Talk:Rush (Rush album)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rush (Rush album) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Albums Start‑class

	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.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Canada: Music Start‑class Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Rush (Rush album) → Rush (album) — Renamed as a preemptive disambiguation. While there may be several albums named Rush, none are listed on Wikipedia, and those that exist may not merit a writeup under this title. Anyway, the debut album by the band Rush would likely be the most notable. edgarde 08:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support — as per nom. If it's the only album by that title in Wikipedia, it's certainly more notable than any other albums named "Rush" that might exist. Use of the word "Rush" twice in the title appears needlessly redundant. Robotman1974 22:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Robotman. --Serge 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - better title. -Part Deux 20:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no sense in having "Rush" twice in the title. PC78 10:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Some background on preemptive disambiguations, which are in most cases a mistake.

There are multiple precedents for undoing preemptive disambiguations — EP7, LP5, Manowar.
The Eric Clapton album of that title is a movie soundtrack called Rush_(soundtrack). As the Rush debut album will likely be the most notable article with the title Rush (album), any other instances should use either the {{otheruses4}} template (as is currently in use), or the {{otheruses}} template (which links to a DAB page).
There is a current arbitration in effect on the subject of editors who insist on preemptive disambiguation. They are going against both precedent and the majority of editors. If you want to advocate for preemptive DAB, you might want to comment in that arbitration. — edgarde 08:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

orphaned in-line references

Found these at the top of the article:

Neither seems worth including, but perhaps (for instance) an editor was going to seek a sub-page on Billboard or something, so I'm save both links here. — edgarde 09:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Cover?

Can anybody tell me the difference between the alternate cover and the main cover? On this article, they appear to be the same thing, only pictured twice... Any explanations? 64.254.191.151 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One is supposed to be the original pink-lettered cover, the other the corrected color. These will probably both be deleted from this article before too long. / edgarde 23:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will delete the alternate cover. I can't see any difference between the two. Sittingonfence 00:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenghts

There is said that these song lenghts refer to the remastered CD version, but are they really different on the vinyl version or the first CD-release? --212.149.208.22 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy Dancer/Garden Road

I've changed "what may be the unrecorded original song" to "the original songs", because Fancy Dancer and Garden Road have both been recorded, though they've never been officially released. I found recordings of them both on YouTube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.225.253 (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date error(s)

ANC 1-1001 is a CD and is listed as being a 1977 release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.197.241 (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

limited POV reception

Should "Reception" be included as an entire article section with only one review? That lends undue weight to the one review (which, in this case, is a bit narrow-minded and doesn't take the album for what it is but for what the reviewer wants it to be - but the point about imbalance (good or bad) would remain regardless). Maybe just delete the paraphrase section, retaining only the link box, until more reviews can be scrounged up? Either way, more reviews need to be scrounged up. If 2+ reviews say the same thing or if they provide alternate views, then great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.197.241 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Rock

Just as "Jack Sparrow" always says "There ought to be a 'Captain' somewhere in there," shouldn't the term "Progressive Rock" occur somewhere in this article? Rush is, after all, a Progressive Rock band. Perhaps more-so than "Heavy Metal."