Talk:Accelerate (R.E.M. album)/Archive 1

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

Songlist or No Songlist

I don't really care if there's no songlist here, but can I have a reason for it's absence? I haven't reinstated the songlist in awhile, but someone else did and it immediately disappeared. I think we should put it up for a poll and see who wants it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Album Background

Hey the album background is in terrible terrible condition, and really needs massive overhaul and or deletion. I don't think the person that first wrote it speaks English very well. Actually the whole page needs a massive overhaul into proper English, please. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrusianscholar (talk • contribs)

no way, it's the most precious source of information of the whole article. about my english, I do speak it greatly, sorry to let you down buddy. (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Agreed, the whole article is pretty awful currently. Most of the background section is irrelevant/probably inaccurate, and can be removed. I've tagged the article as such, and will try and tidy it up in a few days if nobody else gets there first. Thegreatcurve (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Background section and potential songlist

I'm not sure all the information in the background section is strictly accurate. It claims that R.E.M. wanted to "tour again behind a proper rock record" ever since Bill Berry's departure and that his decision to leave the band precipitated a change of direction. Various R.E.M. documentaries have seen the other band members claiming they intended to follow a more experimental approach for their 11th album even before Berry left. If the band has gone on record to say they wanted to produce a "proper rock record", I feel it must be much more recently - if it's true, perhaps a citation can be found.

Additionally - and I might be wrong about this - but I don't think Bill Berry refused to tour to promote New Adventures In Hi-Fi. Most of New Adventures In Hi-Fi was recorded on the preceding Monster tour and the album was released shortly thereafter. To the best of my knowledge, R.E.M. had no plans to tour again until after the release of the album which was finally released as Up. The confusion may lie in the fact that when they met to discuss recording Up (the point at which Berry announced to the band he was leaving) they were already in the early stages of booking tour dates to promote that album (these things being planned well in advance).

Finally, it would be useful to know the source of potential song titles other than those that were played during the 'live rehearsals' in Dublin. The fact that some songs from the Dublin rehearsals are missing, suggest the whole list comes from an alternative source. Ratkins45 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To Ratkings: It has been confirmed several times by bands' members, in particular Peter Buck, on many sources like for exhample the great source of information for R.E.M. that is "R.E.M. Fiction" by David Browne, that they were indeed intending to tour on that summer, but Berry opposed this. It was particularly notable because R.E.M. always followed an extremely, extremely strict policy of democracy within the band, and almost never a single member could stop a thing the other three had decided. In this case, Berry opposed so strongly citing health issues (he had emergency brain-surgery in Switzerland while on tour the year before for two aneurysms) and lack of enthusiasm for a tour that the remaning three members at that time just HAD to accept it, but they were disappointed.
About a more experimental album, Michael Stipe has notoriously being quoted as saying "we had to reorganize all work from the start, a three-legged dog is still a dog, but has to re-learn how to walk from the start", and the dramatic departure of Berry indeed put the seeds to a change in direction, burying (up until now) the explicit will of the band to record a rock album.
There is no confusion as the band had decided to do a relatively-short European summer stint just to facilitate Bill Berry not having to embark on a too long-scale tour, but a european summer tour was confirmed in the aforementioned book, as of today the most important and endorsed R.E.M. biography edited.
Finally, the songtitles list come mainly from Q magazine which confirmed them as such as well as confirming the record's title ahead of the band's official website itself.
Hope this clears all things up, and thank you and everyone for what's coming up as a great Wiki for a music album.

Eyesbomb (talk) 1:59, 5 January 2008 (CET)

Apparent clean-up

As the anonymous editor stated in their edit summary, the article is worse than ever now. How are Berry's retirement, Joey Waronker, or Reveal connected to Accelerate? I realise Eyesbomb is a new editor, but he/she would be better served waiting a while before trying to rewrite an article. I feel we should revert back to the least bad version. Roll on the album release... - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page:
Accelerate: DISCUSSION
man, the wikipedia policy is to DISCUSS in the appropriate discussion paghe before removing large or dramatically large portions of an article, you better do so next time, alright? no bitterness, just the way to go. Eyesbomb —Preceding comment was added at 17:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
ah-ah, you gotta be kiddin' me, I am a dramatically older and more experienced editor than you are, being here since 2004 compared to your 2006. You have to hurry learning that you can't remove more then 2 thirds of an article before discussing it, I am reverting it again now. and again, if necessary. if you keep on mutilating it, you will be reported and temporarly kept from being able to edit any article. You have been warned. Eyesbomb 19:36, 6 January 2008 (CET)
You do realise that in your mass reversions you're reverting minor corrections that should be left in, right? And, experienced editor that you are, do you notice anything wrong with the Origins section yet? - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, while indeed being more experienced than you are - time talks, it's factual - I do not have all the time you seem to have on my hands in order to properly fight back your dedicated attempts to vandalize the article avoiding any discussion about it before proceeding to mutilate dramatic portions of it, so I'm doing the best I can. What I suggest you, right after respecting more experienced and older editors than you (perhaps alongside as apologizing with them for having assumed they are newer than you around here, being wrong), is to be more careful and avoid being reported by discussing about the voice organization, which I am trying to lead towards a possible front-page appearance following the release of the album. Now, before any decision has been democratically made regarding the article, we could just join forces and tweak the article for what it is now, what do you think? Eyesbomb 19:54, 6 January 2008 (CET)
Just how big is this tweak you speak of exactly? - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
And the Welcome to Wikipedia message on your talk page is dated September 2006. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahahahahh, please man, take a closer look before making yourself so ridiculous publicly: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Eyesbomb
I am twice as experienced as you on here, face it.

