Talk:Radiohead/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Bear graphic

Link to: historical moment of this article with the bear image to which I here shall write.

The bear graphic was removed quickly under the heading "collaborations." It is a small image, it has visual impact and is not only both informative and representative of Stanley Donwood's work for the band (appropriate for this heading "collaborations"), but it is a commonly identified icon strongly associated with the band as well. The reason for removal was "superfluous." Is this because it is not a genuine artisic collaboration? The subject matter of the text is not limited as such. Is the image genuinely superfluous to the article? If not, might there be other important reasons to keep it off of the article? - Steve3849 ^talk 22:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

An image very similar to the current one being discussed was once on the article; however while it is and was informative, a convincing fair use rationale could not be created for it, so it was scrapped. ErleGrey 22:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I suspected. Sorry about the bother. - Steve3849 ^talk 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject collaboration

All right, I just finished a thorough copyedit of the article. Aside from the issue of me not being British (articles on British subject use British grammar) we should have no major problems with the prose. Now, I think we're close to making this article featured, but we need to take care of these things first:

• All references need to be properly formatted. This is arguably the main issue, judging by the last FA nomination.
• I'd really like to see some of the books listed cited in the article, or, if the editors on this page have read them, at least explain why they are not used to cite the article. If no one has read the books, I can borrow a copy of Exit Music from my university library.
• Some of the details about the albums since OK Computer can probably be moved to their individual album pages, or if applicable, to the "Musical style" section.
• As for the "Musical style" section, I think it would be fine the way it is for a book, but for an encyclopedia article it should be more ordered. Maybe start by discussing band member roles, then influences and changes and style, then influence on other groups, or some simliar outline.
• Are there any other notable aspects of Radiohead such as music videos, tours, themes, and references in pop culture that can be discussed in-depth? If so, we can create new sections. See Pixies and The Smashing Pumpkins for examples.

That's what I think should be done. Any thoughts? WesleyDodds 07:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(removed comment) 172.132.243.101 07:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

These books with "More complex analysis and interpretation" would be great sources for the article. Plus books have ISBN numbers, which allow you to track down different editions of books easier. Unfortunately, links to fan archives of articles isn't necessarily sound copyright. I imagine the magazines and/or writers still own the rights to those articles. Plus, unless they are direct scans of the articles, their veracity is not the most reliable. Those citations must not link to sites violating copyright; list the sources as you would the original magazine article. That's just how it works. As for hard copies of articles, NME not too long ago put out a collection of article reprints. Can anyone get their hands on it? WesleyDodds 12:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

comment 172.132.243.101 07:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My general point is that citing websites, books, and magazine articles, as well as not linking to material that violates copyright, is simply Wikipedia policy. I understand the difficulty in researching old magazine articles (which is why I was delighted to get thos NME collections on Britpop and goth), but that's just how we cite references. Say Jonny Greenwood mentioned that, oh, Jim Croce was a big influence on "Paranoid Android". We need to know what the original source of that quote is and/or a reliable source stating he said that quote. We don't necessarily need a link to a reproduction of the original source. WesleyDodds 13:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(removed comment) 172.130.215.123 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to insult anyone; in fact I like looking up material on fansites. It's just that there is a difference between an interview with Thom Yorke and a fansite typing up a transcription of that interview. Chances are the transcriber took great care to reproduce the article, but we don't need to be able to read a reproduction of the text. We need verification of the original source via a citation. WesleyDodds 13:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(removed comment) 172.130.215.123 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as reliable sources discuss these aspects, they are notable for inclusion in the article and help add to a comprehensive study of the subject. Obviously we don't want to add random trivia, but Radiohead did appear in South Park, didn't they? That's certainly worth noting. WesleyDodds 12:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is what do you discuss about them, do you put in your interpretation of a video or song and then try to find reviewers or academic analysts that agreed with you in their review or thesis on Radiohead? That kind of thing doesn't seem appropriate for this at all. You are aware how many Radiohead fans there are on the internet who would just love to add their own ideas on every lyric or video to the article if we had such sections, right? As soon as someone starts a section on Lyrics, the article is doomed for at least a year. ;)

You cite the analysis by reliable sources. If random Radiohead fan puts in their own random interpretation, just remove it. WesleyDodds 13:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Read that book please and then get back to me. It's a "reliable" source, but the thing is, it's not the type of information that is considered "notable" for an article on a pop band. Your replies indicate you don't understand the situation or the intent of books like that.

I don't understand the intent of books like that. All I need to know is that someone read the book and found it was not a usable source, because, y'know, I haven't read it. WesleyDodds 13:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand the intent? Well that explains it. The intent was to present Radiohead in terms that you most likely wouldn't understand, and neither would most of the readers of this article, without more background in that area. Check out some postmodern philosophy and structuralism related articles. If we were to summarize the "findings" of these essays, it would read like that. I am not saying ALL the material in the book is irrelevant- some of it might provide an appropriate citation for one or two sentences in the article (for example, if you needed a citation that Radiohead was seen to have "themes of modern alienation", that book might work, as would innumerable reviews of the band). But a lot of it analyzes Radiohead in ways that don't have relevance to a general encyclopedia article on Radiohead. The book is linked as "further reading" from the page (like the fansites used to be), so that anyone who is interested can read it themselves and see what they think of the various interpretations. (yes, I did read it.) 172.130.215.123 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Basic overview of themes is adequate for the main article. See Slayer. As you said, specifics can be detailed on the album pages. WesleyDodds 13:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you do a basic NPOV overview of what a band means, that's what I want to know. I agree there is little context for their lyrics given on this page and there might be a way to mention it briefly- but it would still be a bad idea, in my opinion, because despite strict editing intentions, the page would eventually go downhill as more and more unnecessary information got added ("reliable" sources can be found for anything. then counter-sources and counter-paragraphs), and away from being close to featured quality. Again, I have not seen this focus on any other pages.

Re: Slayer, that information is actually far more notable on their page because the main fame of Slayer comes from criticism of their supposed message, and blaming them for current events. The Slayer page cannot avoid the issue of addressing their lyrics and citing what detractors and supporters said, and the band's own beliefs. This page CAN avoid it- we already say enough in the brief mentions throughout the article. For most bands the subject of their songs is only worth a passing mention, which we get in the history section here, in the appropriate chronological context (because of course, their lyric style changed, just like the music).

