Talk:Orbital (1993 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

Electronic music Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Ewing, Tom (1999). "10 Years, 100 Albums, 1000 Words". Freaky Trigger. Archived from the original on April 16, 2000. Retrieved June 15, 2021. 87. Orbital - Orbital 2 (Prog-house's finest - only fine - hour: polite)

Steve Reich

Perhaps it should be mentioned that "Time Becomes" is pretty much an exact ripoff of "Come Out" by Steve Reich Westknife (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Album name

The correct name of this album is "Orbital 2" which you can verify by looking at the CD case, any retailer, and any discography. --Mperry 20:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is certainly not true. The name of this album is Orbital - the same as the first one. Triangle e 13:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence doesn't support your assertion. The album is listed as Orbital 2 at online stores[1][2] and general music review sites[3][4]. Although according to All Music Review, the second album is untitled[5]. This is also mentioned on the official Orbital web page when talking about the album where they say, "Known as Untitled II or Brown Album".[6] If we want to follow artist intent then this album might not be Orbital 2 but it also wouldn't be just Orbital either. But I don't think they care much as in the last FAQ question on the album page someone asks about Orbital 2 and they didn't bother to correct.[7] All Music Review ends up calling the album Orbital 2 as well, listing it in the discography as such[8] and going so far as to write a review with using that name[9]. Finally, on the spine of the case of my CD, which I bought only several months after the release of the album, it says "Orbital 2" (I can provide photos on request). I have a hard time believing that Orbital had enough creative control to include what they wanted for the inlay (see FAQ link above) but didn't have control over the text on the spine. --Mperry 18:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know in which country you live in or at what point you bought your copy of the album but the album, as it was originally released in the UK (where I am from) was just called Orbital - the same title as the first one. I own the original album, as bought at the time, and it is definitely the case that it was called Orbital. Whether, subsequently it was renamed Orbital 2 in other countries around the world to avoid confusion with the first album I do not know, but the original release of this album WAS called Orbital. It is referred to as The Brown Album and Orbital 2 in other publications to avoid confusion - but that does not detract from the fact that the album is still called Orbital. Triangle e 21:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My copy was purchased in the US. As I already stated, I bought my copy several months after the original release in 1993. Please provide references for your claims. --Mperry 00:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two major chart statistic books in the UK: [10] and [11]. Both of these are highly accurate and list the albums with their correct titles. I have a book by All Music called "The All Music Guide to Electronica" and it's riddled with mistakes throughout so I don't trust any of their publications. Triangle e 01:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British band; British album name should be used. And that name is Orbital. --kingboyk (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not very happy about this article being titled Orbital 2 - that was the title of the album in the US, but in every other country where it was released, it was untitled (like the debut album), and therefore in my opinion the article name should follow the naming pattern of the first Orbital album or the first four similarly untitled/eponymous Peter Gabriel albums and be called Orbital (1993 album). However, the second paragraph of WP:COMMONNAME states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". And as most reliable sources tend to be American-based, Orbital 2 is the name that occurs most frequently on search engines. I'm debating whether to open up a request move debate on the subject. Richard3120 (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More

Will add more to this page soon, just spruced it up a bit in the meantime. Added more reviews etc. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 16:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album title

Just bringing up the title again. The album still appears to have never had an official title. No where on it does it say Orbital 2. Amazon can call it that all they want, but even the music press doesn't acknowledge it then (Select refers to it as "the new Orbital LP (and we'll have to call it that, because it's not called 'Orbital', 'Orbital 2' or even 'CD'/'LP'/'MC' like their first one was)" while Mojo in 2007 noted that it has "no official title, but fans have dubbed it "The Brown Album"". Loopz says it's either called "Untitled II" or "The Brown Album". I'm happy to move the article to a different title, but I would like input from others as "Orbital 2" is not correct. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas, please see my post above from April 2013. As a Brit I would dearly love this article to be retitled Orbital (brown album) or something similar, but the fact is that the album WAS called Orbital 2 in the USA – you can check this on Discogs or Amazon USA... not on the front cover but on the spine of the CD. And according to WP:COMMONNAME the article title should be the one most commonly used in searches. This probably means that Orbital 2 would come out ahead of any other search name, due to the overwhelming bias to the US owing to population and such. You are correct though, in the rest of the world the album was untitled, like the first one – the official press release from Orbital's record label states that the album is untitled. This is why Select and Mojo (both British publications) describe it as such. My personal preference would be to see this article and the first album retitled as Orbital (green album) and Orbital (brown album), but we'd need a discussion about it. Richard3120 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do we find out the most common name? We shouldn't use discogs as a source as it's all user submitted information. The album was more popular in the UK (charting at #1) and didn't even chart in the US. Why are we using the American name for a British album?

Looking at the sleeves of the UK release hereand the US one here, i can see it's called 2, but I think we should probably change the name and have the lead say something like "released as Orbital 2 in the United States" or something.Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am in complete agreement with you on all counts – I wasn't suggesting using Discogs as a source for citations, just as a web page where you can actually see that it was titled Orbital 2 for the US release. I would wholeheartedly support your suggestion of a name change, it's just that looking at the discussion above, it seems like there would be US Wikipedia users who would contest this, hence my wanting to tread carefully and get a consensus on this. Richard3120 (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards the move to "Orbital (1993 album)" or something as that's it's original title and I rarely hear about it being described as Orbital 2 outside this article. If there are no real further objections, I'll go forward with the move later. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Orbital (1993 album) looks like the most sensible title to rename this article to, particularly as the article for their first album is Orbital (1991 album) so the naming would be consistent. Richard3120 (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very good with this! Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's nearly been a year with no real consensus to name the album anything other than what I mentioned previously, I will move this article now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Input translation, output rotation

The speech sample on "Input Out" is of an Open University television presenter in 1989 explaining the principle of a slider-crank linkage. (Program details; copy on YouTube.) I can't add this to the article as it's original research on my part, but if a reliable source ever publishes that, you heard it here first. — Scott • talk 15:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]