Eyesbomb 20:23, 6 January 2008 (CET)

Yes, your first contribution is indeed infinitely more accessible than your welcome note... - Dudesleeper Talk 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I will not answer any further, I proved you wrong full scale. It was embarassing for you, but I did not seek it, instead you did, claiming to have more experience of someone having more or less double as much as you do. This is final. If you want to improve the article, I welcome you and please let's do so together; if you attempt to personal-attack me without consistence any longer, you will be reported; if you attempt to vandalize it any further, you will be blocked. Last warning. Eyesbomb 21:12, 6 January 2008 (CET)
You're good comedy value. Glad you're around. This must be the longest it's taken in a thread for someone to bring out the personal attack and vandal lines on me. I commend you for that. - Dudesleeper Talk 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dudesleeper. There is too much unnecessary background listed. A lot of it should be removed. Right now it looks like a total mess. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


I've cleaned up the background section somewhat, removing the unnecessary section on Up, Reveal and their best-of album. I think we're (nearly) all agreed that that sort of thing has no purpose in this article, which is, by definition, to discuss Accelerate, not to provide an overview of R.E.M. since Bill Berry's departure.

The Origins section, which I've left in for now, seems a bit dubious. If the band have been wanting to do a 'rock' album/tour since New Adventures, then what the hell were they doing with Up, Reveal, and Around the Sun? Thegreatcurve (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody please upload a high quality image of the album cover. The current image is a low-res version, which was pieced together from a "jigsaw puzzle" on the band's website. Thus, if you look at the image closely, you can tell where the pieces of the puzzle didn't quite come together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.182 (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for the Web Promotion section

About the NinetyNights website, I've noticed that someone inserted the Day 3 entry as notable, I would like to ask if anyone disagrees with organizing a little mini-section within the article reporting the most significant video entries at that website, which is the dedicated promotional website of Accelerate.

If you disagree (or agree) write here, and let's discuss it!

I will try to do the add by tomorrow, if no opposition comes to it, but I'll first leave this day at least to discuss it. Eyesbomb 19:12, 7 January 2008 (CET)

Looking forwards to seeing a further demise of the article. Woo! - Dudesleeper Talk 18:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
For christ's sake, what's wrong with you man ? Can't you just play fair, and DISCUSS about things? Can you learn that it's the way to go, around this place? Please, I won't fire back at you now, too easy, but tell me tell me: how would you agree/disagree with this proposal!?? PLEASE Eyesbomb 19:41, 7 January 2008 (CET)
The please-discuss-things-with-me-but-I'll-still-do-it-my-way Wikipedia line got old a long time ago. I don't care either way; I'm just waiting for the damn album to be released. - Dudesleeper Talk 18:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
And how about setting about finding sources for the claims you put in the article first? - Dudesleeper Talk 18:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You got it definitely wrong, if a democratic majority of people disagrees with this proposal, I'll bury it man. Face it: I am TRULY democratic, for how weird it could be to ya. Eyesbomb 19:49, 7 January 2008 (CET)
Time will tell, I suppose. Just waiting to see what you disagree with regarding my edit to the article a few minutes ago. - Dudesleeper Talk 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, glad to surprise you there but I don't disagree with your last edits much or at all, they are pretty damn well done! If you are DYING for some criticism I am generally speaking against an abuse (or bulimic overuse) of demand for references, but apart from that, I fucking like it! Why would you think I shouldn't admit this? Eyesbomb 20:10, 7 January 2008 (CET)
Other than it's the second or third time I've tried the same thing only to see it reverted, no reason. References are especially necessary for anything in quotation marks. - 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
As a huge R.E.M. fan, I'm going to ask the two of you to stop bickering. Cut out the personal attacks. I have to agree with Dudesleeper on the quality of the article. Eyesbomb, you do not own this article. This is really annoying, and we really need to sort this out well before the release of the album. Yanksox (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I never said that, I am basing everything on Wikipedia's democracy. Try again. And improve the article, instead of bitching. Eyesbomb 2:31, 8 January 2008 (CET)
Seriously, I mean this in the nicest way, just chill out and quit bitching about democracy. Seriously, get fucking real, this is Wikipedia, so being so goddamn uptight. 24.218.22.12 (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I added the mini-section, I find it to be very informative, any constructive inputs on this? Thanks everybody. Eyesbomb 19:02, 8 January 2008 (CET)

Broken links

Cna someone take care of the broken (red) links creating the missing pages for those, like the one on the Olympia Theatre in Dublin and the one on the Inside Out documentary? Eyesbomb 19:02, 8 January 2008 (CET)

Timeline

It goes without saying that the prose of the article should convey a sequence of events, thus making an additional timeline pointless. A random selection of Featured album articles shows no use of anything similar (examples: Reign in Blood, Doolittle, Blood Sugar Sex Magik). It's badly written and badly structured, and consensus seems to be that it needs to go. We shouldn't even need to be discussing this. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

how about adding a chronology instead? Even if other articles don't present such a thing, it doesn't mean it can't be an improvement to a status quo in fact! A Chronology to the events which lead to the album creation and further would be a nice add, no? Discuss! Eyesbomb 17:54, 9 January 2008 (CET)
You mean a "Background" section like at Blood Sugar Sex Magik? Unlike this article, the background there doesn't go back ten years. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I meant what I said: a timetable. Some sort of agenda, should I draw you a picture? Eyesbomb 10:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Such a thing is unnecessary since the prose should detail the sequence of events. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Unnecessary perhaps, but still a nice add-on. It could well be so. There are many -kinds- of timelines that really add to articles, can't argue with that, like this one for example: The_Mars_Volta#Timeline. What do you think. I will be thinking on how to rielaborate this. Anyone else? Eyesbomb 17:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There shouldn't be a "but" after "unnecessary"... - Dudesleeper Talk 16:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Dude, really, get a life Eyesbomb 18:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)
If it's unnecessary it doesn't belong. Simple as that. That's a band member timeline, by the way. Those are generally acceptable. A "Chronology" for the album would just be redundant. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I was finally forced to eventually report Dudesleeper and obtain protection for this article, because despite of him giving up to the discussion's results and stop editing those 'background' parts he recently (today) sneaked back in from nowhere and humliated the discussion plus vandalized the article again, avoiding to deliver any kind of explanation.

