Talk:Kind of Blue

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Kind of Blue/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The "Release history" has been tagged as needing more references since February 2010. I'm surprised no one has instigated a GAR yet. howcheng {chat} 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please tag If you place more specific {{cn}} tags on certain claims that you feel are unverified, it will be easy to resolve this. For now, this should help. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't apply the refimprove tag in the first place, but having an orange-level maintenance tag is incongruous with GA status. howcheng {chat} 21:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I sourced several statements when I could find the information in the sources, and I removed one sentence and a list that I could not source. (This removal should not affect the article's completeness in any way.) I removed the {{refimprove}} tag as a result. I think this should clear up all issues. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as references added.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Forgive a new commenter - The pitchfork rating for Kind of Blue as 6.6/10 is clearly directed as a review of the reissue not the actual album. This misleadingly presents the content of the review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.64.36 (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

RIAA, platinum jazz album

Relevant comments about this album at Talk:Time Out (album)#RIAA's first Platinum jazz album?. Dan56 (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

References

The references 11, and 12 refer to the page 299 of Ashley Kahn´s Kind of Blue: The Making of the Miles Davis Masterpiece., but the Kahn book with the IBSN mentioned has only 224 pages according to Amazon. -- Trou Noir (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs some editing/condensing

Not to denigrate this great album, but the article says it's considered "one of the greatest albums of all time" about half a dozen times throughout the text. Okay, we get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8101:6A37:791E:365D:CD23:EE4B (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

My "greatest" count reaches 10. But a shame, in my view, that we can't turn it Up to eleven. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed one "greatest" as it appeared redundant in its given section. The others seem appropriate, given the contexts in which they appear (even if do appear to some as being overly numerous).--JayJasper (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Description of the recording artist for this album

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

On assigning due weightage to all the opinions presented in the discussion, the consensus is to include American jazz trumpeter.His main prominence is as a trumpeter and NYA's argument is good enough.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

---

In light of a recent edit war--*sighhhhhh*..... Should the existing description of Miles Davis in the opening sentence of the lead--"American jazz trumpeter, composer, and bandleader"--be reduced to "American jazz musician"? Dan56 (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Votes

• No - "Musician" is vague--obviously the opening line for any album article will be this is an album by some fucking "musician" of some sort--and it doesn't hurt the prose in any way by adding a few extra words that actually give the reader some useful information about this album's artist. You know, some clue as to what his role is? Dan56 (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• Change to just "American jazz trumpeter" - in the jazz genre, basically any musician of any renown whatsoever is going to be de facto a bandleader and composer at times, so putting those words here doesn't really add any useful information. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• American jazz trumpeter. A walk through the list of Featured album articles shows that simpler descriptions are the norm (indeed, it's nearly unanimous judging by the two dozen or so that I checked). And despite the proposer's statement to the contrary, it does hurt the prose to add all that extra verbiage. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• "American jazz trumpeter" per Korny O'Near and NewYorkActuary. The sentence is verbose with all three. AndrewOne (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• "American jazz musician" or * "American jazz trumpeter" We don't go around prefacing people's names with every role they've every taken up. For instance, if an article mentions Paul Krugman, it might state simply "According to Paul Krugman,.." or perhaps, "According to economist Paul Krugman, ...". It should not state "According to economics professor, Nobel prize winner, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, ...". LK (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a false equivalency; an entire article in which the musician is discussed everywhere in relation to the topic begs for more context of that musician's relevant roles; Davis' role as a bandleader was more prominent than his role as a trumpeter on Agharta, for instance. Dan56 (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • And you should feel entirely free to cite that prominence to a reliable source within the article. He is first and foremost an American jazz trumpeter. As an aside, I wish people would stop over-using the phrase "false equivalency"; 9 times out of 10 it is used incorrectly, and pisses me the fuck off, being the grammar barbarian I am. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Most sources discussing Agharta--and his other electric-period work, for that matter--do this. And on what other occasion have I used the phrase?? Dan56 (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Look at the weight of the references that note him as a jazz musician and trumpeter and balance those against those refs that emphasize another part of his career; which will make it easier to decide what he is primarily known for and as. Secondly, I must extend my apologies to you; I don't know if you have used "false equivalency" before. I just now it is madly overused by people who misapply it, and my gag reflex kicks in any time someone uses it outside of its legal and political usages. Mea Culpa. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• American jazz musician is more accurate to encompass his whole body of work outside of trumpet performance Wolfson5 (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The average reader isn't familiar with his whole body of work, if it's even relevant to this article. Dan56 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• American jazz musician - Since musician encompasses all three titles. Meatsgains (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It encompasses those three titles specifically? Because if not, it's open ended and too ambiguous to be of any use to a reader not familiar with Davis. Dan56 (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• No. Miles Davis is notable for all three musical roles. If we need to reduce verbosity, American jazz trumpeter is preferred, as he's most notable for this. Using the word "musician" instead of "trumpeter" sacrifices information while gaining nothing in return. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• American jazz trumpeter. Yes the guy was so much more. Yes the guy was a genius. But these three words sum up his general notability, expecially in the context of this album. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

