Jump to content

Talk:A Weekend in the City/Archive 1

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

Is this a concept album?

Seems to meet the criteria of a consistent theme. That is: the songs are stories of different individuals in the city. --Andrewbootlegger (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Two Editions?

Does anyone know if there will be a version which contains a DVD or something like that? --Jimmyjrg 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is, I know because I have it. The album cover is red and the album came with A weekend In The City and a DVD disc containing "The making of a weekend in the city" and music videos for the prayer and I still remember. The normal album was for about £10 whilst the DVD edition was for £13. -Omaster

Reviews / Linkspam

The Tiny Mix Tapes review has been removed several times now, the last time with the edit summary "removed linkspam". Reading the wikipedia article on Tiny Mix Tapes, I cannot see why their review should not qualify for the respective section, even less how it could be regarded "linkspam". The latter is a term that might be applied to several other reviews that are mentioned in the infobox but do seem to stem from less professional review sites/sources (e.g. most of those that do not have their own article here). --a.bit 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

London?

Surely the city is Brighton, as he states in Waiting For The 7.18 - "Let's drive to Brighton on the weekend"? UncleMontezuma 08:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

i think that generally that bit is coincidental, since the band are from there. i think the area in question is London, but he again refers to the Weekend in an unrelated context - ie., driving from London to Brighton. --SteelersFan UK06 03:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
There are also references to London in that song, though: "The Northern Line is the loudest". And no one would call Brighton "the city." --Tothebarricades (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Chart

just wondering, the page says that the album outsold Fall Out Boy's Infinity On High to get #2, would more relevant information not be the album which outsold it to number 1? --SteelersFan UK06 03:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Refs

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fm20061027l1.html http://www.spin.com/articles/second-coming-bloc-party http://www.theaquarian.com/aq/2009/03/17/bloc-party-positive-tension/ http://pitchfork.com/features/articles/6538-bloc-party/

Neutrality

This article is very well written, however I have some qualms with its neutrality. e.g. You quote a lot from the Drowned In Sound review [1] - I don't think they are neutral. I mean they are supposed to be, but if you read the review and the comments below, there is considerable doubt if the review is neutral due to the site's historical links with the band. Furthermore, those comments are so scathing! Is there any way of highlighting the very deep divide that album had among BP fans - especially in terms of the lyrics? Prylon (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately your comment is not NPOV. Drowned in Sound are a wiki "reliable" source as their work is cited by respectable and notable third-party publications like Reuters [2] (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches). They have been the recipients of various awards at Record of the Day awards for journalism and PR [3]. Additionally, the article is totally neutral as exhibited by the Critical Reception section which contains one paragraph each for positive and negative reviews as per the Metacritic score. The GA reviewer above confirmed its neutrality. The debate about the lyrics was covered in the lead and the Lyrics and Composition section. Also, at the end of the day, the review did give it a 9/10 and this has to be reflected in the article regardless of the contents of the reviews. There were other reviews that were totally positive (see Intimacy as well) that only gave it 3/5. What's more, Bloc Party have never been on the Drowned in Sound record label and the comments at the bottom of the review are wholly independent of the editorial content of the website and since this is the 21st century everyone can express themselves. Here we could and should only proceed through Wikipedia guidelines and dispatches. Hope that clears things up. Rafablu88 (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, Fair enough. Yes, following WP guidelines is usually the best course of action and that's cool but from from my perspective, when I read this article drawing upon the DiS reivew, I just think "eh? that reviewer is basically a mate of the band, isn't he?" and it debases the article somewhat. Yes, DiS are generally reputable and should be a source but at the same time they aren't Robert Christgau or Allmusic. All I'm asking for is an informed perspective. Also, this article is getting massive. Is there a guide for how long an article such as this should be, or is the sky the limit? Prylon (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. The article however doesn't solely use DiS so I don't really see any bias coming up from that. As for the size, it's not too big actually. Usually we really start to think about the size when it is bloody hooge (think United Kingdom-size).  GARDEN  19:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I reiterate what Garden has said. If you can prove the DiS writer is friends with the band, then it has to be removed. Otherwise, I suggest taking a crash course in Wikipedia guidelines and reading the GA criteria (which it passed) before writing un-NPOV comments on talk pages. Rafablu88 19:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The one and only rule I've found that's useful (apart from style-guidelines) is to discuss what we think. I get perturbed when I look at who has written the article and it's just 1-2 users as it could be perceived as tacit ownership. Like a fine wine, I suggest you leave an article to breathe a little (a lot) before ploughing on and on just to get it on the front page. I'm not one of the "community" and it's right I don't know the rules (too many contradictions). I know you're dedicated but in the end this comes across as fanboy treatment to what is, essentially, a mediocre work. Just because there are thousands of sources are out there all giving their opinion, it doesn't mean you should include them. In my opinion, more brevity would improve the article. Prylon (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I can see the ownership thing being a worry, but I for one like to have several views on articles such as this and any accusation of bias is certainly to be taken seriously. For instance, reading this it does not - at least to me - look a biased article. Others may (and evidently do) disagree. Perhaps a workaround exists, and as such, discussion is vital. As for Rafa, you're coming across rather defensive which isn't really helping - I understand a lot of work has been done by yourself here but fighting off discussion of POV with the NPOV stick is quite rude and not exactly productive.  GARDEN  15:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm done talking about it. The article is totally neutral and using all available sources ensures we cover "comprehensiveness" not only for GA but also for a future FAC nomination, which is likely. Go and ask the alternative music head WesleyDodds about sources and comprehensiveness and also have a look at all the other commercial, worldwide band FA album articles. This is minute compared to some. I'm only going on what I read about it and I've followed that for all my album pages: Fantasy Black Channel, Silent Alarm, Intimacy, and Saint Dymphna (which is a work in progress). Size is dictated by coverage and there is no POV. ALL sentences are rigorously cited to notable, reliable publications and I don't expect anything less from myself. If you don't personally like A Weekend in the City then jog on (and just so you know I don't personally like it either but here I'm an encyclopaedic writer who has to write the way it's warranted). I've slaved at reading all the available sources and writing fairly and concisely, and I don't need this unwarranted aggravation. Go and try and get it delisted from GA if you think it's non-neutral and "too big". I won't respond here anymore. Rafablu88 17:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Another Weekend In the City?