Now he can't do it anymore, he has been stopped, but should he ever again retry to do anything like this, I will obtain to make him ban permanently from Wiki.

Eyesbomb 16 january 2008 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I will have to go slit my wrists now. I'll tidy the currently-horrible article again when the protection expires tomorrow. I refer editors/admins to the "Apparent clean-up" and "Web promotion" sections above for the reasons behind my "vandalisation", and for the consensus that the article isn't up to scratch. - Dudesleeper Talk 20:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Protection does NOT endorse any version of this article. There is an edit war that needs to stop, and it takes two to tango. I encourage all parties involved to seek dispute resolution through alternate means, as described in WP:DR. May I suggest WP:RFC or WP:3O? Further edits by either side in this dispute BEFORE a consensus is reached could be construed as disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As cute as the tango phrase is, and I know you like to use it, there has been more input into the matter than from only Eyesbomb and myself. - Dudesleeper Talk 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Eyesbomb, how about you explain your filling of the article with irrelevant crap about Joey Waronker and In Time (in your very questionable English, no less). If you think that material deserves to be included in the article, you need to justify it, as it's certainly not only Dudesleeper who thought that content wasn't worthy of inclusion.
Could someone more Wikipedia-savvy than I please explain what happens now? The article's still a mess - how long before the protection is removed? Thegreatcurve (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
what happens now is that once this is re-editable, if Dudesleeper dares to attempt to vandalize it any further by removing that backgroung part which was previously DISCUSSED and agreed about here, before he cowardly went back to silently remove this afternoon, he gets banned from Wikipedia. Smooth. That part will stay. I am also taking to you, great curve. Eyesbomb 23:06, 16 january 2008 (CET)
Protection will expire 19:56, January 17, 2008 (UTC). I have left some links above for places to seek outside, uninvolved editors who are willing to help solve disputes such as these. Please seek such advice before editing this article further... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
And Eysbomb, don't make statements about who else will get banned. That is not a decision for you to make. Such statements are surely not civil. Please adopt a more collaborative approach towards improving this article... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried Jayron, but this has been going on for too long now, he either stops doing this or I will do any effort to get him banned, and while you are right it is not up to me to actually -ban-, I will make sure to do all possible efforts to have him banned right aherad, for the sake of the article. You are being very fair actually, and I appreciate it, but this guy is being the exact opposite. We DISCUSSED this before all together and by general consensus that section staayed, he silently agreed, now he silently comes back and fucks it back again, without explanation, from nowhere, avoiding to answer questions regarding it. To me, this gets a ban. I will do all possible should he try again, and I am pretty confident I'll make it, and he'll be gone. This said, thanks once again for temporarly blocking the voice (from his vandalic edits). Eyesbomb 0:04, 17 january 2008 (CET)
I must stop silently agreeing to things - it's one of my downfalls. - Dudesleeper Talk 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

POST-Protection Content Discussion(s)

I am starting this section so that all editors involved with this article can make a clean start on content discussion. One of the pillars that Wikipedia stands upon is consensus, and that's what really needs to happen here.

Dudesleeper, before taking unilateral action on the article again, let's do this; make your proposal on what content you'd like to see re-worded, re-tooled or deleted here in talk, let's discuss, and if consensus is with you, cool beans. If consensus is against removal, then let it lie, or try looking at it from a different angle, instead of deletion, try re-tooling / restructuring. At any rate, work within the group.

Eyesbomb, Come back to the table one last time, and let's try again to get this all hashed out in a civil consensus discussion. Also, I'd like to see the content that you have in regards to Joey Waronker and In Time. If any piece of it is relevant to the topic of this article, then it deserves a look-see on how it might fit into the current text. Now, the caveat, and this is for everyone. If upon drop of the protection, this becomes a "free-for-all" instead of a productive, consensus-building discussion, I will personally recommend a reinstatement of the protections, along with any blocks that might be warranted by editors' actions here. However, I know we're all above that, and that all the parties can work together on this. Give it a go, let's all concentrate on improving the encyclopedia. Edit Centric (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's not just Dudesleeper vs. Eyesbomb. Sheesh. I'd love to utilise the talk page, especially since it seems to be very well read by mediators. - Dudesleeper Talk 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, and I get your angst on the whole issue, but we need to be a bit more constructive than that. How about the content that you have issues with, let's start with that. Again, try to be as civil and constructive as possible here, let's see if we can come to a "happy medium". Edit Centric (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted Eyesbomb's edits because he clearly isn't reading the article (a repetition of Stipe's quote about the album being recorded in nine weeks, for example). Also, he hasn't put forth any proposed changes below, even though he's the one who requested third-party input. - Dudesleeper Talk 20:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed measures for success

Before going forward, I think it's prudent at this time to come to an agreement on certain things, so that there's absolutely no misconceptions, misunderstandings or misgivings about the process. Can we all agree on the following;

  • No edit or revert warring over content.
  • Remain civil at all times.
  • No "finger-wagging" or "finger-pointing". The past is just that, the past.
  • Work together for the sake of the article, and Wiki as a whole.

The sooner that everyone concerned can embrace these, progress can begin. Edit Centric (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dudesleeper's proposed changes

I'd like to:
  • have the word a placed between in and mere;
(Done, having been agreed upon. Edit Centric (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC) )
  • say goodbye to the Origins section (it's been eleven years since Berry retired, so I don't see the connection, plus it's an unsourced claim);
  • say goodbye to the "Rethinking things, new drums" section (awful title, and Rieflin came on board four years ago, so it's not exactly new);
  • have the section "Following up Around the Sun" renamed to "Background" or something more fitting

That's all for now. Work awaits. - Dudesleeper Talk 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

