Talk:Automatic for the People

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Previous discussion[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removing reviews[edit]

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

Star Me Kitten[edit]

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)[reply]

The Cover[edit]

"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)[reply]

Please stop the revert wars![edit]

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)[reply]

Reversion of April 10, 2008[edit]

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)[reply]

Weeks on Chart[edit]

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) –<[reply]

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

Full list of Certifications vs. Highest only[edit]

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) -<[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Sales USA wrong[edit]

Its embarrassing to see everywhere false sales numbers, which were made by fans The album was certified 4xPLATINUM in the usa. Meaning it was shipped at least 4 million times. Now I see everywhere on rem articles false numbers. For example here 5,500 000 That's totally wrong. Because RIAA would have certified it 5xPLATINUM if it was sold so much

I know there were club sales in the usa but it never sold 1,500,000 times via those clubs Please change it because years ago I asked Billboard.com and they had perfect and accurate numbers. 4 Million copies were sold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.57.236 (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Automatic for the People/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
Start class:
  • Green tickY A reasonably complete infobox
  • Green tickY A lead section giving an overview of the album
  • Green tickY A track listing
  • Green tickY Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient)
  • Green tickY Categorisation at least by artist and year

C class:

  • Green tickY All the start class criteria
  • Green tickY A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art
  • Green tickY At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section)
  • Green tickY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
  • Green tickY A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians.

B class:

  • Green tickY All the C class criteria
  • Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
  • Green tickY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
  • Red XN No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources.
  • Green tickY No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS
Lacks citation in Details, Critical acclaim, Packaging and artwork. Otherwise a solid B. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 08:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Automatic for the People. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Automatic for the People. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Automatic_for_the_People&oldid=1208757979"