This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Selected Ambient Works Volume II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Selected Ambient Works Volume II was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 20, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Selected Ambient Works Volume II ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 4 April 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
MMBKG added to the article:
Indeed, after searching a dozen Web pages, it seems like this is the typical naming standard. Do you, or anyone else, happen to know why the track names are not usually capitalized? -- Rookkey 23:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
It is likely because the tracks on the album are not "titled" in the normal sense, but rather a picture represents each track on the album. Essentially the "titles" are descriptions of the representative pictures rather than the actual names of the tracks. Methylene 03:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I Think the only one capitalised is Blue Calx, also being the only one with an actual name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.204.208 ( talk) 06:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Lucid Dreaming my arse. This article repeats the press claims made by James (who admitted lying to sell more records to the guardian newspaper). It's quite obvious: SAW85-92: Invented acid house aged 14/master tapes survived a car crash. SAW II: Lucid Dreaming, RDJ album: dead twin brother, drukqs: Lost 300 songs on an mp3 player on an aeroplane. It looks good on press releases, and it sells more copies, but it probably shouldn't stay in the form it is now on the main page of an online encyclopedia. Joyrex 08:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
According to http://www.aphextwin.nu/learn/98136154898147.shtml , the "standing in a power station on acid" line came from an article written by David Toop in the March 1994 issue of The Face. As Joyrex noted though, Aphex Twin never tells the truth during interviews. Zoeb ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC).
"Standing in a powerstation on acid" isn't true or false, it's an opinion. Being that it's the opinion of the man that made the album that this article is about, I think it can safely stay on the article. As for the lucid dreaming, it is absolutely impossible to prove that, (unless there is some way that I'm not aware of to analyse dreams and R.E.M. via brainwaves,) so we can simply say that RDJ claims this. 222.152.181.35 ( talk) 09:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Image:Selected Ambient Works Volume II cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Is track 6 of the first CD called "mould", as stated, or "mold", as I see it referred to everywhere else? YellowFever 20:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Are these the correct track times? Mine seem to be off around 10 seconds for each track. Sloclops 13:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
So...does anyone actually own a vinyl copy? I have the chance to purchase either the limited edition brown pressing or the regular colour pressing, and since "[stone in focus]" means a lot to me, I'd like to know which pressing it can be found on before I purchase it. It should be the second track of four on the fifth side (the red one), and is the longest. I ask because discogs.com and Wikipedia say differently about its appearance on the regular edition. Thanks. -- 209.146.241.90 15:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
yes. you're not having it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.148.33 ( talk) 23:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I own the black vinyl version and it also has track E2 (Stone In Focus) included. Article changed today to reflect this. 74.69.71.242 ( talk) 17:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
After that this article should look a bit more up to scratch. Feel free to improve it as you see fit. Pasta of Muppets ( talk) 23:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
As this is the kind of page that people who love this album might visit, it is probably useful to mention here that the On Remixes EP from this era contains the "28 mix" which is most likely track 28 of the tracks considered for this album. Zoeb ( talk) 21:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm suggesting removing this list "Media featuring tracks from the album", for the following reasons:
This information has been removed and re-added twice with "simply remove the valid information outright and then force others to reinvent the wheel.)", which stating the above, is not the case since I can't find any notability or secondary sources discussing the music here being used in other articles. The second was that "some of it was cited.", which linked to a youtube video which makes it fail as a reliable source. If there is no further information to add, I'll remove this section in a few days. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 07:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You will not be removing any section in this article. I fully support a sprucing up of the section, including adding lacking citations, but outright removal is out of the question. 216.24.69.35 ( talk) 07:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The majority of this page lacks citations, unless you're removing all unsourced content (thereby nearly blanking the page) your point is moot as the article stands. 73.152.154.221 ( talk) 02:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Very well. By your definition, I will now remove uncited material on this article.
73.152.154.221 (
talk) 02:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
And it's done. If you'd like to readd those sections, please find and add sources for them appropriately as per WP:UNSOURCED. 73.152.154.221 ( talk) 02:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Richard, in his SYROBONKERS interview, included a lot of tracks to be embedded into the interview. One of these was a reversed orchestral cover of, what is technically, CD1 Track 3, titled "rhubarb orc. 19.53 rev". This was later re-released on his Soundcloud here. I think this is the first official acknowledgment of any of the fan titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.215.210 ( talk) 16:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey yall, would it be an issue if the tracklist was converted to a format like on drukQs ? It would be more legible to read this:
No. | Title | Length |
---|---|---|
1. | "Untitled" ("Cliffs") | 7:27 |
than this:
Title | Fan title | Length | Track number | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Download | UK CD | UK vinyl | UK cassette | US CD | Streaming | |||
Untitled | [cliffs] | 7:27 | 01 | 1-01 | A1 | A1 | 1-01 | #1 |
I suggest having the headers in this section to be 'Vinyl and Cassette pressings'; 'CD pressing' (with a note that "Hankie" is only on UK CD in the table's Notes field); and then 'aphextwin.warp.net Bonus Track' for that. The terrible US vinyl reissue can be mentioned underneath all tracklistings as a note. Again, way easier to read and organize, and it's already a standard across the rest of Wikipedia. Thoughts ?