These all seem reasonable to me, but awaiting comment from other editors on these. Edit Centric (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- the 'a' is ok
- the Background section just cannot go, there was an open discussion for this and we have to stick with the previous decision, especially since without any further decision Dudesleeper tried to revert it without notice and without willing to answer anymore before the voice was blocked, this was too much of a dirty move to not see it as it was: uncalled for and unfair. Eyesbomb 23:06, 16 january 2008 (CET)
This is just an idea, but how about re-tooling and encompassing all of these in a section entitled "Background"? I don't see the necessity of having all these short, abbreviated sections, when they all pertain to the same overall idea. (I may be missing something though, so comments, please!) Also Eyesbomb, the past is the past, my suggestion is that you again, let it lie. We're not about to go revisit old "pi&^ing contests", as that would not be conducive to the efforts at hand. Edit Centric (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
One of the main things that should be addressed, is that the "wanting to tour again behind a "proper rock album"" quote needs to be sourced. Let's work on that. If we can't back that one up with reliable TPSC (third-party source citation), then it should at least be commented out until source can be provided, or removed at best. Also, looking this over, (I have the blessing of having two monitors, which makes this infinitely easier!) the content regarding Joey Waronker looks pertinent to the overall section, and is actually pretty minimal when you look at the bigger picture. Taking a second look, everything from "Origins" to the end of "Following up...." reads almost like a CD insert instead of an encyclopedic article. (This is just a personal opinion, and by no means is meant to denegrade anyone's input thus far!) The whole section could benefit from a re-tooling, but definitely retaining the information. Edit Centric (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the "a" issue was pretty minor, so I went ahead and, since consensus was achieved (see, that was easy! "a" is a beginning, at least!), added the letter where needed. Also, and this was a "spur-of-the-moment" thing, I changed "On" to "Regarding", to see how it would read. If you guys think it read better the other way, feel free to change that word back. Edit Centric (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, thank you Centric for your very mellow and helpful words + way of acting and talking to us, you're giving us (or at least me) quite a lesson there. You must be a good person. This said, about the sources for the rock stuff, which I am surer about and I've read in (authorized) books, so far I've only found this, not talking about the tour, while I'll keep to find back what I've read about the tour thing: http://billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003119875
The background section we seem to agree has gotta stay, and I'm delighted about that. I could also agree on the fact that it could seem a bit chaotic, so we'll just keep the paragraphs (spacing between one and the other) but taking away the naming of each paragraph, like 'new drums' or stuff, if yyou'd like, and if it seems clearer, so I don't wanna oppose this till the end and I won't, though I still find it quite well working. but I can agree on this. the content has gotta stay, and at this point I would love Dudesleeper to at least give it up on this. Please? :) goodbye bitterness, come on Eyesbomb 23:11, 17 january 2008 (CET)
Also, can you please Centric add to the artticle the album was recorded in Vancouver and Dublin, both in the preambole and in the box on the right? source: http://www.nme.com/news/rem/28545 Eyesbomb 23:17, 17 january 2008 (CET)
Well, some of it may need re-tooling, but it's a good idea. I'm also looking at Greatcurve's comments below, and these also deserve at least a look-see, and to be factored in.

As for the source on the Vancouver and Dublin recording, I'm a bit concerned with that, because of this; "According to fansite murmurs.com, the band plan to spend a few weeks in the Canadian city before heading to Dublin to work on the rest of the record." How reliable is this info, as it's heresay from a fansite? Let's see if we can find a more reliable source, like maybe Billboard, Rolling Stone, etceteras. If we're to quote the fansite, then let's do it as such. (I don't know how comfortable I'd be with "well, NME said that Murmurs said that..." as a source for saying "The album was recorded in these places...".) Edit Centric (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Eyesbomb, please stop jumping to conclusions that there exists a consensus; that's probably the source of these troubles. My thoughts:
  • "Rethinking Things" section is irrelevant and needs to go. That material belongs in the main R.E.M. article, as it doesn't pertain to Accelerate at all. Around the Sun by contrast, is at least tangibly relevant -- there's evidence to suggest that the band thought that album was disappointing, and wanted their next album to be a departure from that.
  • As I wrote above, the "Origins" section about Bill Berry leaving and the band wanting to do a 'rock' album/tour after New Adventures in 1997 seems very dubious. I'm not disputing that they once thought that way -- they may well have, and you might find some evidence to back that up. But it seems unlikely they intended to act on those thoughts, as the following tours/albums were definitely not full of "fast numbers with less mid-tempo songs". Eyesbomb seems to be trying to link the band's thoughts as a four piece circa '97 to the decision to get back to a harder-edged style for Accelerate and I don't think you can make that link. Since then, Bill Berry left and they put out three studio albums, and there's no evidence, as far as I know, that Accelerate is the album they were referring to in '97. This section needs to go.
  • In short, the article should focus on the album at hand. Historical context is nice, but it needs to be relevant, and what we've got here isn't.
  • More emphasis on REM's new direction/newfound energy with this album is probably the place to go. We already know a fair amount about the album, even if the specifics are still sketchy, but the article doesn't convey much of that. For example, it seems some members of the press have heard preview copies -- Q Magazine for example [1]. Paul Rees, the editor wrote in the comments section at that link:

Based on one preview listen, Adrian, it sounds very much like a return to form. It could have been made at a point between Document and Green. Sensibly, it's not over-long (11 songs in 30-something minutes), and fabulously Peter Buck's guitar is back to its rightful prominence, as indeed are Mike Mills' harmony vocals.

