Talk:Random Access Memories/Archive 1

Troll sites and leaks/posters
A section should be included about the site, daftpunk.tk, the site claiming it had RAM for download, but instead it dl'd 13 tracks of Avicii - Levels. It now pretends to be blocked by the fbi, until the DP logo appears and Levels starts playing. Also, it should be mentioned that posters have appeared everywhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.8.96 (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can add something like this to the article, since first of all it's kinda hard to figure where we could fit this into the article; and second and most important, that site does not comply with WP:RS and WP:3PARTY.
 * PS: Remember to sign your posts with  ~  at the end of your comments. Carry on :) ~Sirius1 2 8 07:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence about the official posters in the article as part of the "Promotion" section. I think the rest of it falls under what Sirius said. jhsounds (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Citing iTunes Store
I don't think that the iTunes Store can be cited as a reliable source. Even though right now it may show the right information about the different release dates of the album throughout the world, that information shown may vary with time and become inaccessible. We should find another source from a third-party that will be available in the future. ~Sirius1 2 8 07:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Drmies (talk). Thanks a lot! ~Sirius1 2 8 10:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The iTunes Store is a reliable source, though.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 04:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is editorial: if no information is given but it's cited to a bunch of iTunes links, that serves no further purpose than promotion, in my opinion. I don't oppose the use of such links in general, but there has to be a legitimate reason for them. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2013
Under the Track Listing please change "Track 1" to "Give Life back to Music" (featuring Niles Rodgers), "Track 2" to "The Game of Love", "Track 3" to "Giorgio by Moroder" (featuring Giorgio Moroder), "Track 4" to "Within" (featuring Chilly Gonzales), "Track 5" to "Instant Crush" (featuring Julian Casablancas), "Track 6" to "Lose Yourself to Dance" (featuring Pharrell Williams and Niles Rodgers", "Track 7" to "Touch" (featuring Paul Williams), "Track 8" to "Get Lucky" (featuring Pharrell Williams and Niles Rodgers), "Track 9" to "Beyond", "Track 10" to "Motherhood", "Track 11" to "Fragments of Time" (Todd Edwards), "Track 12" to "Doin' It Right" (featuring Panda Bear) and "Track 13" to "Contact" (featuring DJ Falcon) because the track listing for the album has been released. Sgedris (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Wikipedian. I'm afraid that we are not able to do that, since there is no reliable source that provides such information. All the sites that you may have found are just rumors, and nothing is official. The only official information is that mentioned in the article,, which there are only three confirmed tracks, which are "Get Lucky", "Lose Yourself to Dance" and "Contact". Maybe what the other sites claim to be the truth is actually the truth, but until an official track listing is revealed by a reliable third-party source, we can't do much here. Hang in there! It'll be out soon for sure! Happy editing! ~Sirius1 2 8 04:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We aren't doing it.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Ryulong, I know that you are probably a good editor in Wikipedia with enough experience, but you don't have to be rude with other editors. We all have been there where we don't know very well how to use this enormous encyclopedia. So don't be such a jerk. ~Sirius1 2 8 05:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How is "We aren't doing it" being a jerk? It's blunt but it's not rude.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 09:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not blunt, its being vague. And that coming across of as intentional can easily be considered rude and jerky attitude. It shows lack of consideration. Also the fact that you dont even leave an opening for discussion shows WP:OWN tendencies. If you dont want editors thinking you're rude or a jerk, than prepared to back up your vague "blunt"ness with elaboration and explanation. Or rather add anything. You couldve said "We arent doing it per the reasons given by Sirius" Its common courtesy as it allows new editors to learn from their mistakes without taking it personally.
 * As for this case, its best to wait for the release. These type of things can change on last minute.Lucia Black (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The official track names were released through Columbia's Vine account. Incidentally one of the tracks from the previous unreliable source was misspelled. Things like this are why Wikipedia's policies are the way they are. Cheers. jhsounds (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the video Columbia posted?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 03:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Track listing
I know that the total length of the album was announced to be 74 min, but who added all the lengths of each individual track? It is not cited anywhere so this might be vandalism, I suppose, and it needs to be removed until the titles and lengths are announced, unless someone possesses a reliable source where this information is available. ~Sirius1 2 8 07:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the source for the individual track lengths was the iTunes Store, which I guess brings us back to the initial concern stated in the above topic, "Citing iTunes Store". jhsounds (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What the hell. It's not vandalism. The track times come from looking up the PPL Repertoire Database where all of the tracks were registered through the International Standard Recording Code. PPL = licensing for playing any recorded music in public. Search for Daft Punk here and click page 11 ♫ Douglasr007  ( talk )  03:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that even if this is true we can't cite this site either as it seems to be in part restricted, so it fails in WP:V. I think that the best thing we can do for now is to wait for an official track listing from a reliable source to be announced. Don't worry, it may be out very soon! ;) ~Sirius1 2 8 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What's restricted with the source? That I can't link directly to the tracks? ♫ Douglasr007  ( talk )  04:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

