sings and Thom drums - and so we shouldn't speculate. 00:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Personally I don't think including a personnel section should be necessary. I like to use the example set forth by WikiProject Films, which discourages the listing of credits. And that's what they are: credits, often sourced directly from the CD liner notes. Every important contribution is listed in the prose, anyway. If something is unclear and can't be figured out, just leave it out. Hence why Loveless (album) doesn't have a personnel section (there are conflicting accounts as to who actually did what on the album, from engineers to members of the band itself). WesleyDodds (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Genre

For quite some time the genre tag of this article was Alternative Rock. Recently people have been adding experimental Rock, with which I can live, and New Prog, which this definitely is not, and I don't think you will find a whole lot of sources claiming IR is New Prog, so I removed it. But I think it is time to tr to reach a consensus on what the genre is. I think that Alternative Rock is appropriate because Radiohead started out as an Alternative Rock band and this record comes out of the tradition of Alternative Rock, and I can see where Experimental Rock comes from because it is definitely more experimental than traditional alternative rock, although I am not sure if it is experimental enough. Both genre descriptions (especially Experimental Rock) are quite vague, and there are perhaps other genres that could be added or replace the current tags, but it would be nice if we could reach some sort of consensus.--Merijn2 (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

ok computer thingy....

Hello

I've read online in various places that In Rainbows is supposed to be played track by track alongside OK Computer and Thom Yorke was a bit peeved that it took Radiohead fans so long to work this out. Are there any reliable sources mentioning this anywhere? Or am I just taking the NME a bit too seriously :) If it is true and a RS can be found then surely it warrants a mention? Coolug (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I only have this source: http://puddlegum.net/radiohead-01-and-10/. The Wikipedia article is kind of weak without mentioning the link between the two albums. SirAcidCasualty (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a total conspiracy theory. There is no deliberate link between the albums. The URL given above cites only an anonymous source for the Thom Yorke "peeved" thing - it is therefore not a reliable Wikipedia source. In my opinion, it's almost certainly completely fabricated. I recall seeing one interview where Ed O'Brien (and perhaps Yorke too) were asked about this and they said something to the effect of "oh, that's a cool idea", but nothing to the effect of "so you finally figured it out, huh".
If it gets added to the article without a mountain of indisputable citations I'll delete it with extreme prejudice! Popcornduff (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Pleonasms

Removal of pleonasms from this article are being reverted by Nalailama despite the need for their removal. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and should be accurate and concise; tautologies and pleonasms weaken this goal and should be avoided unless it is unnatural or inappropriate to do so.

I would revert back to my edit but an edit war on today's feature article is unprofessional; I am looking for some feedback on the matter. Thanks.


PinothyJ (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)…

Orphaned references in In Rainbows

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of In Rainbows's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "p4k":

  • From List of albums awarded Pitchfork Best New Album: Pitchfork Media list of best albums Retrieved 22 July 2013.
  • From Lotus Flower (song): Mark Pytlik (24 February 2012). "Radiohead: The King of Limbs". Pitchfork Media. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
  • From True Love Waits (song): Matt LeMay (17 December 2001). "Radiohead: I Might Be Wrong: Live Recordings". Pitchfork Media. Retrieved 19 March 2012.
  • From Hail to the Thief: Christ Ott (9 June 2003). "Radiohead: Hail to the Thief". Pitchfork Media. Retrieved 17 February 2012.

Reference named "spin":

Reference named "mc":

Reference named "nme":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviews Box

This article really should have a box summarizing the professional reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.87.199 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on In Rainbows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

OK Rainbows/0110 theory

Shouldn't we mention in the In Rainbows and OK Computer articles about their 0110 theories? You know, that fan theory that suggests OK Computer and In Rainbows were meant to be played alternating track-by-track? Here's some links to get you up to speed:

Tjdrum2000 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an idiotic fan theory based on fuck-all. Popcornduff (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on In Rainbows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on In Rainbows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on In Rainbows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on In Rainbows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Radiohead scotch mist listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Radiohead scotch mist. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Capitalisation of Internet

Hello User:Popcornfud,

Please can you explain why you consider the the capitalisation of "I" in "Internet" as "archaic"? While it is often the case nowadays that people don't capitalise the word properly, this doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should follow the trend and get it wrong too. "Internet", when it refers to the Internet (the global interconnected network that we're using right now), is a proper noun (and should therefore be capitalised). When uncapitalised, it is a common noun, referring to any interconnected network. It's important that we get it right, even when most people don't. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