Thegreatcurve (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay GC, I see your comments here too. Like I stated before with Eyesbomb, we're through with the pre-protection stuff, and moving forward. Right now, there are no troubles, only solutions. I've read the material presented so far, and the entire "Background" section, IMHO, should stay, albeit with some minor tweaks and mods to bring it in-line with the rest of the article. Also, a further scruitiny of the adjacent section is also needed, as some of this material follows the same vein as the background stuff. (See the section "Musical direction". "Around The Sun was released to mixed....." would be more background info, wouldn't it?)
I just had another thought. Some of the material seems like it was included simply to have an article, or to add some substance while we're waiting for the album to be released. You know, it's no crime if the article is a little thin until then. We could also get some more "in-progress" info parsed in here... Edit Centric (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned before on the talk page, there is no reason whatsoever for the background section to go as far back as Billy Berry's departure in 1997. The article needs to focus on what's immediately relevant to the album. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think I see what you're saying here. There DOES seem to be a heavy concentration on historic material, a significant amount of it belonging more to the main R.E.M. article than to this release. How about paring it down a bit? Eyesbomb is for keeping the section, Dudesleeper, Thegreatcurve and yourself are leaning more towards getting rid of it. I'd like to see some of it remain, if it's pertinent to the upcoming album. Here's where we find the "happy medium"...Edit Centric (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thegreatcurve's proposed changes

I'm repeating myself here, but I thought I should clarify a few things. I have no problem with a background section containing historic information, but it needs to be relevant to the album in question. The first two paragraphs can be safely deleted (what have Joey Waronker or the band's best-of album got to do with Accelerate?), as they do not fit this criteria. If that means a very short article, then so be it. I think the Around the Sun material can stay, because Accelerate is probably the band's attempt at distancing themselves from that album, which by all accounts was a huge disappointment. Thegreatcurve (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Still keeping an eye on this page. Delinking the year is appropriate. See WP:MOSDATE. Don't Wikilink bear years... the 2007 should be left unlinked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha Jayron, I just undid my own edit there, sorry 'bout that! Edit Centric (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
After looking at things again and again, you're swaying my opinion here. Until the album actually gets released, we might have a relatively smaller article, but that's really no biggie, as long as someone doesn't come along and mark it for deletion. (I wouldn't want anyone of us to feel like we've been "spinning our wheels"!) Okay, here's the deal; I would like to give you, Dudesleeper, Eyesbomb and WesleyDodds the editing helm here, as long as everyone can remain as productive and cordial as you all have so far. I think we're finally communicating here, and that's the key! Even if you disagree, keep communicating in a civil, respectful and productive way, and either one of two things will happen. Either you'll end up coming to a middle ground, or you'll learn to do what marriage counselors call "disagreeing agreeably". (Been married for 20 years, so I know how it works.)
The trick is to take each idea, examine it, discuss it here (civily, with no preconceptions!), and come to a conclusion of some sort. If you just can't seem to find that middle ground, or talks get stalled, I will be around. So far, you've all shown a very avid interest in the subject matter, the article, and getting it right. I have every confidence that you all can work towards those same ends! Edit Centric (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thegreatcurve's edits

As per above discussion, I've excised the offending material from the background section, and shuffled a few sentences around a bit. It's still a bit messy, but it's better than before, I think. Also, I'm starting to have second thoughts about having a separate "Background" and "Musical Direction" section, as controlling overlap between them is tricky. Discuss/revert/flame as necessary. ;) Thegreatcurve (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems most other album pages have sections for background/recording history and musical style, so it can be done. Thegreatcurve (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Disagreed, reverted. Centric made clear that before editing that section we gotta discuss and agree, sorry. I appreciate your effort but I didn't like what you wrote at all, much better in the previous incarnation. Discuss before attempting to ttouch it again pleeease! Eyesbomb 20:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Except, of course, you don't really want to "discuss" any changes to the article; you'd rather have a faux-discussion and still do it your way, despite everyone else disagreeing with you. If you disagree with the changes I and the other editors want to make, and want to keep in that stuff about their best-of compilation, then you need to make your case, as the rest of us have. You've had plenty of opportunities to do that; if you can't do this or you don't want to, then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia.
Look, I'm about ready to throw in the towel; it really shouldn't be this hard. Those who want to make improvements to the article are hampered by Eyesbomb's pattern of bad faith, poor English skills, and his inability to partake in a constructive discussion. Thegreatcurve (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, we're NOT going to turn this into a "let's flame an editor" hour, again it doesn't help. (And I'm REALLY trying to enjoy my Campbell's soup right now, but have to calm the waters yet again...) Look, Eyesbomb might not be particularly loquatious, but neither am I if you speak with me in person. (Much better in the wrote than spoken!) However, we need to focus on strengths instead of weaknesses, and attempt to support the dialogue. (You gather more flies with honey than with vinegar!) No, don't throw in the towel, just be a bit more patient in your approach, is all... Edit Centric (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
(See? Bad on me! I used the word "loquacious" incorrectly, and even got the spelling wrong!) Better to say "..might not have the greatest command of the written word" maybe? Edit Centric (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit Centric proposes..