I feel actually what's more lacking, is much mention of Radiohead's "activism" for lack of a better word, their documented (non subjective) participation in certain events or causes, whereas when you go to articles like U2 and Coldplay (who are admittedly a bit more show offy about it as bands) it's up there in the first sentence, making it appear that all their music is in expression of these causes as well (I don't think it would be appropriate in the intro of this article, though). that's partly because when the section on current seventh album recording sessions was removed and spun off into its own article, it also removed the mention of some other things they have done as a band since 2004, i.e. their contribution to a second War Child compilation, which should eventually go back into the 2005-present area. 172.130.215.123 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As for South Park, yes they did appear on it as a main part of the plot (didn't do their own voices though, apparently). It's worth noting, but not any more so than the fact that Radiohead got sampled by x song, toured with x bands, opened for x bands, or that their songs appeared in x films, or that their albums- specifically OK Computer- very frequently appear on critics' lists. All these were deleted when the small trivia section was removed. If you can find a way to incorporate them back into the text, fine. They are on the trivia page now along with a bit of other information that has more direct bearing on the subject of the article than South Park. If anything, the information found in the old (quite concise and relevant) trivia section that has now been spun-off to a new article (where it will no doubt quickly acquire irrelevant data), should be added back to this article wherever it best fits. 172.130.215.123 12:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a set format for music articles, and personally I found big problems with the Pumpkins article despite its featured status- it had way too many (unapproved) images and clutter, and unnecessary sections verging on original research. Sadly due to the Radiohead article's more responsible adherence to copyrights, the main thing missing from this article besides what was removed to trivia, is any graphical representation of the band, i.e. the album covers or Donwood's artwork, because this is how they choose to represent themselves. I don't really understand why a case can't be made to allow a single image of an album cover or any other artwork, in the section describing band Collaborators, when other articles flagrantly violate the rule and get featured, but whatever. 172.132.243.101 07:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images can be included if they are discussed in the text. That's why the images in The Smashing Pumpkins are there (I should know; I'm the one who brought it up to FA standard and submitted it to FAC and had to deal with all the image discussions. Sorry you don't like it :) Obviously you don't want to included a lot of fair use media, but if a copyrighted Radiohead image is worth commenting on in the text, then it falls under fair use. WesleyDodds 12:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's naive, I've seen these debates before. It doesn't matter how much the image is referenced in the text, it will still be removed by the anti-image people trying to protect Wikipedia from lawsuits that will never happen. We had the album covers visible in the disography section toward the bottom of the page, with a caption explaining their context as artwork done by Donwood and Yorke- removed! We had a tiny image of the Kid A bear logo Donwood designed, placed next to the text that explains Donwood's graphics work with the band- removed!

Yes, some editors are stricter than others when it comes to fair use. However, fair use does have a role on Wikipedia. If there is a suitable fair use rationale and it's integral to understanding a point, an argument can be made for that fair use media to stay. Why do you think there's soundclips (by the way, the soundclip descriptions do a great job of explaining why they are necessary)? WesleyDodds 13:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, discuss the musical traits when necessary in the biography. However, much can be achieved with a separate section that analyzes a band's musical style and influence. Such sections are now almost expected of music articles (and they very well should be, since we're dealing with the subject of music). WesleyDodds 12:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You cite the analysis of others. WesleyDodds 13:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Which others?

This is why that often-deleted text in the "formation and first years" section on Radiohead not being part of shoegaze, is very important to note in the article I think. They were from the area where the scene was, and shared the producers of the scene, but they weren't considered part of it, and their influences were different. Also they were the furthest thing from an American grunge band, but their influences were similar, and they may have come out just at the right time with a song like "Creep". With Britpop, they were not considered part of that, even though they rode the wave a bit. OK Computer to Kid A was yet another rock band "going electronic" but again their influences were far different from other bands that did that at the time (not club dance music), and jazz was almost as much of an influence, also Krautrock bands and modern composers, etc.

This article does hint at some stuff about what Radiohead's influence has been as far as music and also lyrics (not just the paragraph in that section, but phrases like "themes of modern alienation" in the intro, mention of press comparison between early Radiohead and Nirvana, the quote from Yorke about touring the third world, mention of No Logo and tent tour in Kid A section, mention of politics of Hail to the Thief), but if you start whole sections on Radiohead's "sound" or "meaning", fans will come in and destroy the page with unencylopedic bullshit. 172.130.215.123 12:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So? There's always going to be unencyclopedic edits by well-meaning fans. You clean up the bullshit afterwards. WesleyDodds 13:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately it comes down to this: if the books are not adequate sources, fine, as long as someone who's read them makes that clear here on the talk page, because it did come up in the last FAC. And those links to scanned or transcribed articles on fansites will have to go; references should reflect the original magazine sources. WesleyDodds 13:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If that's being done for legal reasons, it makes sense, although of course will reduce the quality of this encyclopedia for readers who can no longer cross reference the originals. Otherwise, if there's just some "rule" that the worst print source is better than the best online source, it kinda signifies that Wikipedia has fallen into the trap of believing in its own inferiority and pretending to be a print encyclopedia. The flaws of Wikipedia will still remain in such a case- it'll never have the guaranteed editorial oversight, stability, consistent formatting and writing style of print encyclopedias- and it'll only become useless over time, if it accords innate superiority to print sources and tries to ignore the fact that media has changed and that it is a part of this. 172.130.215.123 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's always been been the citation format of Wikipedia. After all, that's what books and journals have used for decades. It's a standard. Personally I don't see the problem with it, plus I'm quite accustomed to it having studied both English and History in college. WesleyDodds 23:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about formal citation format and use of citations, of whose importance I'm familiar with (of course Wikipedia should use them!) but about automatically trusting certain sources over others simply because said sources appear in print.

Yes, if we have a claim in a serious academic discipline, a website is usually not advisable as a source, unless it's an official site of a noted authority. But my point is that pop music history, unlike history (or literary history) is written in cheap magazines, cheap TV and radio interviews, and increasingly in websites, from moment to moment, and books mostly come later and try to sum up what happened- and the good ones on Radiohead are just now beginning to be written, see? It took 25 years after post-punk before Simon Reynolds published Rip It Up and Start Again. Pop culture articles ARE held to different standards- that is a policy of Wikipedia. We should cite the primary sources where possible, whether or not we want to include links to unofficial websites that archive them. 172.132.243.101 23:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that proper citations are necessary in all articles, regardless of topic. I'm not debating the reference material. Pop culture articles rely on different sorts of references, but they are not held to different citation standards. I must note I've cited both magazine articles and Reynolds' post-punk book in Wikipedia articles using Wiki citation guidelines on a number of occasions. WesleyDodds 03:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you are talking about when you say "citation guidelines" and why the article didn't pass for featured. Do you mean the FORMAT of each citation was not consistent and correct, or do you mean the fact that some citations had links to copyrighted material not approved by original owners... or do you mean the appropriateness of the actual sources themselves, as justification for the claims?

Because I see the potential issue with the first two problems. I thought you were arguing that the third (the use of Internet linked magazine sources rather than books) was the main problem. Yes, some of the sources for claims could be improved- I'm working on it right now- but it mostly has nothing to do with the fact of whether they're Internet linked sources or not. We want to cite authoritative sources. As I keep trying to explain to you, but you obviously haven't checked out the books yet and don't realize, many of those books on Radiohead are actually less authoritative within the music world than a magazine article or interview written at the time, which the books draw from, often in a sloppy way compared to the original articles, and including some wrong facts as well as the author's own opinions, which have no more claim to being fact because they appeared in a book rather than in some newspaper or even website (again, we're NOT talking about Reynolds quality books here, for the Radiohead histories, not yet). That's what I'm saying. The issue of whether the sources appear on the Internet is getting confused with that.

It's not useful at all for readers of an Internet encyclopedia to cite for them page whatever of whatever poor quality book which was not the original source for that claim anyway. The express purpose of citations is to allow readers and other editors to easily check our level of accuracy, or to find more information on the subject. Like I said before, if worst comes to worst we can always remove all the questionable links but retain the citation to the original reputable source- which as article editors, we either found through our own copy of the magazine, or from a library source, or perhaps (by far most conveniently) from the full text reprinted in one of these online links we would remove.