About the track names, the site http://www.10kya.com does not seems to be a reliable source, so stop adding the track names from that source. We shall wait until an official track listing is revealed at some site like the Rolling Stone which totally complies with the Wikipedia guidelines, and I'm sure it won't be long for that to happen. So be patient everyone! :) ~Sirius1 2 8 01:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, it seems that an official track listing has been revealed through many web cites. Although some of them claim that it's not confirmed to be official, just a bunch of rumors... But I guess the site Do Androids Dance seems to be a reliable source, so we can be confident that it is truly the official track listing for the album. All that is left is to add somewhere in the article about the date it was revealed. ~Sirius1 2 8 02:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do Androids Dance is not a reliable source. The source they use is to this other website which also does not appear to be a reliable source, and they cite this Rolling Stone interview that does not mention the tracks outside of "Get Lucky" and "Contact". I've removed this track listing until actual reliable sources can be found.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 04:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't exactly a BLP, but then again, there is no reason to use unreliable sources to cite things that may or may not be correct. Better to not have that information in the first place. Or, what's the point of listing unreliable track information as long as there's no tracks? What are we trying to do, beat everyone else to it? Removing the track listing is just good editing. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Before the list of collaborators was released, the tracklist was out stating collaborations, with exactly the people who were revealed to be collaborating on the album at Coachella. Before names of tracks like "Contact", "Give Life Back To Music" and "Lose Yourself To Dance" were mentioned in interviews, the tracklist had been posted with tracks of those names. It seems pretty clear that the tracklist is in fact correct, not just rumoured, so surely we can add it, if we can find a place to reference that complies with the Wikipedia rules Celldwellerwannabe (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It needs to be confirmed by reliable sources. Not corroborated by a bunch of rumor mills.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 09:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that, you don't have to be so blunt about it. Its just that these so called "rumour mills" were right about the collaborators and the track names we have confirmed, and if they are looked through by someone who knows their stuff about Wiki rulings on wether we can cite them as sources, im sure at least one of them will be citeable. Everything that is coming out about the album that could be discerned from that tracklist is exactly as it has been released. It makes sense that it must be correct Celldwellerwannabe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if they were right or not. They are not considered reliable sources.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 03:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