Seems easier to read in the first example. I would also suggest that the tracks should not include fan titles, as these are not, as far as I know, in any way authorized. I find it a bit of an imposition. Putting them in a paragraph or section discussing their origin or linking out would be preferable. Spiralford ( talk) 16:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Davest3r08 ( talk · contribs) (now 🌙Eclipse ( talk) ( contribs)) 16:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Zmbro ( talk · contribs) 18:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
General notes
That's all for now. – zmbro ( talk) ( cont) 19:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Continued comments
That's all for now. – zmbro ( talk) ( cont) 15:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Selected Ambient Works Volume II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Selected Ambient Works Volume II was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 20, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Selected Ambient Works Volume II ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 4 April 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
MMBKG added to the article:
Indeed, after searching a dozen Web pages, it seems like this is the typical naming standard. Do you, or anyone else, happen to know why the track names are not usually capitalized? -- Rookkey 23:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
It is likely because the tracks on the album are not "titled" in the normal sense, but rather a picture represents each track on the album. Essentially the "titles" are descriptions of the representative pictures rather than the actual names of the tracks. Methylene 03:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I Think the only one capitalised is Blue Calx, also being the only one with an actual name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.204.208 ( talk) 06:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Lucid Dreaming my arse. This article repeats the press claims made by James (who admitted lying to sell more records to the guardian newspaper). It's quite obvious: SAW85-92: Invented acid house aged 14/master tapes survived a car crash. SAW II: Lucid Dreaming, RDJ album: dead twin brother, drukqs: Lost 300 songs on an mp3 player on an aeroplane. It looks good on press releases, and it sells more copies, but it probably shouldn't stay in the form it is now on the main page of an online encyclopedia. Joyrex 08:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
According to http://www.aphextwin.nu/learn/98136154898147.shtml , the "standing in a power station on acid" line came from an article written by David Toop in the March 1994 issue of The Face. As Joyrex noted though, Aphex Twin never tells the truth during interviews. Zoeb ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC).
"Standing in a powerstation on acid" isn't true or false, it's an opinion. Being that it's the opinion of the man that made the album that this article is about, I think it can safely stay on the article. As for the lucid dreaming, it is absolutely impossible to prove that, (unless there is some way that I'm not aware of to analyse dreams and R.E.M. via brainwaves,) so we can simply say that RDJ claims this. 222.152.181.35 ( talk) 09:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Image:Selected Ambient Works Volume II cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Is track 6 of the first CD called "mould", as stated, or "mold", as I see it referred to everywhere else? YellowFever 20:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Are these the correct track times? Mine seem to be off around 10 seconds for each track. Sloclops 13:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
So...does anyone actually own a vinyl copy? I have the chance to purchase either the limited edition brown pressing or the regular colour pressing, and since "[stone in focus]" means a lot to me, I'd like to know which pressing it can be found on before I purchase it. It should be the second track of four on the fifth side (the red one), and is the longest. I ask because discogs.com and Wikipedia say differently about its appearance on the regular edition. Thanks. -- 209.146.241.90 15:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
yes. you're not having it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.148.33 ( talk) 23:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I own the black vinyl version and it also has track E2 (Stone In Focus) included. Article changed today to reflect this. 74.69.71.242 ( talk) 17:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
After that this article should look a bit more up to scratch. Feel free to improve it as you see fit. Pasta of Muppets ( talk) 23:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
As this is the kind of page that people who love this album might visit, it is probably useful to mention here that the On Remixes EP from this era contains the "28 mix" which is most likely track 28 of the tracks considered for this album. Zoeb ( talk) 21:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm suggesting removing this list "Media featuring tracks from the album", for the following reasons:
This information has been removed and re-added twice with "simply remove the valid information outright and then force others to reinvent the wheel.)", which stating the above, is not the case since I can't find any notability or secondary sources discussing the music here being used in other articles. The second was that "some of it was cited.", which linked to a youtube video which makes it fail as a reliable source. If there is no further information to add, I'll remove this section in a few days. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 07:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You will not be removing any section in this article. I fully support a sprucing up of the section, including adding lacking citations, but outright removal is out of the question. 216.24.69.35 ( talk) 07:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The majority of this page lacks citations, unless you're removing all unsourced content (thereby nearly blanking the page) your point is moot as the article stands. 73.152.154.221 ( talk) 02:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Very well. By your definition, I will now remove uncited material on this article.
73.152.154.221 (
talk) 02:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
And it's done. If you'd like to readd those sections, please find and add sources for them appropriately as per WP:UNSOURCED. 73.152.154.221 ( talk) 02:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Richard, in his SYROBONKERS interview, included a lot of tracks to be embedded into the interview. One of these was a reversed orchestral cover of, what is technically, CD1 Track 3, titled "rhubarb orc. 19.53 rev". This was later re-released on his Soundcloud here. I think this is the first official acknowledgment of any of the fan titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.215.210 ( talk) 16:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey yall, would it be an issue if the tracklist was converted to a format like on drukQs ? It would be more legible to read this:
No. | Title | Length |
---|---|---|
1. | "Untitled" ("Cliffs") | 7:27 |
than this:
Title | Fan title | Length | Track number | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Download | UK CD | UK vinyl | UK cassette | US CD | Streaming | |||
Untitled | [cliffs] | 7:27 | 01 | 1-01 | A1 | A1 | 1-01 | #1 |
I suggest having the headers in this section to be 'Vinyl and Cassette pressings'; 'CD pressing' (with a note that "Hankie" is only on UK CD in the table's Notes field); and then 'aphextwin.warp.net Bonus Track' for that. The terrible US vinyl reissue can be mentioned underneath all tracklistings as a note. Again, way easier to read and organize, and it's already a standard across the rest of Wikipedia. Thoughts ?
Seems easier to read in the first example. I would also suggest that the tracks should not include fan titles, as these are not, as far as I know, in any way authorized. I find it a bit of an imposition. Putting them in a paragraph or section discussing their origin or linking out would be preferable. Spiralford ( talk) 16:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Davest3r08 ( talk · contribs) (now 🌙Eclipse ( talk) ( contribs)) 16:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Zmbro ( talk · contribs) 18:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
General notes
That's all for now. – zmbro ( talk) ( cont) 19:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Continued comments
That's all for now. – zmbro ( talk) ( cont) 15:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)