The point is if as an editor you don't trust that transcribed text or you have some odd sense of guilt about reading articles that aren't even commercially available anymore, you CAN always go out and waste your money on an NME collection that might have one or two things of relevance if you spend 1000s of hours looking through it, and find the same articles there. Articles from magazines/newspapers are good sources by any definition. Even articles originally from websites are great sources for events or claims that originated on the web or are too recent to be included in any books- that describes a good part of this article. 172.132.243.101 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Sorry but I don't see how this improved the history section. I didn't have a chance to read the whole thing over again, and I'm not going to get into changing things back too much, but why for example was the mention of the poor sales of the Drill EP removed, just to give one example, and irrelevant quotes from Radiohead's former music teacher at Abingdon added in? How does this bring the article closer to featured status? I would say whoever made those changes doesn't have much conception what information is relevant or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.130.215.123 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

About the recent additions of references to the article- it's best to standardize them in the {{cite web}} template. An easy way is to use this page. ErleGrey 19:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I may look into that after I add the references. I'm not familiar with that template yet, but it seems it will be quite easy to do it afterward. Now will someone please stop removing the sentence about Radiohead's first gig being at the Jericho Tavern in 1986. If any sentence in that "Formation..." section is relevant, it's that one. Of course, it does need a good citation (but that's not why it was removed, as it did have one before!). 172.132.243.101 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

5 simple rules of British spelling... from a non-Brit

• US and UK, not U.S. and U.K.
• favourite colour to see while travelling, not favorite color to see while traveling
• band members, not bandmembers (actually I think this is just a rule of English, period- oh sorry, full stop)
• The best Radiohead albums are The Bends, OK Computer and Kid A. Not: The best Radiohead albums are The Bends, OK Computer, and Kid A.
• I hate "Creep", but I love "Anyone Can Play Guitar". Not: I hate "Creep," but I love "Anyone Can Play Guitar." (However, Wikipedia does use double quotes for quotations and song titles, in line with American usage)

Anyone else have any more to standardize the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.132.243.101 (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Another simple rule - “standardise” - Kudasai 16:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Second peer review

I suggest that this article be put up for a second peer review. I was the only one to respond to the first one, so more eyes and voices would be helpful. Probably not now (Peer Review is somewhat backed up at the moment); maybe in a week. I can also use that time to contact users who would be very helpful reviewers. WesleyDodds 09:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a lot of overzealous and crufty edits that have ruined and bloated this article. FA is, more than ever, a distant and near-impossible goal. 71.170.30.9 18:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, this article looks very close to featured status.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

F-ed up citations, entire paragraphs without cites, badly written style and songwriting section...add to that an album coming out within the year-yes, this article will never reach FA, in large part because nobody (myself included) gives a shit. 71.170.157.141 00:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I count at least three people who do care. And I've seen much worse articles get fixed up and pass at FAC. What it takes is concentrated effort. If no one objects I'll put the article up for another peer review myself. WesleyDodds 12:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

FA pass

I think there are three major things that need to be done to get this page up to FA.

1. Citations-many complete paragraphs lack them.
2. Citation standardization-include all information, especially publisher. This destroyed the last FA attempt. I posted a convenient link to create an acceptable citation somewhere on this page.
3. Copyedit.

If some people could do this, (that's not to say I won't, but it's a pain to be the only one) this article would surely reach FA. 71.170.157.89 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll help... eventually. –Pomte 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Well, if anyone's interested, this is the "quick" citation page. 71.170.157.89 22:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Radiohead style and songwriting

Might I say that this section is a little bit over the top. We might play as some elitists bastards that understand and appreciate "difficult" music and say that Radiohead are very good band that are trying to be as different as possible, but this is too much even for me. Elitist bullshit is what I call this. And the article has seen a lot and some guy Pomte that claims it is essential. Don't see much essense in this really. I can only see overburdensome information that is staggering the article. The only place I can think about is a seperate article at which I also look with scorn and pessimism. So, really the article doesn't need such a section. Not to mention it is too fucking big for it. 65 KB is too much and we have some guidelines about size. So, let's get it back to where it belongs. In a seperate article and in seperate section. Needless to say, Radiohead themselves would look on such bullshit with scorn. They don't think of them as some elitist torchbearers. They don't give a shit. Should we too? Get over yourselves.

Regards: Painbearer 10:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reword of my reply at my talk page:

The essence is its encyclopedic quality. In any encyclopedia or general knowledge article of a band or an artist or any sort of act, you expect to see facts about its inspiration, characteristics, development, reception and impact on others. These are what assert notability of the subject. Don't get me wrong, I could live without all the critcal reviews, interviews, and bandwagon opinions, but they exist as verifiable reliable sources, which happen to follow Wikipedia policy, so it isn't anyone's duty to maintain Radiohead's integrity and fork all of them just because it an elitist anti-elitist thing to do.

If you think the section is written in an elitist tone, improve it. I think elitism deals more with tone than content. What you think the band thinks has absolutely nothing with this article's content. If the article is getting staggered as in repetitive or overly indiscriminate, then remove the repeated or trivial content. 65kb isn't that much in today's standards and there is a lot of wikimarkup in the article that doesn't contribute to any actual content (infobox, citations, categories, interwiki links). See Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Article series for a way to go about it. Deleting the entire section outright with zero summary gives undue weight to the huge history section. –Pomte 11:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How is this section elitist? I might even go to the opposite extreme and say that it's too listy and needs a bit of a rewrite and compressing. Anyway, it does need to be on this page, and I would suggest that if you really want to help with this article, you might want to aid with reference fixing and cleanup of sections like this one, rather than doing the bs/"minor" edits that seem to riddle your user contribution list. 71.244.23.242 16:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your choice. I do not intend to do anymore work on this particular bullshit. The article will be best if the section doesn't exist at all, but it's not me to decide it. It's over the top, it's elitist and it's overburdensome. I don't think it's place is there at all.

Regards: Painbearer 06:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sections about a band's style are pretty much de rigeur now for Wiki music articles; it would be a bit silly if all we provided was biography and nothing about artistic traits. As for being "elitist" . . . there may be point there in respect to the section's tone, but we should have more input on that from others. WesleyDodds 10:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's elitest, but I think it would definitely benefit from being re-written in a more economical and cogent manner, and I wander whether there is anything in this section that wouldn't be more sensibly placed within the History section. Look at the Pink Floyd article for example, where the changing sound and roles of the band are described within the chronological framework of the band history. That is more readable and coherent than reading about the band's history and then afterward reading about their "Style and Songwriting" as if these developed in some other, disconnected timeline.Blibbka 11:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Template

I have added 3 EPs to the Radiohead template that I discovered on the Stanley Donwood article. They are: Just for College, The Bends Pinkpop and Amnesiac College EP I hope this okay, as I'm fairly new here and as such am still pretty unsure about how to do things around here... The individual articles are pretty bad stubs and I thought if they were added to the template they would get some needed attention. I personally didn't even know these releases existed so I can't really add anything to them o_0. Peace

Franz T. Speeling 06:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work trying to improve the template. Unfortunately I think those particular changes are best removed, though... because I know all three releases were EXTREMELY limited- The Bends Pinkpop was at least commercially available in ONE or two countries, to promote a concert appearance, but the others were just promos sent out to a very few (college) radio stations in one country maybe, and Amnesiac EP only had four songs that were on Amnesiac anyway, to promote it. It's just pointless to list them among the other EPs that feature distinct material, and will confuse people. They should be on a complete discography page, however.

