Talk:Ultramagnetic MCs

Travelling at the Speed of Thought

Which version of this is the one on the British Streetsounds compilation LP Hip Hop Electro 16? This was, incidentally, the Ultras' first UK release of any kind.

While I'm here, shouldn't Ced Gee have his own entry? He was involved in In Full Gear as well.

Getting rid of the Trivia piece?

Well, seeng as they get sampled all over the shop, how about a 'famous sample' piece or something? While I'm at it, Housing Things alse gets sampled by Jega on "Aerodynamic", that turns up on a Planet Mu sampler if not an album of his...

Where is Paul C?

This article completely ignores the contribution of the late Paul C, without whom this album would never have become the classic it is.

- Ced Gee and TR Love Produced most of it. Paul C. produced Give The Drummer Some. MC Bucky

Move to fit typo

The true way to write this group name is with an apostrophe like on their covers. So this page should be move to "Ultramagnetic MC's". Actualy "Ultramagnetic MC's" redirect to "Ultramagnetic MCs": the good redirect to the bad. Lacrymocéphale

Standard English grammar would not support this contention. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what about "Standard English grammar". This is hiphop moron, and if you haven't noticed they spell and say things incorrectly on purpose. Jesus, seriously? You use a grammar argument? Dumbfuck....

It's a proper noun, so it should be spelt with an apostrophe. 'The Beatles' and 'The Pharcyde' aren't grammatically correct either but nobody would change them to 'Beetles' and 'Far Side'.

I'll bet it's a lot like Booker T. & the M.G.'s and how they spell their name, even though it's wrong as all get out. Another commonality is the awesomeness of the music. - Team4Technologies (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Polaroid missing

I don't see Project Polaroid on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Polaroid

Is Kool Keith still part of Ultramagnetic MCs?

If Keith "originally" founded the group, but the group is now "composed of" three people (none of whom are Kool Keith), that means he is not a member. Right? But there's an image of him performing with the band in 2011, so I'm not sure if that's accurate. Submersible (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 November 2024

It has been proposed in this section that Ultramagnetic MCs be renamed and moved to Ultramagnetic MC's.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Ultramagnetic MCs → Ultramagnetic MC's – The group's name is spelled/rendered with an apostrophe on every single one of their releases. See Discogs. -- Forty.4 (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 18:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Both spellings seem to be commonly used. HipHopDX and The Source, which are both publications specializing in hip hop music, both favor the original spelling, as does Sputnikmusic. As a counterpoint, Allmusic, Pitchfork, and The Quietus all favor the apostrophe. These are all sources considered reliable by Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, unlike Discogs, which is explicitly rated as unreliable. Overall, it seems like there isn't a singular consensus on the spelling and I don't see any reason to make the move. Spookyaki (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't citing Discogs as a source, I was pointing to the album covers, vinyl labels, etc, where you can check the band's actual name, which consistently includes the apostrophe across all of their releases. That's the reason for the move. -- Forty.4 (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support if there is a source where it is shown on the actual album cover or vinyl label. Theparties (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Apple, YouTube, Spotify (where, like Discogs, you can also check the cover art on all their releases). -- Forty.4 (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I want to opine that reliable sources are usually used to demonstrate WPCOMMONNAME. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 18:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, Spookyaki is correct above that both names are in use by sources. Some sources opt to 'correct' the punctuation, perhaps to avoid it appearing to unfamiliar readers that they have made an editorial mistake. Either name can be reliably sourced. So we are free to choose between a reliably sourced name that is accurate, and a reliably sourced name that is inaccurate. What the band calls themselves is umambiguously Ultramagnetic MC's (or occasionally Ultramagnetic M.C.'s), not Ultramagnetic MCs. - Forty.4 (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Wikipedia prefers independent reliable sources. The sources emphasized above are mostly not independent, and "actual" as used above is just a codeword for non-independent and self-published. Discogs is generally unreliable and counts for nothing, per WP:DISCOGS. When independent reliable sources are mixed, Wikipedia prefers the styling that most resembles ordinary English formatting. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the "generally unreliable" warning at WP:DISCOGS is intended to suggest that the cover art and vinyl labels hosted there should be taken to be fake. But if that's what you're worried about, you can easily corroborate them against the DSPs linked above, or against any other sources that reproduce them, or even against Wikipedia itself, which also hosts them. And the word "actual" is not a "codeword" for anything (come on) - it's simply not controversial to state that the group's actual (ie: real, factual, authentic) name is always rendered with the apostrophe on their releases. Is this totally irrelevant? Not even worth considering? Because a few sources prefer the inaccurate 'grammatically corrected' version? (Note that HipHopDX, cited above, is inconsistent on this and also frequently does include the apostrophe, alonside the many other sources that also opt to do so, in the spirit of Booker T. & the M.G.'s, etc). -- Forty.4 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to imply that the cover art shown at Discogs might be "fake". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, nothing about the site's "general unreliability" is relevant to this proposal, since I only linked to it to showcase the cover art and vinyl labels. -- Forty.4 (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]