See the consensus across major style guides and publications, eg this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this. Popcornfud (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
These are all external to Wikipedia, though – and they aren't encylopedias, either. An encylopedia is supposed to be accurate, and proper nouns should be capitalised. Therefore, I feel that the correct course of action is to capitalise Internet when it refers to the Internet, even if nowadays most people don't. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed that I practically said the same thing at the end of both messages. Repetition makes for light hands... wait... that's not right. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, you asked why I feel treating internet as a proper noun is archaic. Those links explain all the arguments in detail. You're right in that they are not Wikipedia style guides, but that's not the question you asked me.
When you say things like "proper nouns should be capitalised", you are begging the question. The entire point is that there's no longer a sensible reason to consider the word a proper noun, a position shared by many or perhaps most modern style guides and publications. Popcornfud (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you mean. "The Internet" is a proper noun because it refers to the singular global interconnected network that is most commonly used today; by contrast, "an internet" refers to any interconnected network (and while the grammar is different, i.e. "the" as opposed to "an", it doesn't change the fact that it should be capitalised). For example, while "the Beatles" is called "the Beatles", thereby suggesting it is a proper noun, that doesn't then mean we can say "the beatles", because that is grammatically incorrect. Likewise, even though many nowadays may suggest, recommend or even insist on a lowercase "I" in "Internet", that doesn't make it correct, nor does it mean that we should follow their lead. I hope I'm wording my position correctly here. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
DesertPipeline, I understand all these points completely.
The disagreement is that, unlike the Beatles, the word internet does not need to be treated as a proper noun. The technical distinction between the global internet and the generic internet is, at this point, totally meaningless in common use.
As I said, many of the links above spell out the arguments against capitalising. Try this one if you only want to read one. Popcornfud (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to make a short summary of our positions here: I believe we should capitalise Internet because it is a proper noun; you believe we shouldn't capitalise Internet because most don't consider it as a proper noun now. Is that a fair assessment? Because if so, I believe we're not going to get much further with a one-to-one discussion here. I'd like to get wider Wikipedia community opinion on this; how can that be done? DesertPipeline (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe we should capitalise Internet because it is a proper noun; you believe we shouldn't capitalise Internet because most don't consider it as a proper noun now
Almost. I believe we shouldn't capitalise internet because there is no reason to consider it a proper noun, a position that is backed up by the majority of major publications and style guides.
I'd like to get wider Wikipedia community opinion on this; how can that be done?
Last I checked, whenever this issue gets drummed up among computer-minded editors, the debate ends in no consensus and therefore no change from the status quo. Which is to say, internet is still capitalised in articles where people really care about it, such as computing articles. In any case, no matter the outcome, I will bow to consensus. Popcornfud (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
How is the process of getting wider community input actually started, though? I'm not familiar with such things. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
One addendum, though: I'm confused by your statement "there is no reason to consider it a proper noun". Whether or not something is a proper noun cannot be conferred by public opinion; this would be like saying "there is no reason to consider that 1 + 1 = 2" because public opinion is that 1 + 1 = 3 (I'm reminded of 1984 – "And if the Party says that it is not four but five – then how many?") . As long as it meets the definition of a proper noun (which it does – it refers to a singular, unique entity) then that must surely mean it is a proper noun, regardless of how people feel about it. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I think you're wrong on both counts there.
Whether or not something is a proper noun cannot be conferred by public opinion
No, language is governed by use. If everyone stopped using proper nouns tomorrow, they would no longer exist. Many languages, such as Japanese, don't have them at all.
Words for new technologies are often capitalised at first. You probably don't have cause to write "phonograph" very often, but if you did, you probably wouldn't capitalise it. Why not? Because no one else does. It underwent a shift in common use, to the point where it's now regarded as a common noun without exception. (Internet is going the same way: within a few decades, no one will be capitalising it, so you might as well get with the times.)
As long as it meets the definition of a proper noun (which it does – it refers to a singular, unique entity) then that must surely mean it is a proper noun
That isn't actually what defines a proper noun. We don't write the Universe, the Sky, the Ocean, etc. Also, I am just guessing here, but as a thought experiment, imagine there were two, unconnected internets for the world, split down the middle, each used by billions of people. Would this situation persuade you to lowercase "internet", as there are now two of them? I don't seriously think that's your main criteria here.
Unlike mathematical equations, there is no cut-and-dry formula you can apply to all nouns to determine if they qualify as proper. Many sit in grey areas, as we are finding here. Popcornfud (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding where to ask, you could create a new discussion at the Manual of Style talk page. Popcornfud (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your examples: Universe (to refer to ours) being capitalised would probably make sense, if there were multiple. "The Sky" could remove ambiguity between Earth's sky and another world's sky. I've heard that there are multiple oceans – but I don't know if that's true. If there were two "main" internets, rather than one single "main" Internet, perhaps it would be the case that one would be called "Internet North" and the other "Internet South" – I choose an equatorial split here merely for convenience. DesertPipeline (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_Rainbows/Archive_4&oldid=1124280432"