If there is an improvement that can be made in the template, to make it more complete, it might be to list under the singles, the "promos" Radiohead has released (i.e. the radio only singles, or the limited singles), since these are songs many radio listeners may remember them for- "Optimistic" got more radio play than many of their actual singles. "The Bends", the song, was also a promo, thus it was heard on the radio in some countries. Others, off the top of my head: "Bones" (promo and single in a couple of countries maybe), "Let Down" (promo, radio single some countries maybe), "Climbing Up the Walls" (limited single for the purpose of remixes), "Optimistic", "Idioteque", "Everything In Its Right Place" and either "The National Anthem" or "How to Disappear Completely" (I don't remember, but at least half of Kid A was put out as "promos" just in case anyone wanted to play it on the radio), "I Might Be Wrong" (US only radio single, at the time Amnesiac came out), and "Punch Up at a Wedding" (promo, spring 2004). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.144.187.160 (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Trivia

I've slapped a trivia tag on the Radiohead trivia page, I'm guessing it was sectioned off this article. WP:TRIV details that Trivia sections should be integrated into the article thus the content of that page should either be integrated into the relevent Radiohead articles or dispensed of if it cannot be. See also WP:HTRIVIA. Thanks. - JVG 03:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute over sales figures

There appears to be some disagreement about the sales figures in the lead section. Please don't turn this into an edit war, as it harms the credibility of the article, and could in fact end up with it losing featured article status. Please remember the 3 revert rule, and discuss your views here rather than reverting the article. Thanks Papa November (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, no one seems to be discussing this but the edit war is continuing. Seriously, we need to discuss the issue and stop simply reverting. The featured article criteria state that "it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." This means that the article could quite reasonably be demoted from its featured article status as a result of the edit war. If no one contributes to this discussion, or we can't form a consensus, then I'm going to have to take this down the long, tedious route of dispute resolution, which seems ridiculous for such a minor point of contention!

So, here goes... The question is whether the lead section should state

1. "The band have sold over 25 million albums as of 2007" or
2. "Their first six albums had sold over 25 million copies as of 2007".

Don't just vote, please explain your decision, and try to build consensus. Papa November (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Option 1: I have a weak preference for this option for the following reasons:
  • It is phrased more clearly and simply and improves the readability of the lead section. It would be better grammatically to say "by the end of 2007" in option 2. "As of" implies an ongoing situation, which suits the perfect tense rather than the pluperfect.
  • Option 2 contains slightly redundant information. The simple fact is that the band had sold at least 25 million albums. Sure, the number would be higher than this when In Rainbows is included, but the statement is still true. Papa November (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Papa November, for the reasons he gave (I obviously won't waste my time and yours by repeating them), as well as the fact that it is more in line with what the source says. faithless (^speak) 08:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) Unfortunately, it seems like people want to start a silly edit war over this again. I really fail to see why it is raising so much passion. Please remember that if you continue to revert the article without discussion, it could be delisted as a featured article. My current feelings about this are

1. Stating sales figures in units of millions is not particularly useful to the reader. 25 or 30 (or 100) million records simply translates to the reader as "lots". Based on this, is it actually helpful to estimate the sales figures? Surely stating something like "Radiohead have achived x platinum records in the UK" would be more useful
2. Stating that the band have sold 30 million records relies on the editor adding two separate sales figures. That counts as original research, even if it's a simple task. It's better just to use the figures directly from the sources.
3. Would the article really be missing anything if the sales figures were removed entirely from the lead? The band's notability is established much more successfully by referring to awards, critical acclaim etc. Papa November (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think the figures need to remain in some form, so I'll answer your third point first. Radiohead have of course got the critical acclaim. However, lots of bands have their admirers, some bands have also had equal (or even, greater) radio play than Radiohead, and still not sold anywhere near what Radiohead have in total through their career. As a result of this, I've run into many people who think of Radiohead as a small band or only a critics' favorite because they haven't heard lots of their songs on radio- but it turns out in Radiohead's case the popularity is driven by large album sales to a large international fanbase. So the hard sales numbers are informative, not a repetition of the facts about critical acclaim. Other featured articles for long-lasting bands, such as U2, also include sales data in the lead. Sales do not argue for or against the subject of the article, in fact they give the most objective possible idea of the subject's notability, right at the start. For Radiohead the information is especially useful because this is not a band (or a genre- alternative rock) where the musicians or fans spend time bragging over their own sales numbers, unlike some types of music. So magazine coverage about Radiohead and alt-rock and indie-rock bands tend never to focus on the numbers, thus the number will be unknown to most readers, but sales figures *are* available, and from our encyclopedic standpoint in looking at music, it's highly notable. Awards and acclaim can also be very notable, especially for this band, but those things are always more arguable than sales, and that's one reason to include sales, even if the sales aren't the most important thing to the way Radiohead and their fans like to define themselves.

• If it's original research to add two numbers together, maybe the best we can do is go with the lower estimate that doesn't require us to add anything, but we must be sure to date it properly and say "more than" or "at least" (i.e. "more than 25 million records as of 2007"). Even our calculated 2008 figure of 30 mil is probably several million smaller than it should be, since it only adds In Rainbows retail sales from 2008 to the first-six-albums total from 2007 and before, not including the unknown number (millions, according to one source) "pay what you want" downloads of IR in late 2007, and not including retail sales of any other Radiohead albums in 2008, including the new best-of compilation. For that matter, it's possible this record sales number doesn't include single or EP sales either. What we can hope is that sooner rather than later, some article will appear with a single, up to date sales number (hopefully not ripped from Wikipedia itself and then regurgitated in a citable publication as now-not-quite-original-research). Until then we need to do the best we can with the numbers we have, but we can't get rid of the number altogether.

• Ok, as to your first issue- it's a thoughtful point and it's true that big numbers just get read by most people as "another big number", but that shouldn't make a difference in how articles are written (as long as the article isn't SOLELY focused on the statistics, which no one could accuse this of being). Articles exist to store notable information as clearly and concisely as possible, whether or not every reader is able to process the meaning of all the information. Couldn't a reader go to the article on World War I or Cambodian genocide or something and read it, feel dizzy, complain, this number of casualties is so so so huge, and there's even vastly different figures for it, how can we even understand the number, why list it? But a number of dead is notable in history, even if we can't easily grasp it. And sales are notable in pop music. A sales number also has its meaning for people who know other sales numbers to compare it to, even if it has no meaning for people who don't. This article is on a music industry-related topic, so the number should be there, if we have a good source for it. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Style and Influences section

