Talk:Radiohead/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Typo

"Thom Yorke and Colin Greenwood were in the same year, Ed O'Brien and Phil Selway were one year older and Jonny Greenwood two years younger than his brother, Colin" is the second sentence under history, and it is a sentence fragment, but the page is locked so i can't touch it. Any help from an admin?

Radiohead have lots of amazing images thanks to Stanley Donwood and numerous photographers. I was therefore perplexed to see a photo of their school? why show it? The school building was not their creative achievement, nor are they in that photo. I suggest removing the photo to make space for a more relevant image and deprioritising the sentence about them having met in Abingdon School, in that section. I also think, at the very start of the page it is more correct to describe them as being from Oxford rather than Abingdon Oxford. They probably didn't live in Abingdon, which you can see is a small town outside Oxford http://www.abingdon.org.uk/map_and_directions/. They probably just went to school there, and lived in Oxford or just outside it. Thats quite important, radiohead didn't all come from the same little village! Ra7g09 (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Radiohead IS a band. Not, "Radiohead are a band."

I was very surprised to see the first sentence of a featured article so wrong.

Radiohead is a single entity and therefore is followed by "is," not "are." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCBSL41 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey sorry, just saw the above discussion. Didn't realize someone already talked about this. I can't believe that there's a "heated debate" about this. It seems so wrong to put a plural after a band name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCBSL41 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you i wanted to edit it, but i could not because it is protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohno21212 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not to be changed. "Radiohead are" is the proper grammar in the King's English. There is a hidden comment there that says as much. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Read your Strunk & White. Radiohead is singular, and it is 'is,' not 'are.' A hidden comment proves it? I think not. A respected resource such as "The Elements of Style" proves it singular. Millions of academics, journalists and writers consult Strunk & White, not your stinking 'hidden comment.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.144.135 (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll say it again: Radiohead is singular in the United States, but plural in the UK. This is a British band, therefore we use the British grammar. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Elements of Style is an American English style guide. This article is written in British English, so American style guidelines do not apply. There is a nice summary here. Please see The Cambridge Guide to English Usage., Pam Peters p.23 (2004). Papa November (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Radio head is a British band, so its not asking much that the article uses the plural pronoun commonly used in the UK when refering to groups. Just like Liverpool are playing Chelsea is used so it is with a band. British spellings are corrected often on pages here, and a lot on US related pages, so it would be only fair to let this one go. Its not important, I would recommend leaving it the way it is. Shabidoo | Talk 04:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added a mention of the WP:PLURALS style guide to the comment in the lead, to show that Wikipedia uses British English on British articles, and that this is an example of it. --McGeddon (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Second time as a Featured Article?

This page was selected to be a featured article not that long ago (don't know the exact date, but it's been within the last two-ish years). Why has it been selected to be a featured article again? Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has been featured for ages. However, today is the first/only time it has appeared on the front page. Papa November (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Paranoid Android" was featured on the Main Page last year. Brutannica (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiohead are an English alternative rock band from Abingdon, Oxfordshire, formed in 1985. I go to Wikipedia today, and the very first sentence that grabs my attention is that grammatical disaster. The featured article, to boot! Is this why Wikipedia is mocked, why it is the butt of so many sitcom jokes? The number of the subject determines the number of the verb. Radiohead is not plural, it is a singular band. There, the last sentence is a great example, would you say "Radiohead are not plural, it are a singular band." ? Hell no. Now somebody fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.144.135 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't you undertand that this is BRITISH ENGLISH? Really, American English is not Universal, do not understand that? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The King of Limbs

We need a paragraph detailing the release and reception of KOL:

• The Guardian should be a good source for the release stuff—the short notice the band gave, the advanced release date, the "newspaper album" and other formats. Anything else to be added?
• How do we describe its musical style in a sentence?
• How should we summarise the critical reception? Well-received, but nothing new musically? Does anybody know of a killer quote that summarises reviews across the board?
• Has the record or "Lotus Flower" charted anywhere?—indopug (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's some information about reception for Lotus Flower, including how it has tracked on the iTunes' charts.--TravisBernard (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

01-10 album?