Typing this separate album redirects here. Shouldn't there at least be a section concerning it and its track listings? TaBrooks (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Claims in the introduction - don't seem to be backed up in the main text

So, I don't know what the 'convention' on Wikipedia is as far as making claims in the introduction to an article that don't seem to be backed up in the main text --- e.g. "Bloc Party's goal was to craft an album that distanced them from the conventional guitar band set-up ..."; "The album's three original singles ... exemplify these themes respectively"; "Bloc Party's new musical directions and more forthright lyrics either impressed or alienated critics" --- but I can't really see why this introductory paragraph should be subject to lesser/weaker conditions of encyclopaedic rigour than the remainder of the article, nor why it would be a convention to *not* refer people to a source, in this introduction!

130.88.123.167 (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The guide for "Lead sections" is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, with the particular stuff about citations at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations --- says that claims in a lead section are subject to the same conditions, and must be cited either in the body of the page, or if there is no such citation, then directly when the statement is made 130.88.123.167 (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
"Bloc Party's goal was to craft an album that distanced them from the conventional guitar band set-up by incorporating more electronically processed beats and additional instrumentation." is mentioned in Recording: "The band members initially worked by experimenting with their respective instruments and sound check arrangements. Moakes additionally focused on using different types of synthesiser." The article was approved for being a Featured Article in 2009. The article may not have the quality from those days, and obviously has been edited by new editors who included more information. The line above was in 2009, so it is sourced in the article. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The fact that the article - or "the line" - was approved doesn't give it an exception from needing to be sourced! Point me at a source that talks about "Bloc Party's goal ..." or something similar and I'll be very happy.130.88.123.167 (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
No single article is approved without a thorough revision. Perhaps the author worded the whole lead as they found more convenient, but the sources are there "Moakes says some of the cuts the group have come up with sound not far from the edgy, dream-rock of New York outfit TV on the Radio, while others employ electronic, "processed beats." This is not a problem with citations, but with an extreme paraphrasis from the main author(s). © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Another line you tagged was "The album's three original singles, "The Prayer", "I Still Remember", and "Hunting for Witches", exemplify these themes [drawing ideas from issues such as drug abuse, sexuality, and terrorism] respectively", which is in the article in Lyrics: ""The Prayer" is based on drug use during nights out in clubs"; "Two songs, "Kreuzberg" and "I Still Remember", explore sexuality and homosexuality; the former is an account of promiscuity in the Berlin area of the same name, while the latter details an unrequited crush of a boy for his schoolmate"; "Okereke has stated, "I guess the point about the song ["Hunting for Witches"] for me is post-September 11th, the media has really traded on fear and the use of fear in controlling people." I think you should read the article, and the sources, and later come back to arise the doubts you may have. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we're coming at this from opposite ends. I'm reading creative, interpretive, critical statements that, sure, are backed up by what's in the sources --- but I'm not reading **those interpretations themselves** in the sources. There's an interpretive leap between what's in the sources and what's in the article that I just don't think is at all justified.130.88.123.167 (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Did any editor check the references before this article appeared on the main page. Some of them lead to dead links and access dates are from years ago. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Barbara, I'll check into this. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The original nominator of this Featured Article is long gone. I don't see a recent effort in the history to vet the sources. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed this problem too. Given these problems, this article probably shouldn't be classified as an FA anymore. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The first step in removing the Featured Article star is to create a new section on this talk page, outlining the problems with the article. If there's no response for a while, it can be listed at WP:FAR. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully won't be necessary. I helped Rafa take this to FA back in 2009. Will go through a reference vetting soon. — foxj 01:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Barbara (WVS) - I have now gone through the references for deadlinks and to check that the WayBack machine still has the references in its database. I've had to replace a couple of them but for the most part the article's citations should now stand up. — foxj 09:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for checking into this. I thought I was a little bit 'crazy' for even suggesting that this article does not meet FA status. I meant no harm, really. I am totally neutral on the topic. But as for implying that this is one of the best articles in Wikipedia is embarrassing to me as an editor. Is it also true that this article was promoted to FA in 2009? Seven years ago? And out of the however many editors there are on WP, there are only four of discussing this? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
One thing that can't be denied is the 'stability' of the article, which in some of the past seven years were relatively few and there is no indication of edit wars! Where is the actual record of its FA review? I can't seem to find it.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how to respond to that really. The FAC is here. Also, I've undone your edit to the lede - this is indeed the band's second studio album, not the fourth. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. — foxj 15:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Weekend in the City. 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) 13:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Weekend in the City. 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) 06:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Weekend_in_the_City/Archive_1&oldid=1159139518"