Ok, let's have a clean start. In my opinion the main article of Radiohead is becoming overlong and superfluous. That's the reason I moved the entire chunk of Style and Songwriting into a seperate article. User:70.21.58.96 disagree. I say that it is up to users to decide the fate of Style and Songwriting article. In my opinion, the main article is better as a redirection. I repeat: I am not deletionist, nor inclusionist. I am exclusionist and darwikinist and my main priority is to make Radiohead article a better one. If it can be done with less information - then I'm up for it. If you say no, I will respect your opinion and will not interfere in this way on the project again. I respect first and foremost the opinion of all the established editors, who had done work on Radiohead. I just did what I considered right, I decided to be BOLD and refer the section as Setindex to a standalone article. If you disagree, then ok, I won't do it. But this is my opinion and I am standing behind it. I will respect yours as it is a collaborative project. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it should stay in the article. I think it's good to have info on a band other than their history. If it gets huge then we can move some of it off to another article, but not the whole freaking thing. Zazaban (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zazaban. I don't think there are any other band articles with a whole separate article about their style, save for maybe The Beatles. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but there are good reasons why there aren't whole articles for a band's style. If anything, I could see an article for History of Radiohead (again, I'm thinking History of The Beatles) that would be an expanded history compared to what's there now, but I don't think the style section couldn't ever get long enough to justify its own article. And the main Radiohead article itself isn't even so bloated that it justifies splitting itself off yet anyway. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose split. The style is integral to the reader's understanding of the band, and the article would be incomplete without some discussion of it. The content that was split off was far too important to this article to remove in its entirety. I also don't think the article is long enough to require a split. If consensus decides that a split is appropriate, then we have to at least keep a strong summary section here - the previous attempt at a summary wasn't well referenced, and read in a rather POV manner. Finally, we already have {{Radiohead}} as an index for Radiohead related material. The main article should contain lots of descriptive text providing a sound overview of the band and their career, rather than just acting as a links page. Papa November (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose split There are some sizable musical style sections in other articles I can think of that aren't split off. The main problem here I feel is that the prose in the section could be more concise. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment If you want to reduce the rambling nature of the Influences section cut out that big list of bands influenced by Radiohead. Instead, if possible, include a quote or two from artists/critics about how they have influenced acts from a wide variety of genres. indopug (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. While I don't think splitting the article will do any good, the section definitely needs trimming. It's monstrous. While Radiohead is written about frequently, there's no need to attack the reader with an onslaught of text; it feels like overkill, if you ask me. NSR77 ^T 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree The style and influence section is bloated and doesn't read well. The entire article could do with a fair bit of trimming, but the SAI section needs it the most. The edits that Mad Hatter made gave the article a more professional look, and although RHs influences are wide and varied, a simple mention of some of the more obvious ones and a simple section of the bands style from OKC through to Amnesiac is more than enough. --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did some stuff. I decided to be BOLD and delete some superfluous and monstrous info as you pointed out. I think the section works better this way and better without sub-sections. I hope you will like. I still think it needs work, but it's a start. I find it better and well structured than before. I did what I considered right. You are right, the article needs it, but as you said it is just overkill. I do my best. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Cut

Before someone reverts me. The info I deleted was discussed by several members, including me, NSR77 and A Chain Of Flowers. It wasn't passed without discussion, so please for the love of god don't revert edits that were made in GF and reverting without discussion. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you discuss something, perhaps you should put in on the talk page were other people can see it? Zazaban (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was suggestion that was passed between. In fact I was complimented by A Chain of Flowers for my work. I suggest we put a protection on Radiohead, so that it cannot be edited by unexperienced or unsigned users. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we actually discuss it on the talk page where everyone can see it. Only talking amongst yourselves would cut out any competing opinions. Zazaban (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My idea is that the section was completely unruly. It was getting out of hand and was way too big. The Mad Hatter did a nice job of cleaning things up and making it more concise and I fully support his actions. NSR77 ^T 01:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Mad Hatters edits made the article much more reader friendly, and less of an obsessive fans digest. Not every single part needs thorough explaining, even if it was a featured article --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point, it's not that I disagree with as much as the principle of how consensus was made. As Papa November said, consensus should be made on the talk page where everyone can see it and put their input. Wether or not it's a good idea to trim is not the issue I have. Zazaban (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Support cut: Well, we are doing it, right? We are discussing. Anyways, I expect to hear your opinion too as you are current editors in charge. Let's discuss. So far, three of us are suppporting the cut. I expect some more opinions coming out. The Mad Hatter (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Now you are, thank you, but you weren't before. I'm actually fairly neutral on the issue of whether or not it's cut or not. Zazaban (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Truth to be said: sucks to be you. The Mad Hatter (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No. This information is necessary if this article is to be kept featured. 71.164.217.195 (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It is 3 to 1. The status quo remains. Just because the article is featured doesn't automatically means that this information is needed. It is 3 versus 1. Zazaban is neutral. So that's that. The article is what is it. Don't revert before discussing here. Otherwise it is considered vandalism. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. This information is necessary to maintain the article's scope, otherwise it needs to be delisted as a featured article. And I don't see what you mean by "overlong and superfluous". This article is 62 kb, which is nothing compared to other, better-written FAs - U2 is 75kb. I respect that in your own way, you're trying to help, but you're doing more harm than good. 71.170.157.198 (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. –Pomte 08:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I read nowhere that cutting information means a delisting of the article. Prove me wrong. And don't edit, before resolving the issue. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, cutting info of this magnitude means that the article's scope is diminished, and as a wide scope is necessary for FA, this article would no longer be worthy of being featured. nothing I didn't say before. Besides, your only objection to the inclusion of this section is that it's "overlong" - imo not a valid point for deletion. If anything, it needs to be expanded - see the to-do list at the top of the talk page.71.170.157.198 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

comment Featured article criteria 1(b) "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" Papa November (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Papa November, I don't particularly see the relevance of the 1(b) criterion in this situation. Major facts are not being neglected; the information that we cut was simply out of control and ridiculous overkill. There's a difference between succinct elaboration and erroneous fan-cruft. NSR77 ^T 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well as the influence section was deleted, certainly some info that needs to be in the article was erroneously removed. perhaps you could point out the specific excess that you'd prefer to be cut? 71.170.157.198 (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Mad Hatter's edits make the article concise and finite instead of a drawn out and over long ramble. Someone attempted to export the information into a separate article but that was voted down, so therefore things were removed to maintain clarity. NSR77 ^T 03:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The comment above was made to clarify the criterion people were discussing, not to support one side or the other. However, my views lean towards opposing the cut. In principle, I agree that some superfluous material and unreferenced claims could be trimmed from the article, but care must be taken not to lose important details. The changing roles of musicians in the band has been the subject of numerous magazine articles and has made its way into books so it is notable enough to discuss here at moderate length. The first two paragraphs of the section contain important details and are required to put the third in context:

• Paragraph 1 describes Yorke/Jonny Greenwood's backgrounds, which explains how these new sounds appeared from a guitar-based rock band.
• Paragraph 2 describes Yorke's dominance of the band and the reactions of band members to the change in style. It shows the driving force behind the change, and how it wasn't an easy process.

The influence on others section also needs keeping, because notable bands have discussed their Radiohead influences in interviews with magazines and newspaper. It's not just the fact that Radiohead have received critical acclaim that makes them notable - they inspired a wave of bands that have been described as imitators (Muse, Travis etc) and influenced other bands across several genres. We'd be ignoring a huge slice of the material written about the band in reliable sources if we failed to mention the impact they have had on the sound of alt. rock in the 1990s and 2000s.

