Jump to content

Talk:Xx (The xx album)/Archive 1

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

Unsigned comment

why the fuck is the link title of this page 'Xx'. the name of the album is 'xx' check their myspace (where it is stated, if you look) and/or send them a message if you want proof...

I don't think it's possible to have "xx" as a title - I think it's a formatting thing. But, you could consider making "XX" the title if that would be preferable? - JH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.170.175 (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. See {{DISPLAYTITLE}} and [1]. --Petar Petrov (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Genre

This is a problem at this article. Allmusic calls the album "Pop/Rock". Is that what we want here? Radiopathy •talk• 12:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Since everyone ignores this "discussion" and changes genres to suit their taste, I will be bold and add Pop and Rock, using Allmusic as a ref. Please feel free to discuss. Radiopathy •talk• 14:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
"Rock, pop" is way too broad; I've normally only seen those genres for 60s acts like The Beatles and The Kinks. Per the Allmusic page, how about "indie pop", or if you want to be general, "alternative rock".—indopug (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Indopug. Even articles on the Beatles would use things like "Psychedlia" on some albums. Rock is far too broad. Does that mean this sounds like Nickelback? Rush? Dr.John? I'm all for having it say Indie pop. It's sourced that way too. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you two. I think we should use the Allmusic Style section as genres, since the Genre section is very often Pop/Rock for any artists. And if you just listen to the album, you can't compare it to Madonna or Alanis Morissette. (who also have Pop/Rock as genre on allmusic). It's indie pop/rock and indietronica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lake bolt (talk • contribs) 09:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, changing it to indie pop.—indopug (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Unarchived external links

WebCite archives of links that weren't archived in this article, should they ever expire. Dan56 (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Top importance?

So why is this top importance? The article suggests it's a noteworthy album of sorts, but I don't see why it's a top importance article. A little heads up? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The example WP:ALBUM/A#Importance scale shows for top was The Wall and for high Arrival (ABBA album), neither of which explain or indicate "cultural or historical significance", as suggested by the importance scale's criteria, so I just assumed this one felt like top-importance too. Too soon perhaps? Time will tell, but according to Acclaimed Music, it is the 304th most ranked album on critics' all-time lists, if it's relevant. In any case, I would suggest changing those examples either way. Dan56 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I also noticed Kvng assessed The Velvet Underground (album) to top-importance recently (it's on my watchlist), and even though it has been widely acclaimed (Acclaimed Music has it 202nd most ranked on all-time lists, for example), it sold far less than most albums from "high"-importance articles (the criteria mentions high-selling albums), only charting at number 197 on the Billboard 200. And there's nothing on whatever cultural/historical significance it may have. Dan56 (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think sales should only be a criteria, at best, high charting or charting albums should be a mid unless they broke some sort of record. As there are several "important" or so albums that have little to no charting ability (some you can't even purchase easily anymore!) that should be at least mid. For this album, I'd say at the very most high as that acclaimed music site might suffer from a bit of recentism. But I'm a bit out of the loop on this kind of music so I'm not too sure, but I think Top may b be pushing it a bit. Maybe lower these ranking just one each? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I lowered the album article importance. Dan56 (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consenus is against doing so. (non-admin closure) Calidum 03:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

xx (album) → xx (the xx album) – WP:NCM The graphic on the cover is a giant X not xx, which is already reason for a WP:RECOGNIZABLE title, but WP:NCM and WP:SMALLDETAILS also require clarity from XX (Mushroomhead album) and XX (Great Big Sea album). Additionally the album is often XX and the band itself is often The XX in reliable sources, which don't follow the stylism preferred by the band's PR releases. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support the current title should point to the XX disambiguation page -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:DIFFCAPS is sufficient for disambiguation. sst✈ 10:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:DIFFCAPS, which indicates that capitalization is a sufficient DAB Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there is no problem with the current title. It is more than enough disambiguation. Unreal7 (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "primary topic" is still somewhat vague to me, but different caps makes sense enough to keep this as is; nearly all the sources for/on this topic identify it as "xx" (lower case). Dan56 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
On which font? The example given at DIFFCAPS is Red meat vs. Red Meat which is a bit different from xx to XX. The difference is barely visible. And not consistent in sources. Did I mention that, not consistent in sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The majority of sources show the same font. Dan56 (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
User:Dan56 i.e. the minority don't. That's exactly the point. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jamie xx which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Xx (album). 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Xx (album). 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Xx (album). 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Xx (album). 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xx (album). 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xx (album). 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: 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) 12:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Xx (album). 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) 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Xx (album). 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) 19:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

2009 debut album

Hello. I am going to remove and reformat the "2009" in the "2009 debut album" and I will finally notify everyone of my decision laid out here after doing this edit several times and it being reverted for who knows why.

My reasons: - This is pretty hasty, but here are albums rates "Good" by their respective WikiProjects. The Notorious B.I.G's debut studio album, Ready to Die, does not say "1994 debut album" in the introduction. Antichrist Superstar by Marilyn Manson does not say "1996 second studio album" in the introduction. (referencing the situation being apparent with The xx's 2012 second studio album, Coexist) Björk's second album, Post, does not say "1995 second studio album" in the introduction. - What is the point of putting a year before "debut album"? If it is to differentiate the album from other releases in the band's discography, then it is very unnecessary and, to me, sticks out like a sore thumb. That is, if "released on 14 August 2009 by Young Turks" was in the introduction. But, no. Post, Antichrist Superstar and Ready to Die have the release date and label following the "x is a studio album by y" sentence. Therefore, I can infer that the reason the album states "2009 debut album" is to show what year the album was released. Yet, the fact that the release date and label are on the third paragraph make the "2009" unnecessary. - I understand that it might be "outdated" by someone's standards, but reformatting the intorduction sentence and the third paragraph gives the article a better flow, gives readers basic information with minimal effort and makes the introduction more concentrated and focused than being slightly scattered.

After I post this, the introduction sentence will effectively say: "xx is the debut studio album by English indie pop band the xx, released on 14 August 2009 by Young Turks, an imprint of XL Recordings." The third paragraph will effectively state: "The record receieved widespread critical and commercial acclaim, with many critics naming it as one of the year's best albums." If you want to state that the label "was" an imprint, please find a way to incorporate this smoothly in the article without it sacrificing flow and focus.

Thank you for your cooperation. I'll be happy to talk about this. sa (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Comparisons to other articles are moot (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); different things work for different articles, and the "[year] debut album" phrase is commonly used in professional and scholarly (music) journal articles (Google Books, Google Scholar). The point of defining the release year is to provide context as to when the subject of the article "happened", with the most essential information defining the article's subject in the first sentence. The first sentence should not be overloaded with ancillary details about the record label(s) (MOS:FIRST). Your revision does not flow better; the first sentence pieces together multiple sentence fragments ("released on...", "an imprint of...") and reads clunky; the second sentence jumps back to the time of the album's recording. There is less chronological flow. Also, "commercial acclaim" is not a real thing. Dan56 (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for telling me. sa (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xx_(The_xx_album)/Archive_1&oldid=1159141209"