Talk:Reckoning (R.E.M. album)

'X' Side and 'Y' Side
I believe.... that we should not include R.E.M.'s charming elpee side designations, except as a note below the track listing. Fantailfan (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of April 10, 2008
Wesley Dodds, why did you revert the whole article? Please explain-without discussion it seems premature to have done so. -- Fantailfan (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Release history, etc
Sources and guidelines I have provided sources for the release history (Allmusic and MusicBrainz); if you want more, you can check http://www.svs.com/rem/ and File Under Water by Jon Story. Please stop reverting these, as they are required by WP:ALBUM. Also, I have no idea why the recording of "Voice of Harold" is notable, but its commercial release isn't. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The information about "Voice of Harold" is uncited, as is most of the release history. You don't need a table for the release history, or even a separate section, as all verifiable details are covered in the "Release and reception section". A "release history" section is not required at all (despite what the Album WikiProject says), as I can name quite a few FA and GA album articles past and present that don't utilize them, as in most cases you can just convey the information in prose with other sections. The prose in the Tracklisting section is redundant to the new "Packaging" and Left of Reckoning sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's so many problems with the Release hsitory section. How do you verify that Reckoning was released in Bolivia in a certain year? What should it even matter?  No secondary sources discuss its importance. Albums get released in different countries all the time; in most cases, it's not notable. There's no verification that the Mobile Fidelity release is a remaster, much less notable. You're citing the R.E.M. website (a primary reference) for information on the 2009 Deluxe Edition, when I found the information reported by a reliable secondary news source, which is what should be favored in the first place (on top of that, you placed a reference right in the middle of a sentence, instead of punctuation). WesleyDodds (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources again I have given you plenty of sources for the release history - again, a lot of this can be resolved by looking at the links to Allmusic and MusicBrainz. The "Voice of Harold" information doesn't need to be cited; just listen to the song - it's exactly what is being described. What should I insert into the article, ? The release history section is required, in as much as this falls under WP:ALBUM. If you think that release histories are a bad idea, you should talk to that WikiProject. If the guidelines that they have created change, I will be happy to delete them from articles that presently have these tables. In the meantime, I have put into this article exactly what the guidelines specify. Regarding sources, if there is a problem with citing R.E.M.'s web site, then please change it; I guess I don't understand how this is problematic. I also don't immediately see anything on WP:REF that says references in the middle of a sentence are to be discouraged and at least one example of them encouraging it. If there's something I'm missing here (entirely possible, as I did not read the entire page), please let me know. I have also changed this article per WP:ELLIPSES again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because something is mentioned in a Wikiproject's guidelines doesn't make it mandatory. They are simply guidelines. If the information is already presented in prose and is easily understandable, there is no need to duplicate the information in a table as well. By the way, MusicBrainz is not a reliable source as it relies on user input for its information, anyone can register and add information, that's not reliable. --JD554 (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding references in the middle of sentences: you may have missed this, "Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another, unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." This article already has them at the end of sentences, so it would be inappropriate to change. --JD554 (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "The "Voice of Harold" information doesn't need to be cited; just listen to the song - it's exactly what is being described." That's not immediately apparent, and is thus original research. As for the ellipses thing, the reason it's there is because I utilized part of a quote (not the whole thing), and am indicating with the ellipses and brackets that the ellipses are not part of the original quote. See the section there on "Square brackets". I've done this quite frequently on Feature Articles, and no one at FAC has a problem with it (also, it's done more than once in the article). WesleyDodds (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

LP Sides
LP sides should be designated for albums originally released on vinyl, as per WikiProject Album style guide. Cloonmore (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is pretty silly considering that most copies of the album are now on CD. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not silly at all. Song and side order were typically carefully considered by artists and producers. (Astral Weeks is a good example.) The fact that the original format (LP) has been replaced by CD for new pressings of an old release doesn't mean the original side designations are without meaning or interest.Cloonmore (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit War?
I'm seeing a slow edit war here. Hi, guys! Long time no see. Someone's acting up again? Oh, dear... Doc9871 (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, here's my 2p worth: I don't believe it is necessary (or desirable) to have the cute names that a band decides to call the different sides of an LP (or single for that matter). That information belongs in prose (as it already is here) and we need simply say "Side one" and "Side two" in the track listing - as that is what they are. To give any extra name here is simply duplication of information already presented and is unnecessary as a reader (when reading a track listing) will simply want to know what is on side one and what is on side two. --JD554 (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Consistency Why not be consistent with all of R.E.M.'s other albums? Or albums by other artists--e.g. Stadium Arcadium and To Venus and Back. This isn't (just) a "cute name"; the band actually made one side of the album into a concept film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely you can come up with a better argument than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Just because they made a concept film, doesn't change the fact that the sides of the album are already mentioned in the packaging section and they are actually "side one" and "side two" as mentioned in the tack listing section. --JD554 (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Other stuff Other stuff does exist and there's no reason for this article to be any different from other similar articles. For that matter, the essay you pointed out is about deletion/retention of articles, not style and it even explicitly acknowledges that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes" which is an argument in favor of my position. Either Wikipedia should include the names of halves of albums in the track listing or exclude them, but not choose some middle position by which there are a few half names here and there whereas they are absent in other articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy for the unnecessary side names to removed from the track listings at the articles you've mentioned. Consistency will therefore be met. --JD554 (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)