In summary, I agree that the disputed sections seem a bit "fan-ish" in places and contain some superfluous detail. However, I oppose cutting them out entirely. Instead, they can be tweaked here and there to improve the style and substance. Papa November (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Their influences can't truly be felt, I must say. Radiohead is a relatively young band in the history of modern-music and the true impact they will or will not have on future bands has yet to be decided. It's hard, for example, to really say how influential Nirvana will be when currently Grunge is long gone. NSR77 ^T 20:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protection request declined

New and unregistered users have as much right to edit articles as anyone else. The best solution is to build a strong consensus on this talk page. If this degenerates into an edit war, then individual blocks are strongly preferred to page protection. Papa November (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

LATIN AMERICAN & OTHER NOV/DEC '08 DELETIONISM WARNING

Someone removed mention of Radiohead's confirmed tour of South America next year, which is the band's first ever tour of that continent. This is only the latest example of the recent "bold" deletions for the sake of deletions. Some so-called trimming can be useful, but it was the STYLE and wordiness of those parts of the article, and a few excessive quotes, that could have used some improvements and condensation, not all the actual facts which needed to be removed. Anyone who still cares about this article, please go back, look at this featured article a month ago, and correct citations and context since destroyed in lazy, careless edits. I understand there are different Wikiphilosophies, but that's why, if the state of this still "featured" article was so bad as made out by opponents of the longstanding text, the first solution would have been to ask for re-evaluation of its "featured" status & peer review to see which ways it could be improved, not to play with massive unilateral changes with no consensus (and often, no given justifications).

In any case, I apologize for editing only with an IP. If you want to revert me for that reason, go right ahead. Thanks. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do it, but I feel sorry. I am exclusionist and I am doing my best for Radiohead. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse people of making "lazy and careless edits" - I'm sure they were acting in good faith. Great care must be taken when including details of future events (WP:CRYSTAL). Also, there's the danger of it being seen as an invitation for people to include details of every announced tour date. I'd guess the content was removed on that basis - Papa November (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Chart positions

For some reason, only the US chart peaks for Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief are mentioned. As the band is from Britain, their chart placings in their home country should be given priority. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Album genres

I've been looking through the edit history on the albums and there seems to be fighting over the album genres. After getting a consensus on the band genres, how about we do albums as well? I really don't see why Experimental rock shouldn't be listed on every album they've done since OK Computer, especially Kid A and Amnesiac. Those albums can't be sorely defined as Alternative rock (and Electronic for Kid A and Amnesiac) and every time someone adds that genre to any of the albums, someone else removes it. So, what should we do here? Kokoro20 (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Since genres seem to be such a sore point, I'd suggest finding some solid references for anything that could be disputed. Papa November (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

With genres in album infoboxes it's best to kept it simple. Many forms of experimental rock fall into alternative rock, so it's more concise to list as few genres as possible. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That's no reason to keep Experimental rock out. And how do many forms of Experimental rock fall into Alternative rock? All the albums they've done since OK Computer have been experimental, hence why Experimental rock should be added to them. Kid A, Amnesiac, Hail to the Thief and In Rainbows are all also listed as Experimental rock on Allmusic (although, OK Computer isn't). That's really the only source I could find and besides, it's harder to find sources for genres of the album than genres of the band. Seriously, having just two or three genres for the albums isn't going to hurt much. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Formation year new data

Hi. I dunno if this will be at all helpful to you guys, but I was watching an interview with the band on YouTube and the band members explicitly state that they formed On a Friday in 1985, rather than 1986 which is what this article says.

Here is the interview. I didn't upload it so I can't find the original source for it, but perhaps you can. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVTq2BqNDx4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.58.96 (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I would add it, but it would probably end up getting reverted. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we find a transcript for that interview somewhere better than YouTube? Zazaban (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere "better"? You're looking at the ORIGINAL INTERVIEW right there. That is a first hand source, less risky than any transcript on some website. You don't cite YouTube itself! You cite the original interview you saw on it. The problem is that, on YouTube the facts about a video's source are often lacking, as in this case, so we don't know the exact info and therefore, we cannot source it properly. But that is simply a rule we have to work around. If we have a video (with all appearances of not being doctored) where the band frontman directly states a fact in contradiction to a fact given in the article, we have to eventually find some way of correcting the information. Changing the date, with only a YouTube clip to back us up, isn't ideal but neither is leaving a date we know to be wrong- assuming the clip is accurate- which it's likely to be, whether or not we have the technicalities available to us to write it out as a proper citation. Maybe the only solution: ask the video uploader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.58.96 (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I know it's the original interview; that's not what I'm disputing, I'm just worried some wiki bureaucrats will come along and throw a fit because YouTube is being used as a source. You know what, use it and we'll see what happens. Zazaban (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No need for the name-calling, Zazaban: establishing the reliability of sources is important, it's not just bureaucracy. The reference seems to be pretty reliable, but the correct citation details need to be added to the article, and the correct {{citation}} reference format should be used for consistency with the rest of the article (see WP:REF). I've done some homework on this, and it looks like the clip is from a 1995 Radiohead Special on Videomusic. Yorke states this just before the commercial break in part 2/3. I don't speak Italian, but perhaps someone could translate the roles of the people in the credits at the end of part 3/3?[1] Also, the youtube rip of the interview is a copyright violation, and we shouldn't link to it (see WP:EL) - the citation details are enough. Papa November (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the broken FARC nomination by moving this to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Radiohead. Please continue the discussion there - Papa November (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Radiohead One year ago our article was promoted to featured. Late last year the text took a sharp turn with several contentious editors making large changes and attempting to delete or spin off major portions of the article. They were ultimately overruled on the largest changes, but through creeping edits the text today is beginning to diverge significantly from what it was one year ago. I just submitted this again for FAR, with the hope that the article will be removed from featured status until it can be sufficiently improved to again merit the distinction. Following are the criteria for featured articles, along with my personal highlighting of areas where I feel this article now falls short. (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC) (edit) Thanks for the suggestion. I have done that. comment: Featured articles can't be delisted until they have gone through a review. You may want to consider listing the article at WP:FARC and briefly summarise the issues there. I guess your concern seems to be that it no longer meets criteria 1a (well-written) 1b (comprehensive) or 1e (stable). I agree that it has changed dramatically since we pushed it to FA, and it could probably use some more sets of eyes. Papa November (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I honestly don't think the article has changed that much. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Music description in Introduction

IN the Introduction, OK Computer's new sound is described as simply "expansive"; wouldn't it be more fitting to mention the album's beautifully complex harmonies and contrasting calm and chaotic moods? Spettro9 (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Words like "beautifully complex harmonies" sound awfully POV-laden: while I personally agree with the sentiment, my girlfriend would probably choose words like "horrible wailing" instead. The safest bet is just to use the most neutral, matter-of-fact description possible. Papa November (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Really?

So we're not even gunna mention the fact that EMI is reissuing the first three radiohead albums with bonus tracks and dvds? i mean, i know it's a shitty thing for the record label to do, but last time i checked wikipedia has an article on the cashgrab boxset that the same people released two years ago. these re-releases were announced months ago, and will be released in two weeks, and yet nowhere in the main article or any of the individual album's articles does it mention anything about it. wikipedia ain't what it used to be.99.153.29.112 (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why don't you get on it instead of complaining? faithless (^speak) 06:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, it's like he thinks people get paid to put useless crap on Wikipedia. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 10:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

the Lead of this article is too long and it has some information that seems better to be moved to the Style and influences section. Solino_{the Wolf} 10:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Cited material does not contain alleged statement.

At the request of EMI, the band changed their name to Radiohead, inspired by the title of a song on Talking Heads' True Stories album.[8]

While it may or may not be true (I could not verify it), the article cited does not state that the band changed their name 'at the request of EMI'. Quote from article:

The band's early songs were all over the map, sounding variously like the Smiths, R. E. M., Sonic Youth, and the Talking Heads, whose song "Radio Head" gave the group its name. (At first, they performed under the name On a Friday, but they wisely changed their minds.)