Wondering if the section on In Rainbows should mention the “TENspiracy” or “01-10 album” — it has been proposed and sort-of-maybe-half-confirmed by Thom Yorke that In Rainbows is meant to form a superalbum with OK Computer (released ten years before In Rainbows’ 2007-10-10 release, which was announced 10 days earlier). See [1] --X883 (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should include this. We can't have the article bogged down with conspiracy theories. There are so many about Radiohead that if we included them, it would detract from the overall quality of the article. What does everyone else think? --TravisBernard (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. The article is already very long, so the threshold for including new information needs to be quite high. If the theory is very well supported by reliable sources (not just blogs/fan-sites!) then we can certainly include it. Papa November (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Where are the reviews infoboxes?

i just realized that two out of eight albums (The Bends & the King of limbs) have a infobox to show the ratings that the press gave to the albums, a good article about an album must have a ratings infobox in it, if not it don't meet the NPOV standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.165.54.214 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The use of {{Album ratings}} is not a rule, it may be used. This is not the correct page to make that comment, feel free using the respective talkpages. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok lets use a bit of common sense, you thinks (or anyone here) that exclude a review's infobox makes an article better or worse?, for any of the cases explain your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.165.19.133 (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Clive

Radiohead have now done two live performances (From The Basement and Glastonburry) with an extra musician, Clive Deamer. This may not be important for most other bands but Radiohead never had any additional musicians on stage except for special occasions and then only for one or two songs, thus this seems to me a significant change, and I think it should be mentioned.--Merijn2 (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Art vs. Alternative Rock

I believe it was accurate to call Radiohead an alternative band up until the point that OK Computer was released. Some could still call them alternative during the OK Computer years, but anything past Kid A cannot seriously be considered alternative rock. Look at the discography: Kid A, Amnesiac, Hail to the Thief, In Rainbows, and King of Limbs all clearly come down on the side of some sort of hybrid of art/electronic/avant-garde rock. I would include OK Computer in this list, but I get that some people wouldn't. Even conceding that point, the list comes down to 3 albums that are alternative and 5 that aren't. There's also no indication that they'll ever return to the alternative sounds of the 90s. Let's put it this way, if their first album was Kid A, no one in their right mind would call them alternative rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlillybaltimore (talk • contribs) 18:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Where are the third party reliable sources describing Radiohead as art rock as opposed to alternative rock? Nev1 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Coming before too long hopefully. But for now, I think it makes sense to just leave them as a rock band on the main page, and leave all the sub-genres to the side. Mlillybaltimore (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

And to be fair all-around, all of the sub-genres on the side need to have citations as well if someone has a problem with art rock being added as one of them (especially when Radiohead's output for over the past decade conforms to the descriptions found on the art rock page on Wikipedia). Mlillybaltimore (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about this like you all suggest. I've provided a source considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards, and several people insist on removing it and including the alternative rock tag without providing any sort of documentation at all. I'm fine leaving the alternative tag even though no one can provide a source less than a decade old calling Radiohead as such, so it's my view that both should stay....I'm not suggesting that alternative be deleted. Unless someone can cite a reliable third party source calling Radiohead alternative rock, this will continue to be an issue.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've cited four examples of music critics calling Radiohead art rock since Kid A came out. To be clear, NO ONE has posted any source characterizing the band as alternative rock that's less than a decade old. Alternative rock doesn't have to be deleted, but deleting so many reliable sources in the face of no replacement is not acceptable.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If you hadn't figured it out yet, re-adding controversial content to the article, without getting some consensus for the change, is not acceptable and will get removed. The infobox is not the place to be adding references; it should be a summary of what is in the article, and that is where references belong. Right now, "art rock" is not in the article proper (it was in a category, which I removed for lack of support within the article), so it doesn't need to be in the infobox. "Alternative rock" is mentioned in the article proper, so there is no issue with it being included in the infobox. If you want to make your case, try editing more of the article than just the infobox and the lede. Thanks -- Foetusized (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a reference to alternative radio stations and a grammy award, but that's not the same thing as saying that the band itself is alternative rock. If art rock gets deleted for lack of a direct reference in the article, by that measure, so should alternative rock. The point is that it's inaccurate to include such an outdated genre in the info box when you can't produce anything that's been written in the last decade that backs up that characterization.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WTF?

