Talk:Hidden (These New Puritans album)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Alternative music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Review

please note that the observer in fact gave the album 5/5 - the '4/5' on the internet version is only for the yeasayer album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.222.233 (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence to back this up. We can only go on available sources. PRB88 (T) 17:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will do, thanks 86.178.222.233 (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RB88public or anyone else, would uploading the physical observer review to this page constitute evidence / a reference? or would that be illegal?86.178.222.233 (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the paper. It does say 5/5. PRB88 (T) 10:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead label

what is your source for the contention that "the contract is signed with angular"? thanks. james

It's everywhere. A 0.1 sec Google search finds this for example: [1] PRB88 (T) 19:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i can't see anything in this article that suggests that the album was released by angular before it was released by domino (see your edit summary where you refer to 'lead labels'. 86.178.222.233 (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about who released it first. It's about who the album is signed to. Same thing with Bloc Party and Wichita, for example. Atlantic may do it worldwide for them or even earlier but they have to get permission from the lead label. PRB88 (T) 19:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or The Strokes and RCA, with Rough Trade in UK, and BMG worldwide. Only RCA must be mentioned. PRB88 (T) 19:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is contrary to what i read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ALBUMS#Label. But in any case, it says on the album sleeve tgat the recording is licensed to Angular by Domino. What is your evidence to the contrary? 86.178.222.233 (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've obviously got an agenda here so this is my last post. You're misconstruing the guideline. I will take any changes as vandalism. PRB88 (T) 19:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline states that "Only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified". I was asking you to provide evidence that Angular is the "original" label. I accept that i have no reference but am confused as to why no reference is required for your contrary claim. My agenda is that the information is correct. 86.178.222.233 (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still no evidence that "the contract is signed with angular" (which is your stated reason for treating my edits as vandalism), only more obfuscation in the latest edit - domino's EU release (18 jan) ignored, use of the word 'distribute' instead of 'release' re japan and usa (ref?), and still no reference for angular being the 'lead label'. Open question: Would referencing the sleeve notes of Hidden (i.e. "P & C Domino Recording Co. Ltd. | Under exclusive licence in the UK to Angular Recording Corporation ") be treated as being self-referential? 86.178.222.233 (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Got in touch with the labels when I got to work this morning. It seems a joint contract was signed before Beat Pyramid, which makes this a sui generis case. Hence, both labels must be mentioned separated by a slash. PRB88 (T) 09:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fantastic. 86.178.222.233 (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

PRB88, could you please justify how The Boston Phoenix is a more important review than The Times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.224.34 (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to. Wikipedia has to give a worldview of subjects on top of a balanced average/coverage. We don't remove/change reviews if the 10 max limit has been achieved (like you did) unless the former two points are not covered. (It doesn't affect my decision making, but FYI, The Phoenix media group has probably more cultural clout for indie music than The Times ever had.) PRB88 (T) 17:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]