✅ Finally, an official track listing has been revealed, and our reliable source is this one. ~Sirius1 2 8 05:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of "Daft Life"
There seems to be some confusion on the use of "Daft Life Limited" in the article. Up until recently it was referred to as the production company behind all of Daft Punk's studio albums (the Homework liner notes mention "Daft Trax" which may have been a early name). This source also seems to call it a production company. With the announcement of Random Access Memories, Daft Life is suddenly being called an "imprint" or label by news outlets. Right now the inclusion of Daft Life as a label in the infobox and prose contradicts what is currently established in the previous wiki articles that mention it. With seemingly no definitive explanation for this new "imprint" qualification, I would prefer to keep things consistent. jhsounds (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Things can change. Maybe they made the production company now also a label. Their last album was released on Virgin Records. iTunes specifically stated that the album is released by "Daft Life, under exclusive licence to Columbia Records". "Under exclusive license" is a distribution deal. Not sure what "keeping things consistent" has to do with anything?  — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 03:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to Billboard, Pitchfork states "It's out May 21 via Daft Life Limited, an imprint of Columbia Records." The Music Network states this as well.  — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 03:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The line "Daft Life, under exclusive licence to [name of record label]" has been used in the liner notes of all the previous Daft Punk albums. It could very well be that Daft Life suddenly became a label, but it's equally possible that the press kits for the new album were misinterpreted and its still a production company. As I said, there's no source that definitely confirms this one way or the other. jhsounds (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The press release you provided doesn't say it's a production company, actually, it says "Daft Life Ltd is the producer of Daft Punk material". I just provided several sources stating the label is an imprint of Columbia.  — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 04:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Collaborators series
About The Collaborators series, I'm getting a response from an user that either Dubstep.net nor DoAndroidsDance.com are reliable sources; I completely understand. But I don't considerate a smart move to just cite YouTube. I know that it is reliable, since it's the same video that Daft Punk is directly uploading. But the problem here is that, if for some reason, the videos are removed in the future (I'm talking about some five or ten years in the future), there will be absolutely no reference about what the promotion of the album was like. For example, the third episode with Nile Rodgers, the website that is cited is Rolling Stone, so in case the video is removed, there will still be information about what the video used to talk about. That is why I'm encouraging all of you, happy editors, to cite from a third-party, reliable, good source that will be there whenever you want to consult it. So let's find (or wait for) those sources. ~Sirius1 2 8 04:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it unlikely that the videos for the official Daft Punk website are ever going to be taken down. You can use both sources if necessary, but if it's just an embed on another website why bother?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've added all of the current four episodes from Rolling Stone which also have the video from YouTube. What do you think of that? ~Sirius1 2 8 08:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sirius, stop adding the Rolling Stone links to the article and completely sidelining the original postings on YouTube. There is nothing in the summary from Rolling Stone that cannot be understood from watching the YouTube videos. They should be the source we are using. Not Rolling Stone's summaries.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 09:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I already told you the reason why I'm doing it. There is a chance that these videos might be removed with time. I'm talking about some five or ten years from now, you never know. It happens frequently with bands, like their websites that are completely changed and renewed when they're about to release a new recording. And if that happens, at least there will be some prove of what the videos talked about with those references. So let's just leave both of them. It doesn't hurt to keep two sources as a back-up, and the video is also available in the Rolling Stone's sources. So calm down and let's just leave it that way. ~Sirius1 2 8 23:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We do not need both. The YouTube ones are the official and direct from the band so we should use them over the Rolling Stones ones. If you're going to add them back to the article at least do not make the YouTube links a second set of references that you are not using throughout the entire article. You've just been making the Rolling Stones links the main citations for this information and treating the YouTube ones as second class for no reason I can discern.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 04:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Pictures in the Article
First of all, I think it's awesome to have these pictures in the article, they make it look more complete. But I think that instead of using the current pictures of Nile Rodgers and Pharrell Williams, it would be better to use some pictures that are more related to the making of the album, like some video stills from The Collaborators. I can take them but I'm not really good at uploading them. ~Sirius1 2 8 00:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Free images are usually preferred over non-free ones in wiki articles. Pictures from The Collaborators might work if an appropriate fair use rationale can be provided (see WP:FU). Good luck. jhsounds (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I replaced the two pictures aforementioned, and I'm thinking of maybe uploading a picture of the third teaser that appeared in the Coachella Festival, using the one that appears in the same episode of The Collaborators used. ~Sirius1 2 8 03:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that the rationales for those two new images do not explain why they are non-replaceable, i.e. the fields simply say "n.a." These fields are particularly crucial since free images of Nile Rodgers and Pharrell Williams were already available. jhsounds (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those aren't valid fair use images. They were not critically cited as being important. They're just two random screencaps you decided to take that have no educational purpose. We have a free image of Rodgers playing guitar and we have free images of Williams, so the non-free versions from the videos are replacable.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 18:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Panda Bear collaboration
I just wanted to clarify a point regarding recent posts to the article. The collaborators video featuring Panda Bear does not say that he recorded drum parts for the album. Lennox says that microphones were set up in the studio for "my voice" and that they asked him to "do something good". I'm not sure how it was surmised that he made a beat for the album, especially since other sources including a Daft Punk interview specifically mention Lennox's voice. jhsounds (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I could swear the collaborators video had him playing drums.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 03:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Electro classification
In the source where Giorgio says the album is funk, he also mentions electro. Could we call the album electro, or with the organic instruments is it too risky? --24.107.207.98 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It defiantly classifies as electronic, I don't think electro though. That subgenre is pretty unique. However, I think we could argue that it shouldn't be disco and instead nu-disco. --75.182.32.249 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why Nu-Disco, no? Electronic Jazz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.154.108 (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Japan release date
I think the Japanese release date should be added because of the extra track. 86.46.55.239 (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Horizon - Bonus track
I'm not sure if this is a trustworthy source, but the Japanese bonus track has been released and is called Horizon. http://betherave.com/daft-punk-bonus-track-horizon-only-in-japan/ Limbero (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The bonus track is already mentioned in the article, in the track listing. jhsounds (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sections about charts
I noticed the "Chart performance" section was split off into separate main headings: "Charts", "Certifications" and "Chart performance". On top of this, a new "See also" section was created solely to include a link to a list of number-one albums in Ireland. This makes for a total of four main sections, all related to the same topic (i.e. charts). This is an excessive amount of main headings, which makes the table of contents difficult to navigate. The explanation for this excessive undue weight on charts was that it follows WP:ALBUM and WP:MOS, which are not policy and should not be followed blindly in this case. jhsounds (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nu-Disco?
Why not? 75.157.7.21 (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Art Rock?
Some of the songs classify under the art rock category, and in fact there is sometimes a strong resemblance to music from The Alan Parsons Project. Art rock may contain jazz or classical elements and is experimental. Some critics have suggested that the album is somewhat progressive, though the music isn't exactly progressive in nature nor are there any sudden changes, as one critic noted. Art rock is related, though doesn't necessarily possess a progressive nature. Thoughts? Vuzor (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Information for "Horizon"
The Personnel section does not attribute any of the session musicians to track 14 ("Horizon"). Unless the Japanese liner notes either don't include the information for "Horizon" or Daft Punk are the only ones listed in the writing and instrument credits for the song, someone needs to update the section (and possibly the Track listing section as well). I also think that the Structure section should be updated to include "Horizon," since all of the other tracks are included.