I came back after not looking here and...what the fuck is going on?! Huge chunks of unreferenced info. Please someone give some order!!! Or I'll get the axe!

The Mad Hatter (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone list

Is it really necessary to mention --in the first paragraph-- where Radiohead were ranked in Rolling Stone list when that magazine as if that's the be-all-and-end-all? It's a little like on the John Lennon page noting he was 'inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame (as if that was the pinnacle of his achievements). Rolling Stone has always been the Daily Mail of music publications, far too busy reminiscing about Bob Dylan and The Byrds to support modern alternative/avante guarde music. (I think when OK Computer came out back in 1997 they only gave it four stars for God's sake!) I won't swan in there and do it myself but if someone wants to move that reference further down the page, I say go for it.--Tomsega (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Radiohead/Mingus

The article lists Mingus' "Freedom" as being influential on Radiohead's "Pyramid Song." Is this accurate? After listening to the two songs it seems that "Freedom" is much closer, in terms of compositional structure, to "We Suck Young Blood" from Hail to the Thief. Hrussin (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thom Yorke has specifically cited that track as an influence on Pyramid Song. Check out the Amnesiac page for a cited quote.

Personally speaking, I agree WSYB sounds more like Freedom - Pyramid Song has always sounded more Alice Coltrane to me, another big influence on the band. Popcornduff (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Are Radiohead post-britpop band?

When I looked at the article that named Post-Britpop, I read it that Radiohead are the one of Post-Britpop band. So, they are a Post-Britpop band, Aren't they?? Rnsevenman (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

They have, on occasionally been categorised that way. There is a difficulty in that they were clearly around while Britpop was at its height. The argument is that they emerged as a leading band after Britpop imploded about 1997. In short, they were very important to post-Britpop, but being post-Britpop is not the most defining thing about the band. It might be worth noting the decline of Britpop and their success, but for myself I don't think it needs to be in the infobox. Alternative rock covers it.--SabreBD (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Radiohead earlier stuff space rock?

Evidence: (Bursts of effects on the guitars that make it sound very space rock) Can be heard throughout Ok Computer, Subterranean Homesick Alien, Nice Dream, Pyramid Song?

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.251.89 (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, but if you want to add it, you will need to find reliable sources that back you up. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources Popcornduff (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Is it just a problem with my computer/browser or is the picture like, huge? I mean, it's wider than the article... I don't know if there's something wrong with the way it's displaying on my computer or if someone made it that way, but it's so big it takes over most of my screen and it goes into the menu on the left... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.54.221.0 (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

New ticketing

Should we include information about the new ticketing system for the UK tour? Is this notable enough? --TravisBernard (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO no. Popcornduff (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Equipment

Guitar Rig & Signal Flow

• A detailed gear diagram of Jonny Greenwod's 1997 Radiohead "OK Computer" Tour guitar rig can be found here:

Jetpack66 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2012

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalizing the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Radiohead "are" an english rock band?

What's up with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.37.85.227 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's British English. See Differences_between_American_and_British_English#Grammar. Popcornduff (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's British English. It's certainly not BBC English (unless they're talking sports with a cockney accent). I believe it should read "Radiohead is". Using "are" is imo more blue collar.

oh shut up you pretentious fool. "oh my middle class indie image is being threatened by my flagship band being referred to in "blue collar" tones!!! People might think I'm just some common kings of Leon fan."

