Talk:Marquee Moon

3 March 2008
This article should be ranked at least a B on the Quality Scale, solely on the importance of the album on punk,new wave, and indie bands following.NewMarqueeDayMoonRising (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles are not rated on the Quality Scale based on its Importance. As of this date, the article is still a disorganized mess and continues to qualify as Start class. -- J. Wong (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Guitar solos and Equipment Used sections
Are there sources available for the information presented in either or both of these sections? If not, the information cannot be included (even though it sounds correct from a listen to the album). JSC ltd (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to recent edits
Firstly, does the 'accessdate' parameter in references not mean the date when the reference was last updated? Because I've noticed they have been reverted back to the old dates on several references I've recently updated.

I also don't understand what the point of the additional "Posted at ..." reference at the end of the existing Entertainment Weekly reference is:

Please clarify. Thankyou.

Lachlanusername (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The "accessdate" is an interesting parameter. It isn't clear from the documentation Template:Citation, which simply says "Date when the url was accessed" without qualifying whether "first" or "last" is meant.  I always thought it was more useful as an indicator of when the url was first accessed.  That way, if the url becomes inactive and must be accessed (if possible) through an archive, then you can determine what the content looked like at that time.  For example, I've found on the Rolling Stone site that while the url remained active, the content at that url changed.  For example, a review of an album was swapped out with a later "Hall of Fame" review of the same album.  If you're lucky, the archive will actually have captures of the different versions and you can see how it changed and perhaps determine why one editor set a review rating one way while another later changed it.  (That is, they were both right just at different times depending on what content the url directed them too.)


 * Also, I don't think its particularly useful to have the accessdate constantly changing every time an editor accesses it. I have noticed some editors updating the accessdate even though all they did was verify that the url was still "live".


 * For the "Entertainment Weekly" reference I found the url to what appeared to be the review except that rating was B+, not A as was referenced. The review also seemed rather terse although it did cite the issue and publication date, which made me suspect that it had been abridged.  So I updated the reference using the double cite to make it clear that what was posted may not reflect what the original editor saw (the A rating).  Notice I was trusting the original editor, here.  Soon after, I found an online copy of the article through the EBSCOHost site that I can access through my local public library account.  Here I discovered that yes the posted version contained all the text of the original published version but with the annotation that Marquee Moon was rated (A) while Adventure was rated (B+).  So the original editor was correct in the rating having I suspect referenced the published version (the reference did contain the page number after all).  So I updated the references again but still left the double cite because of the possible confusion between the single posted rating of (B+) and the correct ratings as published.


 * That said, I have no doubt that someday an editor will click through the link and change the reference rating because of what is posted without realizing that it is correct as is. Hopefully, the double cite will make them think twice about it.  I've been double citing like this whenever I have found that the online copy differs from the published copy, which happens more often than you might realize.  (It's often true of non-review news postings at Rolling Stone, but is also true of their Album Guide posts.)


 * I would be ok with changing this to a single cite and also posting a note here about the ratings mismatch, if you prefer.


 * Thanks for asking about this.


 * -- J. Wong (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reponse. Out of curiosity, are you aware of the 'archivedate' parameter?


 * Yes. The 'archivedate' must and can only be used with the 'archiveurl' parameter.

I'm also wondering whether for the EW reference that adding a 'url' parameter would suffice, or is there an advantage of having the "Posted at" section? Lachlanusername (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The only advantage is that the posted version of the article does not specify that Marquee Moon was rated as (A), but gives the impression that it might be rated as (B+) while the published article rates the two albums as (A) and (B+), resp. I can accept merging the double cite into a single cite with the url of the online posting of the review article. -- J. Wong (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Title track
quote: "Marquee Moon", shortened on the original LP, was restored to its complete length of 10:40 on the 2003 remastered CD. I have a CD version without bonus tracks - I guess it's from 1990? - and the running time of "Marquee Moon" is also 10:40 (although it's erroneously given as 9:58 at the back of the CD case as well as in the booklet).--Brisanzbremse (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Marquee Moon. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6598703/128_marquee_moon

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Marquee Moon. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6598703/128_marquee_moon

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Marquee Moon. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6598703/128_marquee_moon

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Marquee Moon. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6598703/128_marquee_moon

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Genre changes by various IPs

 * AllMusic's sidebar is not a reliable source (WP:ALBUMAVOID); the IP used it to add proto-punk.
 * The IP used Rolling Stone's list of the best punk albums to add punk rock; the article's music/lyrics section cites professional critiques and analysis of the music arguing that it was not punk:
 * Even one of the sources the IP used--independent.ie--explains in detail how the record was not punk rock. The article's legacy/include section discusses the album as being from the punk rock scene, thus its association with punk rock, rather than being punk rock music.
 * There's nothing in the independent.ie source saying the album, or the title song--whose article the IP has repeatedly genre warred at using this source--is art-punk. It calls Television art-punk pioneers, but says nothing of the album or the song being art-punk. There's already one source in the article verifying art-punk, but that one source is outnumbered by the sources referring to this as a post-punk record and a rock record, thus art-punk's placement at the end of the genre list in the infobox.
 * The IP did not cite a source verifying new wave.
 * The IP did not read the article, because if they would have, then they would have not made these wasteful, tedious, disruptive edits. Dan56 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marquee Moon. 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:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6G8c6jAeG?url=http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/most-important-albums-of-nmes-lifetime-television-marquee-moon to http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=154&title=most_important_albums_of_nme_s_lifetime__1&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marquee Moon. 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:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6H4JstEGi?url=http://www.rollingstone.com/music/song-stories/elevation-television to https://www.rollingstone.com/music/song-stories/elevation-television

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: Genres
, the burden is on you to demonstrate reliable sources that support the content changes you are making (WP:BURDEN). Citing your own opinion or perception is not enough (WP:SUBJECTIVE, WP:GWAR). The article, as is, clearly supports rock as the dominant genre referred to among reliable sources, more so than post-punk (WP:WEIGHT). We are having a content dispute. Following WP:BRD, please discuss your concerns further here with me and do not restore your changes until we, or other editors who participate, reach a consensus or decision. Peter (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

One of the sources, Robert Christgau, is cited in the Musical style section as differentiating the album from punk, saying it is more of a rock album and that it departs from the manic energy of punk, while post-punk is defined as drawing from punk's energy. There are several other sources supporting rock in reference to this album, but this source makes a distinction from punk. Peter (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)