@Korny O'Near:, I'm sure jazz aficionados will find it unnecessary, but these articles are aimed at the layperson "People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully." And otherwise music fans who know nothing of jazz--since it's dying in the mainstream--won't consider the artist of the album the de facto composer; they'll just as likely assume he doesn't write what he plays. Perhaps ditching "bandleader" only, since it's suggested in the following sentences' discussion of "Davis's sextet"? Dan56 (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but just because he's a composer doesn't mean that he wrote the material on this album. (Or on any of his albums; it could be that he only composed for others.) So if the goal is to clarify that he wrote the songs on this album, that's the wrong way to go about it. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It would certainly suggest it, strongly. Just as saying he's a trumpeter would suggest he played trumpet on this album. Dan56 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

And I would suggest just as strongly that we follow almost every other article about jazz albums and keep the lead succint. LK (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a thin line between succinct and scant that you're failing to see. There's also the fact that every article is different and your idea of a "succinct" opening description will be less sufficient at one article than it would at another. Dan56 (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Alerted by RfC bot. I'm not sure why "bandleader" is used in his WP page; every group has a band leader. Specifying what notable role he had would be best, if applicable (e.g., lead singer, lead trumpeter in an ensemble, etc), otherwise 'bandleader' is superfluous. So I would certainly not add it here. For an article on any recording, mention only what the artist is most notable for in the lead intro. If that is composing and playing trumpet, then "American jazz trumpeter and composer" suffices. Whether or not he wrote songs on the album is irrelevant to his notability as a composer (if he is indeed notable as a composer). Lapadite (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kind of Blue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107035926/http://www.jazz.com/dozens/the-dozens-the-golden-anniversary-of-porgy-and-bess to http://www.jazz.com/dozens/the-dozens-the-golden-anniversary-of-porgy-and-bess
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705185024/http://www.columbiajazz.com/newsletter2/brew.html to http://www.columbiajazz.com/newsletter2/brew.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107062442/http://www.jazzextra.com/biographies/miles-davis.php to http://www.jazzextra.com/biographies/miles-davis.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090110001615/http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news.php?id=21627 to http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news.php?id=21627
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081020222901/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/node/146120 to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/node/146120
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116083241/http://www.oakton.edu/user/~larry/miles/main/covers/columbia/kindofblue.html to http://www.oakton.edu/user/~larry/miles/main/covers/columbia/kindofblue.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kind of Blue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227113055/http://www.tower.com/details/details.cfm?wapi=106692819 to http://www.tower.com/details/details.cfm?wapi=106692819

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC: What material should be included in the lead paragraph?

The consensus is to support the restoration.