Hey guys, what do you think about combining the Web promotion and touring sections? Edit Centric (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. One 'promotion' section sounds fine to me. While we're at it, is it actually notable that the band mentioned the wikipedia article on their website? That sentence can probably go. 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it would be notable here, in a weird, "come full-circle" sort of way, I guess. I don't know, that's a subjective thing, depends on who you'd ask... Edit Centric (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
In all honesty, I strongly disagree. We are merging and merging over again till this is becoming a one-paragraph-only-giant article, almost. No offence AT ALL intended, of course, but there just GOTTA be paragraphs. The Tour section, also, will dramatically grow and at LEAST deserves a paragraph of its own, if not a whole actual article external to this like others I wrote: A Bigger Bang Tour Eyesbomb 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Merging works well when it's done correctly. - Dudesleeper Talk 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course it does! I agree with you on this one, but I am saying something else. I am saying that merging can even be done at a state-of-the-art level, but still, we can't merge E V E R Y T H I N G into one single paragraph, it makes it tedious, unredable and pointless! Get it, my friend? Eyesbomb 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is this one single paragraph you speak of? - Dudesleeper Talk 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) Okay guys, back to square one. Eyesbomb, it's perfectly obee kaybee to merge some of this stuff right now, as the subject comes to fruition, it can always be built upon, and re-split if it's warranted. Dudesleeper, please make a concerted effort to keep the snipe comments OUT of the edit summarys, it does nothing to help an editor's position when trying to collaborate on article improvement. Eyesbomb, there WILL be paragraphs, don't sweat this. Also guys, no revert warring. If it degenerates to that, and I'd HATE to see this, someone WILL get blocked. Work together guys, it's only a Wikipedia article after all, only one album. Heck, it hasn't even been released yet... Edit Centric (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should speak the truth less often. Apologies. - Dudesleeper Talk 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You are a ridiculous person, this guy is trying to help us from the beginning and you just keep on acting as the child you are. He didn't deserve your idiotic comment. Eyesbomb 22:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey now, you two... Lets not start this again. You don't have to like one another, but you do have to avoid expressing that dislike publicly. Lets not undo all of the progress we have made... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It was a genuine apology, actually, to him. Your attempt to get me into trouble is very transparent. - Dudesleeper Talk 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
oh PLEASE. :D Eyesbomb 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) Guys, quit it, and I mean now. This does NOTHING for article improvement, nor does it do anything for the spirit of cooperation that we need to succeed. Dudesleeper, ALWAYS speak the truth, I support that wholeheartedly. It's in the way you speak that truth that makes the difference between tact and tear. Eyesbomb, calling someone a "ridiculous person" is not only unproductive, but the whole thing is going beyond incivility, and teetering on the precipice of rudeness. Guys, you are BOTH better than this. Like I said, it's only one album, and hasn't even been released yet. This is by no means a solid foundation for a war of personalities. So far, I have seen both Dudesleeper and Thegreatcurve doing some nice work on the piece, I personally would, if I were you Eyesbomb, sit back and watch the progress for a bit. Your strengths seem to lie more in the source material, and ferretting out the information. Dudesleeper and Thegreatcurve seem to have more of a grasp on the formatting, wording and copyediting angle. BUILD on this, I emplore you... Edit Centric (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes and, one more thing, no revert warring. We're not only pushing the limits of civility here, but also 3RR. I suggest that everyone take a step back, and breathe for the next 24 hours. I will keep vigil over the house here, no worries. Edit Centric (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall previous forthcoming R.E.M. album articles being this much of a hassle. Hopefully we'll get back to constructive editing some day. - Dudesleeper Talk 22:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I propose no reverts being permitted without a follow-up explanation on the talk page (beginning with the previous edit). - Dudesleeper Talk 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Now THAT is an excellent idea. It's not a matter of the reverts being permitted, but that they should be accompanied by a reasonable explanation. It's called "self-policing", requires a bit of discipline, but again is a great idea. Edit Centric (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of back cover

Just today, WesleyDodds removed the back cover of the pending album, a move which I tend to agree completely with. Then, Koavf replaced it, inside the infobox nonetheless. Um, my question is; why would we do something entirely different with this album than every other article on Wikipedia? Please see the following examples so you know what I mean;

...and the list goes on. The point is don't try to stray from the standard just because from personal perspective, this album is more or less important than any other. Besides, the track listing is already noted in the article, along with a reference to the leaked back cover. Edit Centric (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Every other article? There are several articles that have the back cover of an album displayed. Needless to say, albums that have gatefold covers display both halves, as do:
...and the list goes on. Consequently, I see no compelling reason to remove it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 07:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. You've each reverted each other on this issue. Explaining WHY you have done something is not the same as establishing consensus to DO IT AGAIN. I would recommend that we wait for other editors who frequently contribute to the article to comment on this issue BEFORE it is changed one way or the other. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Easily agree. I have looked at the articles that Justin referred to above, and there is a valid point there. However, the vast majority of articles that I have looked up (30 so far, and climbing!) have only the front cover as reference. Aside from that, I get the feeling that the main reason that Justin wants the rear cover in the article is due to the fact that he initially contributed it. Now, there's nothing wrong with placing a certain amount of pride behind one's contributions, I'm all for that. However, if that's the sole motivation, it's not necessarily a sound one.
In addition, the "gatefold" argument might not be the best one, either. For one thing, there is NO indication that the back cover is part of a gatefold image. There are a plethora of CDs out with very interesting artwork in a multi-fold, for example; Tool, Ænima. I happen to own a copy of this one, and the artwork that is depicted on the article is just one of several good pieces, all in the same fold-out. Given this, the article still only shows the front cover.
The only value of having an image of the back cover, that I can see, is for the track listing to be documented. This is nicely handled by the article it's self, with a handy-dandy link to the leak source. But I DO agree with Jayron32 (When have I NOT agreed with you?) that we need to wait for some consensus discussion before we remove it again. The ONE thing that you won't get out of me is a 3RR violation, I have WAY too much to do here to risk being blocked. I'm not about to revert war over this, simply because it's not worth it. Let's leave things lie where they are, and get some more input... Edit Centric (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the introduction of the option for a back-cover image a recent development? That would explain the lack of articles displaying one in the infobox. - Dudesleeper Talk 20:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
One more thing, now that I look through some references. The "gatefold" argument just fell apart. I also own a vintage, mint-condition copy of The Carpenters; Now & Then. This is a true gatefold LP cover, yet the article still only shows the front cover.
This whole "gatefold" thing applies mainly to LP records, a format that I doubt...no, I won't even go there. Suffice it to say that, being almost 40, I not only remember LPs, (let alone cassettes, eight track tapes and even FOUR track tapes and reel-to-reel!) I own quite a few, a number of the older ones being gatefold cover. The Fifth Dimension, The Carpenters, Hall and Oates, The Beach Boys. I have all of these. (After reading Justin's position, I actually went digging through the closet to find these!) Edit Centric (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, as interesting as this is, lets get some perspective on this. Its an album that is not even released yet. In a few months, this ENTIRE discussion becomes moot. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Man Jayron32, that's what I LIKE ABOUT YOU! Short, sweet, and to the point, not to mention rational, accurate, and truthful. I had to laugh when I read that, nodding in total agreement. Edit Centric (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I just popped over to the WP:LAME link that you included. Jayron, this isn't quite an edit war, it's a spirited discussion on the merits of having one single image in or out of the article. If you look at the history, it reads; Wes removes the image. Justin replaces it, then I remove it, then Justin reverts it again. Then we stop. We breathe. We comment. War? Nope. (At least I won't be tagged with that monicker, I'm coming at it from the Bold-Revert-Discuss angle!) Edit Centric (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, so its an "edit police action". But its still rather lame... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Back Cover: Keep or Remove?