71.237.139.71 (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I went ahead and added the "Horizon" credits. jhsounds (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible update to Collaborators section
Would it be necessary to mention that there was no Collaborators video for Julian Casablancas?

94.174.169.18 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally an encyclopedia article should describe what something is and what occurred, rather than what something isn't and what hasn't happened. If there's a citable source stating that a Julian video had been initially planned, then that would work. jhsounds (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Random Access Memories
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Random Access Memories's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BPI": From Daft Punk discography:  From Rumours: Note: User search required. From List of music recording certifications:  From Michael Jackson:  From Pharrell Williams discography:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Commercial performance Denmark
In the section Commmercial performance there is a list of countries where the album debuted as number one

The album debuted at number one in several countries across continental Europe, including Austria,[108] Belgium,[109] Czech Republic,[110] Denmark (where the album sold 5,392 copies in its first week),[111] Finland,[112] Germany,[113] Ireland,[114] Italy,[115] Norway,[116] Portugal,[117] Spain[118] and Switzerland.[119]

Why does it say the amount of albums sold in Denmark in the first week? Is this unusually high or unusually low?

I think it should either be clarified why this is specifically interesting or removed. --87.212.241.171 (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Length and wordiness
I'm concerned the whole page is too long and detailed, especially 'structure' and 'collaborators'. Thoughts? (Ntomlin (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).
 * Why would extra details be a problem? If someone is interested in this album enough to come to this page, then what else would they expect to find other than what we have here? I bet lots of other album pages would love to have this amount of detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.152.170 (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This article almost takes longer to read and digest than it takes to listen to the album. Needs to be trimmed badly and the stilted, lofty language taken out. Keep it simple so a 5th grader can understand it. As it is, the article reads like a literary journal for those with an MFA. The article can still adequately inform without sounding pompous. -- Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 15:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia entries aren't generally supposed to be read from beginning to ended like chapters in a novel, but I get what you mean. Now that we have articles on specific songs of the album, we can safely trim out details and have the song articles carry the bulk of the information. jhsounds (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thriller imagery
Hi, I noticed someone uploaded fan images of the members of Daft Punk in poses similar to Michael Jackson on his Thriller album. The fan images are not official, and obviously do not fit the criteria for fair use rationale for album artwork (i.e. the images aren't from the RAM album). The source isn't even accurate, as the fan images just cite a forum and not the person who actually made the parody images. jhsounds (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the image sources noted in here and here. Just so we're clear, the two images were made by cincozeta using Photoshop. The user posted them on a Daft Punk fan message board, and someone else re-posted them on Reddit. After that point, the images spread virally across the internet and were mistaken as official Daft Punk cover art. I hope this clarifies the issue. jhsounds (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Instant Crush & Doin' it Right
Instant Crush and Doin' it Right both charted in multiple countries, too. Shouldn't they have pages? --24.107.207.98 (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Doin' It Right now has its own article. jhsounds (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Instant Crush going to have it's own page, too? It also charted although it was not released as a single. --24.107.207.98 (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You can always start the Instant Crush article yourself, using the Article Wizard if you wish, or add a formal request for it. jhsounds (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so we're all updated, the "Instant Crush" article has been created. jhsounds (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)