Recommend an accurate source, or removal of statement.

--Twomikewho (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

websites

Can a link be added in external sites to Radiohead's Official Ultimate Fan Page? http://www.radiohead.ultimatefanpage.com/ --Sezzawarb (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think it meets the standards of the external link guidelines. Papa November (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Who decides that it doesn't meet the standards? In my opinion it does. It is not promotional. It's an official website (approved by management) which comprehensively lists all the official Radiohead websites in one place, aiding fans in finding out accurate information quickly and easily. --Sezzawarb (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

But what useful information about Radiohead does it have that would be of encyclopedic value? Wikipedia isn't a link directory; external links are for verifying the information in articles and providing expanded encyclopedic information. A directory of fan pages doesn't appear to do either of those things. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stone so called best artist no.73

Why when Radiohead are considered one of the greateast band of all time (not my opinion)- there are many many polls that have them top 10 top 5 is this condescending posistion given by a publication that rates bands like Greenday (gah!) highly, given priority. I mean when its not hard at all to find MAJOR polls that place both thier albums and status as a band MUCH higher: why is this relevant at all? Im actually hard pressed to find any other publication that rates them as low as this (spent 20mins looking and all i can find are excellent and flattering posistions Q, NME, Pitchfork, Drowned in Sound etc etc etc), its very silly. Its actually a slur upon the band, as I cannot find a poll that places them so low.

Sure I like Radiohead and all, just very shocked to see this included.

Megathrone 5/6/09 86.159.20.0 (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think "best of" lists are particularly useful. Each magazine has its own target readership and point of view, so these lists show nothing more than the personal preferences of journalists or their readers. You're quite right that other publications give entirely different rankings so it may be misleading to single out the RS position in the lead section. I guess the argument for inclusion is that Rolling Stone is probably the most famous music magazine in the world and a lot of people will have seen the list. I think the solution would be to make a more general statement like "Radiohead's work has appeared in listener polls and critics' lists in widely-read music magazines including Rolling Stone, Q and NME." As a final point, Wikipedia articles should not attempt to "slur" against or to promote a band. Our job is simply to state neutrally what has been written about the band in reliable sources. Singling out either the best or worst ratings in "best of" lists is a very bad idea! Papa November (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

1986 or 1991

1991: Ok let's through the dice. Personally I prefer 1991, since that's the year they got from college, started using Radiohead moniker and became present on the music scene. That's what I vote for. What say you? The Mad Hatter (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They still existed in 1986. To claim 1991 would be original research. Zazaban (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they used the name On A Friday. I don't want to put them by this year, where they were just a bunch of schoolboys. AllMusic lists them as 1989. For reaching consensus I prefer that year. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So, the fact that they were schoolboys means their band cannot be thought of as legitimate? Claiming that a name change signifies the creation of a new band even if the lineup is identical is utterly insane, and 1989 seems totally random. Zazaban (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added a source stating they were active in 1986. Happy? Zazaban (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1986 for sure - no question. 88.110.207.23 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - the bands that came before are definitely part of their history and influence. I vote for 1986.--Garyedgar (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Grammys

Radiohead DID NOT perform at the grammys. they were introduced as radiohead, but it was just thom & jonny + the USC marching band. the article should probably state the facts.99.153.29.112 (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

wow ok, i didn't mean completely delete any reference to them being there, i just meant note the fact that it was introduced as radiohead, but was only 2/5's of the band. also stanley donwood won for best limited edition recording package for the in rainbows disc box.99.153.29.112 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the text because it seemed like undue weight on a fairly minor event in the band's history. The band have been around for a long time, and everything needs to be put into perspective. In other words, is that performance really worth noting in the grand scheme of things? It seems a bit much to talk explicitly about two band-members performing one song at an awards ceremony when three entire tours are summarised as "Radiohead toured North America, Europe and Japan in 2008 to promote In Rainbows." Papa November (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I added the sentence since it seemed relevant to the preceding part about Radiohead's recent Grammy nominations. Also, while the older tours may not have been notable enough individually for their own descriptions, I felt that playing at a venue so important as the Grammy Awards warranted some mention. However, if the community disagrees or wishes to downplay the fact (I suppose if it matters so much, one could stress that only Thom and Jonny played) then I won't cause any fuss :) Banjaloupe (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

i think it does matter so much :) 99.153.29.112 (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe i was not clear enough, i think that the article should include the the awards which they were nominated for and the ones which they won, and it should also include the fact that thom & jonny played with the USC marching band but were introduced as radiohead.99.153.29.112 (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If the Grammy Awards were a serious award in the field of alternative rock, then the awards should be mentioned in the main article. But the Grammy Awards hardly constitute notable critical opinion in progressive and alternative rock - such legendary acts Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin had won only a few Grammys in their lifetime, and such critically-acclaimed albums by Radiohead, such as OK Computer, never won a Grammy. The Grammys are a show marketed to young teens, nothing more. I'm sure that any serious critic will agree with me that having suddenly won three Grammys this year means absolutely nothing to the band or to the music industry, except that perhaps their music has gotten worse. Naur (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Young teens, huh? I guess that explains why Robert Plant was the big winner. Wait...no, no it doesn't. :-P I'm not sticking up for the Grammys (all awards are worthless in my opinion), but to say that the Grammys are not a major music award is absurd. faithless (^speak) 06:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up, OK Computer did in fact when the Grammy for best alternative music album.Windward1 (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

plurality of band names?

Why the insistence on keeping the initial sentence to contain "Radiohead are..."? It's unnatural and I think it should depend on the band name itself, e.g. "The Beatles are..." and "Radiohead is..." Radiohead is the moniker for a single group of people and grammatically should be treated as such. What authoritative English source, British or otherwise, says to treat all band names as plural? --Henryrm (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Common usage. Zazaban (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not common usage. You'll need to cite something if it's against the rules of standard English. Blue Danube (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't against the rules of standard English, probably because there are no official rules of "standard English" (see Standard English article). It is, however, perfectly acceptable in British English (see footnote a in British English article). As the WP:ENGVAR states, articles written in one variety of English should be kept in that variety. I see no compelling reason why American English should be used in an article about a British band.

For evidence, you simply need to look at the references the article cites. Of the first ten I was able to access, seven use Radiohead as a plural, none use it as a singular and three are just lists/tables.

1. Radiohead are charging...
2. Radiohead are emerging...
3. Radiohead infuriate me
4. Radiohead have continued
5. Radiohead... have come over all cheerful
6. Radiohead remain a magnet for misfits everywhere
7. Radiohead have emerged...

This proves that multiple reliable sources (and probably all of those we cite) treat Radiohead as a plural. Papa November (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a British band: we use British English for British things, American English for American things. End of discussion. Jubilee♫clipman 23:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Formatting error in the "In Rainbows andindependent work(2005–present)"

I think the HEADER "In Rainbows andindependent work(2005–present" should read "In Rainbows and independent work(2005–present)". I cannot edit this (i'm not sure why, I think I have been a member long enough, however I rarely change articles. If this talk/comment on this page is in the wrong section (see previous! - I am a Noob) please put it where it belongs, If that is in the bin then put it there. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuliwil (talk • contribs) 09:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. You couldn't edit the article because it is currently semi-protected and although you have been registered for long enough, you did not have enough edits (10) to edit semi-protected articles. - kollision (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Genres

I'm inserting post grunge. Because Pablo Honey, and Creep specifically, was exactly that. I know there are a lot of folks who like to pretend that Pablo Honey never happened, but it did, so lets paint a true picture for newcomers to the band, rather than rigging the article to the liking of how hardened fans would like Radiohead to be perceived by the world. Creep remains by far Radiohead's most famous song, and that single, along with its parent album, exemplify post grunge.