Well, here we have yet another quandry. There are editors that support keeping the image of the back cover, and editors that support removing it. This started as a quick series of reverts, and was stopped before it became an edit war over something trivial. There are good arguments for both positions, so we need a consensus discussion. Let's begin.

I support removal, based on the following rationale; the image in question is not only of extremely low quality (looks like a xerox of a xerox), but also serves no other purpose than to provide a track listing, something that is accomplished already within the article. There is a link provided within that section that leads the end reader to the image at REMring.com. The vast majority of album articles at Wikipedia do not show a back cover, nor do they need to to illustrate the subject. There is no indication that the back cover is part of a gatefold or multi-pane image. Edit Centric (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The image is supposed to look like that (see the front cover). And if there's an option in the infobox to display a back cover, I'm not sure why we're arguing the point. - Dudesleeper Talk 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, probably not. This is supposedly a "leaked" copy of the front and back covers; probably done EXACTLY the way that Edit Centric stated above (some intern probably photocopied it). The whole discussion is somewhat silly, anyways, since once the album is released, we can ACTUALLY put the REAL cover on the article. There is marginal value in the leaked cover to this article for the time being, since it is due to change when the real cover is released. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Then we'd better tell R.E.M.'s official website (linked as the source in the front-cover image description) because it's displaying the back cover in their rolling graphic. - Dudesleeper Talk 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Obviously. I would keep it because it gives the user a better understanding of the art design and direction of the album. Furthermore, I don't see the reasons for removing it to be compelling. As for the low quality of the scan, that is actually necessary for fair use. While it is clear that this is not part of one large gatefold image, it is also the case that many articles that have back covers are not gatefolds (e.g. the examples I gave above), so that is not compelling for deletion. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not any of this is true, in exactly 2 months and 6 days, this entire discussion becomes moot. Keep it, remove it, either is pointless as, once the album is actually released, we will have some concrete material to go on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. it just adds. Eyesbomb 23:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) See what I mean about consensus now? This was a test. (Sorry, but I did this to illustrate a point.) Consensus is that it stays, so it stays! (Actually, I DO feel that it's redundancy in a way, but again the consensus is against that, so good on ya!)

What just happened here is a classic case of Bold-Revert-Discuss. It worked, because everyone came to the table, set out their reasoning for the change (or non-change), and dealt with this in a productive, positive and team-based atmosphere. Now, take this forward, and use it to make the article the best that it can be! Edit Centric (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The back cover should be removed. Back covers are only included if there is something notable to discuss about the image (ie. In Utero). All it does is list the track listing in black and white. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a guideline that states as much? - Dudesleeper Talk 10:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Basic fair use criteria. The fair use media needs to be discussed in the article to qualify as fair use. How does one discuss a back cover image that's merely a tracklisting? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Photocopied" review

I have re-removed this:

*[[Uncut (magazine)|Uncut]] {{rating|3|5}} [http://www.murmurs.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=70879&stc=1&d=1204198181 Uncut - April, 2008]

Two reasons:
1) It is a violation of policy to link to sites violating copyright. An alleged photocopy of an unpublished review either violates copyright or is a hoax.
2) The site in question is an internet forum, NOT a reliable source. Claiming that "they" get "their" information directly from the band is pointless. I am an infrequent contributor to that forum and do not get squat directly from the band. Saying bogus postings "would be spotted" is pointless: this is certainly not what is meant by "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".Wikipedia:Rs#Reliability_of_specific_source_types Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No one seems to be willing to discuss this matter, just a lot of special pleading: it's a photocopy, so it has to be legit; that's not just an internet forum, it's a "special" internet forum; fighting about this is stupid (said while reverting); etc.
Does anyone have any justification for including this? I say:
1) it is on a forum, which is not a reliable source
2) it is either a copyright violation or a hoax
3) Either reason above (1 or 2) is sufficient to remove the claim.
Please explain how my reasoning is incorrect or what makes this article a special case.
Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever It's irrelevant; the source is the April issue of Uncut magazine; you don't need an Internet scan, as that is a verifiable source itself. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
According to your rationale we would need to weed through every Q review since Q doesn't publicly post the reviews online. Or, you could beg them to post them so you can source it. If you have the actual copyright as proof you are citing it. If you are citing an actual piece of literature you don't post a link to the actual text. This is obscene and ridiculous. Yanksox (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
What? I honestly cannot make heads or tails of what you just wrote. We don't need an online citation; Q is a publication and you can just pick it up and "wade through" a single issue yourself. That's what the person who scanned it did all by his lonesome. The sentence "If you have the actual copyright as proof you are citing it" makes no sense to me at all. The allegation that I'm being obscene is pretty ridiculous itself. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It's directing at the whole situation not you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.22.12 (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't link to copyright violations. Simple as that. Copyright violations on Wikipedia are to be removed on sight. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Released

I have again removed "Released April 1, 2008" from the infobox. The album is scheduled for release April 1, 2008. It was not "released" April 1, 2008. The scheduled date is included in the body of the article. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Album Accelerate leaked

Hello, release date of the album is scheduled for April 1, in Europe even March 28. Okay, now we have March 24.