British band. It's "are". Get over it.

Lead guitar

I don't think Jonny Greenwood is more lead than Ed O'Brien. Remember that they were jointly listed as "Greatest Guitarist".

Does someone have a source on this? --91.10.31.200 (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't be bothered to find a source, but FYI, Jonny definitely plays the lead parts in most cases. I mean, if there's a clear "lead guitar" part, Jonny's always playing it... There There, Just, Paranoid Android, Staircase, 15 Step, Bodysnatchers, Knives Out, The Bends, My Iron Lung, Little by Little, Identikit, the list goes on. Ed tends to do more auxiliary/ambient stuff with lots of delay and reverb. Popcornduff (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

in songs where jonny does not play guitar, which may be a majority by now, Ed is almost always playing lead, if not Thom. Lead/Rhythm is an outdated concept for a lot of contemporary bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.123.246 (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Radiohead is britpop

They are britpop, they were one of the first britpop bands so they should be labeled as britpop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.141.5.47 (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Where's your evidence? Popcornduff (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Their earlier music was against the conventional Britpop. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Smiths was perhaps the first. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, The Smiths was just an influence. First Britpop bands were formed in the early 1990s, as a backlash towards the popularity of American alternative rock movements such as Seattle Sound. Neverthless, The Smiths disbanded just before the movement actually emerged. And for the Radiohead, they can't be Britpop because of their strong influences from the notable American bands such as Pixies, R.E.M. and Sonic Youth (They were also influenced by Joy Division, The Beatles and The Smiths, though.) Their earlier sound was even tended towards grunge.Myxomatosis75 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I read at least one article that suggested part of RH's longevity came from them dodging the Britpop bubble entirely - so when it popped, they weren't one of the casualties. Can't be bothered to dig up the source atm though - just making conversation. Popcornduff (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what they are, it seems strange to call them merely a 'rock' band in the opening sentence since they have such an eclectic sound. Pretty much nothing that they've recorded since OK Computer could even possibly be classed as rock. I don't really have any better suggestions, but maybe somebody can think of a better way to describe them? I should add that I'm not trying to criticise the article since in general it's fantastic but I just think that this could possibly be worded better.Core1911 (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

They're certainly a rock band, but only in that "rock" is such an enormous umbrella genre that any collection of musicians with guitars and drums is a rock band. I think it'd be a little better to specify that they're an alternative rock band, though the term is hardly less woolly...

As for Radiohead rock songs post-OKC? Erm, most of Hail to the Thief and In Rainbows would meet that definition without controversy. Popcornduff (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, we probably just have different definitions of 'rock' music. It's not really a big deal anyway, I suppose the majority of their music could be considered to be rock depending on your stance. Core1911 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm curious - would you really say There There, Bodysnatchers, Go to Sleep or Jigsaw Falling Into Place aren't rock songs? Popcornduff (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't really thinking about specific songs, more their overall style, but I suppose those would fit in as being rock songs. I'd also heard TY claim that he 'hates rock music' in a post-OKC interview but it's probably not substantial. The interview is 'Reflections on Kid A' if you're interested, I doubt you haven't seen it.Core1911 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yorke's bashed rock music a lot over the years, but no one can be as big a Smiths, Pixies or REM fan as he is - or make the records he has - and actually literally "hate rock". In the case of that interview, I believe he was (in a typically sardonic way) protesting the ugly, self-destructive, hyper-masculine mythos of rock music (and its mounting musical cliches), and expressing his desire to disassociate from it.

