Talk:Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!!

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

The proper title spelling[edit]

Damn, what's with the exclamation marks anyway? Stick with one version already. Please. Or maybe you guys like the band !!!?... --Kochas (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick thought. The exclamation marks again. Should we keep to the double-tripled version - as the cover shows?...
So that then the album title would be Dig!!! Lazarus, Dig!!! --Kochas (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up the official Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds website, they refer to the album there as "Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!!" Therefore, id say, the album should stay referred to in this way on this page. I mean, its the way the artists refer to it, one assumes this should translate into our references. Joshy116 (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!!, the other spelling is just an idiosyncrasy on the cover image, it refers to it as Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!! everywhere else on the album packaging and on the official websites. EvilRedEye (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I've removed the notability tag. This is an album by an established, notable artist. I don't think its notability is in dispute.Hughteg (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Not every album by every band is notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall arguing that every album by every band was notable, I specifically stressed the notability of the artist, and given the fact that you haven't added this tag on any of the band's other albums, I presume you're not disputing that. I'm further presuming your argument is that the album can't be considered notable until it's actually released, or until singles from it create some notability. Is that the case? Hughteg (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, sir! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That being the case I'm tempted to not debate this any further, since I believe the first single will be out in mid January and the album out in March, so this dispute is likely to only matter for a short period. I am interested to note that the notability guides don't appear to say anything on the subject of forthcoming albums.Hughteg (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is always on the creator of an article to show notability. Most forthcoming album articles would get deleted if anybody would exert the minimal effort to do the "paperwork" necessary. Me? I had a final paper due today. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References for you[edit]

This article is graded C so I'm assuming it need to be fleshed out. If you need sources there's an interview with Nick Cave on NPRs Fresh Air that is pretty enlightening. I just don't know enough about Cave to do it myself.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89947780 Ramdomwolf 130.63.143.227 (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!!/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.

C-class album article, as it shows:
  • All the start class criteria
  • A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
  • At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
  • A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
  • A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
  • Categorisation at least by artist and year
  • A casual reader should learn something about the album.
B-class would require more: independent in-line refs, prose discussion, charting history / copies sold;Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 09:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 13:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dig,_Lazarus,_Dig!!!&oldid=1201526243"