So how could it be to download the album via Torrent or Rapidshare today before official release? Any explanations? Thx. --Mike551 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No Wait - do you want someone to tell you how to download it? That's not going to happen. The album was probably leaked from a promotional copy sent out to a radio station or reviewer. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Tour

Unnecessary? Why would you delete the section on the tour? That seems relevant, and it's sourced information. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not really relevant from an encyclopedic standpoint. R.E.M. plays shows all the time; these shows are not inherently notable, particularly in regards to a specific release. The most notable performances concerning this album are the Olympia dates, and that's all that really needs to be mentioned in this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Release date

If people are going to continually change the details regarding the release date can they at least find a reference that backs up their changes? Release date in the UK is definitely 31 March, and 1 April in the US. 'Worldwide' release dates need some backing up. I've seen a release date of 9 April for Japan. We could really use an official source for these dates.--Michig (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Warners Japan's site, the release date in Japan is 9 April, so the 'rest of the world' bit needs changing.[2]--Michig (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Changed.--Michig (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The album was released digitally in Europe on March 28 (and I bought it):
Can I change it back? Mushroom (Talk) 10:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

There's no rating with less than four stars, which I dare say is the case in more than one of R.E.M.'s album articles. We are allowed to link poor reviews, right? - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, oh, oh. Scratch that. Thank heavens for Uncut. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
...which has just been deleted. Listing only the most positive reviews makes the whole list meaningless. We could really do with an agreed priority list of review sources. I wouldn't have thought allmusic would be near the top, to be honest.--Michig (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It's in alphabetical order. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I meant near the top of the priority list for significance of reviews. I had spotted the alphabetic thing. And Uncut's back (for now) by the looks of it.--Michig (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
My point was that we should include reviews from the most respected and authoritative sources, not just the most convenient or those that give the highest ratings.--Michig (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree but I think that would just lead to an edit war, since "most respected" is point-of-view. - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hence the need for an agreed priority list. Still that discussion isn't for here.--Michig (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking poor reviews is one thing, but why find more obscure sources just to present some kind of "unbiased" overall collection? Subjective as it is, I think it can all be agreed upon (mostly) that All Music, Rolling Stone, Q, NME, Spin, Pitchfork, etc should be considered more telling than more regional ones, even from larger cities such as London. And the lukewarm reviews from Reveal and ATS are up there for the world to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.175 (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Some regional papers are quite important in music criticism. Two off the top of my head are The New York Times and the Village Voice. The former is especially important since it is considered the US' paper of record, in all areas. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

When you're dealing with artists of the stature of R.E.M. (or Radiohead, Jay-Z, Madonna, etc. for that matter) stick with the most important publications in the field, because they are paying attention to this group's releases. Whatever you may think of a particular publication, what Time, Rolling Stone, The New York Times, NME, and so on say matters. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm going to start a "Reception" section soon, so some of the reviews that don't make it into the infobox might make it in there. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I like your Reception page. I am putting back up the "favorable" reviews of Time and Billboard (which I will scratch the latter when Pitchfork comes up with their review), because it is tough to find albums on wikipedia that do not list favorable, mixed or poor when no official grade is given.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.48.21 (talk • contribs)

Can people take a look at Wikipedia:ALBUM#Professional_reviews please for the agreed format for reviews. Adding 'favorable' where there is no rating in the review is per guidelines, and 'link' is only to be used if the year of the review is not known. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Favorable" is a bit silly in my view because it tries to simplfy the critic's POV when the reviewer his/herself has not supplied a simple critque in the form of a star or grading system. It's minor, but it's still leaning towards POV. A reader can just click the link and decide themselves whether or not the review is "favorable" or not. What's important is that the reviews are provided and cited, as accurately as possible. WesleyDodds (talk)
That's really something else for discussion at the talk page for the guidelines rather than here, I think. I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but let's follow the guidelines to avoid edit warring.--Michig (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think that fairly settles it then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.48.21 (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Wiki guidelines aren't hard rules. We can ignore guidelines if consensus determines the guidelines are impractical, per WP:IAR. I really don't think "Favorable" helps, and it leaves the article open to POV and OR (two things "ignore all rules" does not allow). It relies on the editor reading a review and going, "This review is favorable, so I will tag it as so, even though neither the reviewer or the publication sought to quantify it". What matters is the body of the review. After all, it's an open secret that Rolling Stone star ratings have often been quite arbritary (see Jim Derogatis' book Milk It!). Just leave a date and/or date; that should be enough. Or only leave quantified reviews in the infobox. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Singles and charts section

Common The article should have a section on single releases and chart performance. Right now it's a stub, but as time goes on, sources and information will be added. As for Murmurs.com, it's a completely legitimate source that gets information from the band themselves, and their information was itself sourced, so I don't see what problem there could be with Murmurs. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, there's no need for a separate singles section. That information can and should go into the "release" section. Secondly, the site is citing something said on Virgin Radio. A better, more reputable news site should be cited for the Virgin Radio interview in the text instead. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Heads up for everyone: when chart positions for the album are published next week, make sure to include a reference from a chart website (for the US, use www.billboard.com; not sure what the official British chart site is). Don't reference fansites or blog posts. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Review

Hey, I just noticed that for the Rolling Stone review it showed a 4/5 stars... well im looking at my Rolling Stone right now... and they gave it a 4/4... so wouldnt that equate to a 5/5? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.5.9 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's a 4/5. That's the only scale RS uses as far as I know. Here's the online link RS4_3_08, don't know about the hard-copy.
Asst. Editor, Crawdaddy! FenderRhodesScholar | Talk 22:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Murmurs.com Fansite

Yes, I know that Murmurs.com is a fansite, but it is probably the most offical R.E.M. fansite out there, given that Ethan Kaplan (Murmurs.com creator) does a lot of photography with R.E.M.

With that mind, I think information which Murmurs.com states is confirmed should be considered as such, even though possibly another source may not yet exist. (Was re http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accelerate_%28R.E.M._album%29&diff=202898703&oldid=202741530 , where the external reference does comment on the source of the information.) Steven Plunkett (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If the information is confirmed, find a news site that confirms it. We should not rely on fansites for sourcing information, unless they're interviewing someone directly or the like. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Accelerate (R.E.M. album)/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.

In order to meet the "C" Class criteria, this article needs a "personnel" section specifically listing band members who participated in this album (the bandbox is insufficient for this purpose, as it does not specify which band members participated here. (Bill Berry, for instance, is listed in the box, though he is not =amg&sql=10:jzfpxzejldde~T2 in the credits.) In order to meet the "B" Class criteria, the "personnel" section must include technical personnel as well as all musicians. Please see WP:ALBUM and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accelerate_(R.E.M._album)/Archive_1&oldid=1140136359"