I'm interested in hearing why you think Hail to the Thief or In Rainbows aren't obviously rock albums but OKC is. I don't think OKC is any less unconventional or "experimental" with texture and form than those albums. Doesn't really have a whole lot more traditional guitar-bass-drums isntrumentation either. (I'd say all their albums are rock albums by the way, but IR and HTTT are easier to hold up as obvious examples.)Popcornduff (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I was slightly unclear, but in my initial post I mean that anything from Kid A onwards (post OKC)(in my opinion) is more electronic/experimental than rock. It's such an ambiguous term, but I just feel that from Kid A onwards they diverted and became significantly more experimental. I agree with your sentiment regarding that interview and to be honest I took it out of context slightly, but I just feel that since The Bends and to a lesser extent OKC they haven't really fit with the archetypes of a rock band. Regardless, it's not very important for the article in the grand scheme of things. Would you consider TKOL to be rock music, out of interest?Core1911 (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure. It's still rock first and foremost - guitars and basslines and choruses - it just has a lot of electronic production blended in. I don't like the term "experimental" when applied to Radiohead, btw - they're nowhere near as abstract as people make them out to be, and it's such a flabby term. But we still have "experimental" listed in the genre of many of their albums. Ho hum. Popcornduff (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think its a good thing. I think to describe Kid A without mentioning that it was experimental is just being irresponsible. JR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.161.15 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The King Of Limbs Section

I can't help but feel that The King of Limbs and 'physical movements' section has become a little bloated and is contributing to the overall massive length of the page significantly. It's also got several declarations that I feel could do with extra citations, and seem a little bit like the author's own opinion rather than necessarily factual. Is it maybe worth editing this down, and shifting some of it to the page specifically for that record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.71.135 (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, it's a mess. I started tidying it up a bit but got bored. I'll carry on with it at some point soon if no one else does. Popcornduff (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Done the rest. Popcornduff (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the phrase "physical movements" in the title of this section? The section does not even mention this term, let alone explain it. I truly do not know what it is supposed to mean, despite having followed this band for years. Please remove or clarify. Mgnbar (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point. It's taken from a Thom Yorke quote, but it's totally unexplained and unattributed. I've removed it. Popcornduff (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Mgnbar (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There should be a criticism section on this article

Radiohead should have a "Criticism" section. Seems like it's too biased toward Radiohead.

so should lady gaga, but people seem to think shes some kind of saint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.240.194 (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

At the very bottom of the page, it does not list every EP they have ever done. Twoandtwoalwaysmakesafive (Wait, what now? I didn't quite catch that.) 03:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Radiohead

"Radiohead are an..." ???19:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)19:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)19:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)~ Shouldn't it be "Radiohead is an..."??? 2605:e000:99e9:5900:1132:bdb9:5e3b:a95c

Whether collective nouns are treated as singular or plural differs between British English and American English (and other dialects). Because Radiohead is British, going with the British treatment makes sense here. Mgnbar (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Post Britpop

Source: (I can't add it in because I'm not a registered user.) 37.228.202.244 (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

References

DEAD AIRSPACE IS CHANGING

Shouldn't it be noted that www.radiohead.com/deadairspace is starting to fade away? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.33.107 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

We'll wait until things have settled down and there are sources to cite. Popcornduff (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 May 2016

On May 1, 2016, Radiohead deleted their entire web presence should be On 1 May 2016, Radiohead deleted their entire web presence

Retaining date format consistency.

MrMarmite (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Done — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI in relation to this, I've just added a little about the new song that dropped today: The Guardian ref — foxj 17:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 May 2016

Link "Burn the Witch" at the end of the section regarding Radiohead's ninth studio album and hiatus to the page about Burn the Witch. TakyonDrive (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This page is not protected. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

band members

why the hell was the band members section deleted? i was helping to make the page better and ye deleted it! fuck sake

it's back now, don't worry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.148.162.19 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Updating number of albums sold by Radiohead

The value of "more than 30 million albums sold" (not counting albums sold directly by the band website) dates from 2011. There are already several sources updating this value, incluing for instance 'http://www.orcasound.com/2018/07/16/43093/', used from a preview of a Radiohead concert from 2018. I would propose "almost 40 million albums sold".

