Talk:Random Access Memories

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Random Access Memories. 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://web.archive.org/web/20130921132923/http://www.mixmag.net/words/features/jeremy-abbott-random-access-memories to http://www.mixmag.net/words/features/jeremy-abbott-random-access-memories
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5ugg4pB5Y?url=http://www.grammy.com/nominees to http://www.grammy.com/nominees
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213015146/https://www.capif.org.ar/noticia.aspx?id=26 to https://www.capif.org.ar/noticia.aspx?id=26

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) 07:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Black Glasses
To clarify, there hasn’t been a official deal yet for Daft Punk to do the Black Glasses film score. See source here. jhsounds (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"and final" album
I've noticed that edits to the opening sentence seem to be going back and forth between adding "and final" and removing it. What's the consensus on this? jhsounds (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My interpretation on it comes from WP:CRYSTAL where stating "it's their final album" is providing an unverifiable statement. If there is a verifiable resource of the duo making a statement where they reference RAM as their final album then it can be stated. We could possibly word "no studio albums have been released since Daft Punk's disbandment announcement in February 2021" as that statement can be verified but at the same time it's a lot of words that really don't add much. Stating it's their fourth studio album is sufficient and straight to the point. – The Grid  ( talk )  18:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That makes no sense. They have broken up, ergo it is their fourth and final studio album. Adding a separate sentence at the end is just cluttering up the opening paragraph ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

To save further angst, final can be stated and if anything needs to be changed in the future - that's when adjustments can be made. – The Grid  ( talk )  16:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Popcornfud I'm no longer fighting over the technical writing and think it's ok to say "and final album" for RAM, if you're seeking some discussion about it. The New York Times article about Thomas Bangalter yesterday did give some insight about his thoughts about the robot suits for now. –  The Grid  ( talk )  12:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an issue that regularly comes up on album articles, so I created a discussion at WP:ALBUMS here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums Popcornfud (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

RAM10 separate page
What classifies/justifies a separate page being made for the Random Access Memories (10th Anniversary Edition) reissue? It's gotten a good bit of attention and coverage the last few weeks, with reports on singles, global events, music videos, interviews, and more. Still kind of unsure about the policy for stuff like this, but I think it's got enough attention from secondary sources to have its own page without bogging down the middle of the original release's article. Jzahck (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The content about the 10th anniversary edition has to maintain WP:NOTABILITY on its own. For an album reissue, it's looking at WP:NALBUM but also considering if a split discussion would bring consensus. Perhaps the first thing is to see if there's an album reissue that has a separate article from its initial release. – The Grid  ( talk )  12:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bring up this stale discussion, but I think there would be value in splitting the 10th anniversary edition into its own article. Notability is clearly established by the 20 sources in the section alone, and I would argue that it is more notable than Homework (Remixes), which has its own article, despite being a similar "anniversary" release. Do you two (or anyone else) have any additional thoughts on it? Should I formally propose a split? StartOkayStop (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with a separate page. I'm not sure if it's necessary, but I think it has enough notability and reporting done about it to justify a separate page. Would allow a bit more in-depth reporting on the track lists and histories of the songs, I guess. I made the separate page for Infinity Repeating for that reason (and because it has had more significant notability than a lot of the duo's previous singles). Jzahck (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Split "10th Anniversary Edition" proposal
As (briefly) discussed at, I am proposing that the section Random Access Memories be split into Random Access Memories (10th Anniversary Edition). As it stands, the section contains enough content to warrant being given its own separate page. It would certainly clean up the main article by moving the infobox, tracklist, and charts info to another page where it can stay separate. The album Homework (Remixes) already has its own article and that has even less information about it, so the precedent exists. I believe that there is currently enough coverage listed in the article to be able to establish notability but I also believe more references could be found if needed. StartOkayStop (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems we may be getting another more releases for the RAM anniversary this year too. So that's definitely way too much to put on one page. I second making a 10th Anniversary Edition separate page and adding any new info on that page instead of it all being added to the original page and cluttering it up. Jzahck (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)