Are there reliable sources that confirm that "post-grunge" is a good description of Radiohead music? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Where are the sources for the other genres? If we're going by sources, then why don't we simply have "rock" under genres? My citation for Radiohead being post grunge is Creep and Pablo Honey. Quite an obvious and undeniable one. You, Creep, Stop Whispering, Anyone Can Play Guitar, Ripcord, Vegetable, Blow Out. Big guitars, quiet/soft dynamics, angst-filled lyrics... generally known as "post grunge."

You forgot to answer the question- Wikipedia requires reliable sources verifying information; are there sources for this? If there aren't, I'm going to remove it for now, but feel free to restore it if you do find sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I did answer the question - Pablo Honey. If you're looking for a cite from a publication, then you're showing bias and agenda, as none of the other genres have cites. Re-instated at once.

"Pablo Honey" is not a reliable source- what the encyclopedia requires is simply a reviewer describing Radiohead as a 'post-grunge band.' If you think there's another genre listed that is inaccurate, which one is it? I'm sure we can look for reliable sources to verify any genre that we don't think is accurate. If you want 'post-grunge' added, that's very easy and I have no objection, as long as you can cite it- there's no need to look for explanations when citing the genre of a major band is so easy. I'm not sure it's fair to identify a genre for a band based on a few individual songs. After all, while it's easy to make and cite a good case for Helter Skelter as an early metal song, I don't think it would be reasonable to identify the Beatles as a metal band. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Helter Skelter probably is metal. But that's one song. The majority of Pablo Honey is post grunge, as I just stated. Several tracks from The Bends also qualify; Just and My Iron Lung are obvious example of the angst, heavy guitars and loud/quiet dynamics synonymous with post grunge. Pitchfork clearly describes Pablo Honey as post grunge here: http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/12938-pablo-honey-collectors-edition-the-bends-collectors-edition-ok-computer-collectors-edition/. A notable publication referring to Radiohead as post grunge, but doubtless the endless rigging and bias that goes on here will prevent it from being correctly displayed as a genre.

Thanks for the source. It seems to describe Pablo Honey as a post-grunge album, and the genre terms it uses for Radiohead are "rock" and "alt-rock." I'm curious to hear what other users think about this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think while pablo honey has post-grunge elements or even full post-grunge songs, it still isn't a post-grunge album, it is more simply just alternative rock. just because dollars and cents is a jazz song doesn't make radiohead jazz, or even the album amnesiac jazz. also i don't think just because one out of seven albums is post-grunge, that the genre should be listed on the band's page, but only the album's page. I think the genres on the band's page should just cover genres on the majority of the albums, which definitely includes alternative rock and electronic music, and experimental rock in my opinion.

NPOV tag?

Who added the tag and why? What exactly is questioned: the whole article (unlikely as it is a featured article!) or a particular part? Which part? Where is the discussion? Is the immeadiately preceeding discussion relevent? If so how? A few people just seem to be ranting about genre. There is no NPOV problem there. Confused... Jubilee♫clipman 23:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have subsequently removed it. 119.224.57.190 (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Genres

Clearly, it is time for another discussion of the genres in the infobox, given that there have been a great many changes of late. Currently, the three genres listed are Alternative rock, art rock, and electronic music. Can we agree to leave it at that? If not, why not? The floor is open. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. faithless (^speak) 23:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everything they have done falls into one of those broad categories. There's no need for anything more specific. I'm really tired of the constant changes to this list. Papa November (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why Experimental rock shouldn't be added to the genre list. Their Kid A and Amnesiac albums in particular, could fall under Experimental rock. And they are labeled as Experimental rock by some sources [2] [3]Kokoro20 (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if "art rock" needs to be there, it is a very vaguely defined genre. Rather than describe a certain sound (like heavy metal) or a movement (Britpop/Grunge), it just implies a rock band with "arty" pretensions. indopug (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm for replacing "Art rock" with "Experimental rock", mainly because that's what Allmusic lists. "Art rock" primarily applies to the likes of 70s groups ranging from prog (Pink Floyd) to glam (Roxy Music) to protopunk (The Velvet Underground). In contrast, Radiohead members have gone on record saying they hate prog (although they like Krautrock), and their influences actually pull primarily from 1980s post-punk and alternative rock (I read in Exit Music that the band teases Johnny Greenwood because he really doesn't know that much about music prior to the 1980s, and he has said he's rather listen to Dinosaur Jr's "Freak Scene" than the Rolling Stones). They have more in common with Sonic Youth than with Pink Floyd. While we're at it, change "electronic music" to "indie electronic" (or Indietronica, as it's called here on Wikipedia), once again per Allmusic and because it's more specific. "Alternative rock" stays, of course, since there's really no argument that the band fits in the genre (in fact, they are one of the genre's most notable and most important groups).WesleyDodds (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also be in favor of replacing "art rock" with "experimental rock." It seems much more appropriate. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Small note: Both indie electronic and Indietronica redirect to electronic dance music. indopug (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Odd that, since there's an Allmusic page on the genre and I've read about it in other places. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, there was an AfD a while ago. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case, Indietronica should just be changed back to Electronic. The fact that Indietronica redirects to Electronic dance music suggests that all Radiohead's Electronic songs sounds like the song Idioteque, which it doesn't. Also, Art rock shouldn't have been removed, but Experimental rock should be there alongside of it. Some sources also cite them as Art rock. [4] [5] [6] Kokoro20 (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The first two links are concert reviews that can't be really used to determine genre, since it's an offhand comment. The Time article says "combining punkish attitude, tasteful art-rock grandeur and judicious electronic sampling". It says the group combines elements of art rock, not that they are an art-rock band. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Electronic music referes to a wide range of music.If you take a look at it's article you'd see what I mean.It contains a wide amount of musicians in many genres.I think maybe we could change it to Electronica which referes to a specific kind of Electronic music which is more associated whith Rock.Any thoughts?Solino the Wolf (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't put anything about indie in there, indie refers to independent music, like music that's not on big record label. Radiohead has been on a big record label until recently, their electronic stuff (Kid A/Amnesiac) was from when they were on a big label (EMI)Iminrainbows (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Prog rock

I know experimental rock already probably covers this, but what would people think if I added progressive rock to the list of genres? --LordNecronus (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think prog is a bit of a controversial addition, given that the band tried to deny any connection with prog around the time of OK Computer.[7] However, more than one critic has stuck the prog label on them. The prog labelling is discussed in the Kid A article, but it's probably safer to leave it out of the infobox in this article. Papa November (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus

i think it should state somwhere that Radiohead had a incident with Miley Cyrus where they said they didnt want to hang out with her can sombody add that if its possible? 81.96.254.143 (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No.--186.9.76.91 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Andi Watson & Sandbag

Radiohead's lighting designer Andi Watson has also worked with them since circa The Bends. Also, perhaps some mention of Sandbag, the company they founded which produces ethically sourced merchandise and web hosting for bands (REM, Sigur Ros)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.169.33 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)