This is a good idea, but ideally I'd like a better source than that to add the information. Can you find it anywhere else? I had a look around but couldn't find it. Popcornduff (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane ^talk 05:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"Further reading"

Why are there 2 "Further reading" sections? i.e. 10. Further reading and 11. Further reading. I probably should go ahead and merge the 2 sections, unless editors can explain otherwise. SethWhales ^talk 07:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I've had a look at previous edits and reverted the (first) "Further reading" back to "Sources". SethWhales ^talk 07:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2019

In the text concerning the recent leak, please change "the mid-90s" to "their recording of OK Computer". It's much more specific this way. 185.165.241.116 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 Already done NiciVampireHeart 12:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2019

In the Kid A section, I propose to add a short sentence on Ed O'Brien's online diary from the time. A link to an archive of his diary is here: http://www.greenplastic.com/coldstorage/articles/edsdiary/index.php WilliamWishesWhy (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @WilliamWishesWhy: Could you be more specific on what changes you want to make? Please also provide a reliable source. If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{u|Masumrezarock100}} to your message, and signing it. Masum Reza^📞 21:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

{{u|Masumrezarock100}} Radiohead secluded themselves with Godrich in studios in Paris, Copenhagen, and Gloucester, and in their new studio in Oxford.[22] At the time, O'Brien provided an insight into the recording of the new album via an online diary, describing the change in direction of the music they were producing. After nearly 18 months, Radiohead's recording sessions were completed in April 2000.[58] New source is http://www.mtv.com/news/517864/radiohead-guitarists-online-diary-gives-glimpse-of-new-lp/ WilliamWishesWhy (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done @WilliamWishesWhy: Thanks for your contributions. Masum Reza^📞 22:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2019

Change "Radiohead are an English rock band from Abingdon, Oxfordshire" to "Radiohead is an English rock band from Abingdon, Oxfordshire" WhyNot321 (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope, that's American English. Popcornduff (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@WhyNot321: See WP:ENGVAR RudolfRed (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding another person to the list of collaborators

Jim Warren has been the band's live sound engineer since their first tour in 1992, and has mixed over 1000 live Radiohead shows and TV and radio appearances, as well as recording early demos and studio tracks, including High and Dry and Pop is Dead.

References

Profcomp (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. Popcornduff (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019

Change Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England, United Kingdom to Abingdon-on-Thames, England. It should just focus on the town and constituent country the band formed in. Nearly the same thing should apply to the first opening lines of the article, where it should say "Radiohead are an English rock band formed in Abingdon-on-Thames...". 24.127.236.115 (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no confusion that needs to be clarified between Abingdon and Abingdon-on-Thames, especially since the links for the former point to the latter and the town was officially known as just the former when the band was formed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Bothered about the infobox pic

As someone who made the collage, I don't like that it's just of their heads. The pic I have of Johnny didn't present his lower body well enough so I just cropped the collage. I'll see if I can improve it in comparison with the previous photo: [2] 100cellsman (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Article on Radiohead Public Library?

So yesterday they brought online this huge website called the Radiohead Public Library. It has a little mention in the article a small sub-section (which was separated into its own section and very slightly expanded on by me). This is a really unusual thing though—it is a collection of almost every song officially released by them, with the stuff not on normal albums all free, and also an archive of tons of music videos, old versions of their website, art, the documentary Meeting People Is Easy, and other things.

Looking it up, there are over already quite a lot of articles about it. I think this seems notable; however, I have only created one surviving non-redirect article, and this one had very clear notability under a specific guideline. It isn't as clear to me that WP:NWEBSITE fits here.

Should there be an article about this site? DemonDays64 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

DemonDays64, no, I don't think this deserves an article. It doesn't even deserve its own subsection in the main Radiohead article. (I mean, the stage collapse doesn't either, and that has its own article.) Everything notable about the public library site can be summarised in a sentence. If it goes on to attract bigger discussion then it might one day be deserving its own article, but not now. Popcornduff (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)