Cunard (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recently, the paragraphs in the lead were rearranged by Lawrencekhoo, so that information about the album's release date, recording, and the musician's concept for the album were replaced in the first paragraph with information about how the album has been critically received, accolades, and so forth. Lawrencekhoo cited the guideline that the lead should establish notability of the topic. In restoring the original layout, I cited MOS:LEAD which says the lead paragraph "should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it," and in my opinion, critical opinions are not facts. The practice throughout WP:ALBUMS articles appears to prioritize the original layout here, but admittedly my opinion is not a strong one when reading: "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." So I'm not sure. Dan56 (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Votes

• Support the restoration. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support the restoration. By the way, Dan56, you did the right thing by taking this to RfC. It was a good way to prevent an edit war. (Summoned by bot) -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 19:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support the restoration via the rationale above. Summoned by a bot. Comatmebro (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• MOS discusses a limited (1-2 sentences) discussion of notability. So while I agree that some discussion should exist, I think the current version is excessive and should be substantially reduced. Run-on sentences should not be used to get around the limit. Even a non-musical person like me understands the notability of this album, so I can't imagine this should take more than a sentence.--Rpclod (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)(Summoned by bot)
• (Summoned by bot) Per Rpclods' comment above, I went ahead and added a category to the RfC to widen the net a bit.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 19:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverse the pianist credits?

This seems very contorted:

 pianist Wynton Kelly, ... with former band pianist Bill Evans appearing on most of the tracks in place of Kelly

Shouldn't it be something like:

pianist Bill Evans with new pianist Wynton Kelly appearing on one track.

- Immigrant laborer (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Compact disc track numbering

I can see that you believe it should be noted that if an album had tracks one to five on side one and tracks one to four on side two, then it should be announced in the track listing section that the compact disc is numbered it tracks one through nine. I'm sorry but I feel that this little tag placed at the bottom of every track listing scans terribly on the page, and indeed insults the reader's intelligence. Since a compact disc has no sides, of course the track listing format does not indicate any, so tracks are numbered through rather than broken up into sides with side two starting off at one again. I don't think that needs to be reiterated. PJtP (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Which reader? The teenage reader who "accounts for only seven percent of CD sales", if they even buy and know what a CD is? Dan56 (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"It must have been made in heaven."

Re this revert: "Who was Jimmy Cobb and why do we care about him?" Really? This article is a "WP:Good Article" and that quote has been placed under "Recording" for at least 10 years. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I know who Jimmy Cobb is. But Wikipedia articles should be written for people unfamiliar with the article subject in mind - we can't count on them knowing who Cobb is, or on them reading the article prose to find out. The simple fix in this situation is just to write "Drummer Jimmy Cobb" in the caption - it just adds context.

The bigger problem is why this quote is important enough to box out separately from the prose. It's very short, and it seems (though even this is not clear) to be a pretty generic statement along the lines of "It's a good album". That's not revealing or enlightening, and it's nothing that couldn't be inserted or paraphrased in the article body instead. Popcornfud (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a shame. For over ten years it's attracted no adverse comment? I think it's pretty plain and simple. I really don't see any value in "paraphrasing" it - a bit like reducing the Mona Lisa to painting by numbers. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

... however, looking at the Kahn (2000) source here I can't find that quote, certainly not on page 111. Can you? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Can't see it. Google does produce this possible alternative source (the Times) for the quote, but it's behind a paywall so I can't check it myself right now, and I also am concerned the Times may have sourced it from the Wikipedia article, a possible case of WP:CITOGENESIS. Will need checking. Popcornfud (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd refrain from making arguments along the lines of For over ten years it's attracted no adverse comment? - it suggests that if something sticks around long enough it shouldn't be changed and/or is impervious to criticism, which a) doesn't make much sense and b) would make it difficult to make progress in many areas.

I'm not sure what you're saying with the Mona Lisa comparison... I don't see what value the quote adds to the article at all. Popcornfud (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

My real point is that this has been a Good Article for over ten years. As regards Mona Lisa - it's just taking a poetic quote, by a very famous musician, who played on the album, and reducing it to a mere prose factoid. But hey, encyclopaedias are all about facts, aren't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

To be quite frank with you, as someone who has written and reviewed plenty of GAs and FAs over the years, I regularly discover FAs (let alone GAs) with dramatic room for improvement; I no longer put a lot of stock in the badges, especially ones that are years old, when review standards were quite different.

Assuming we can find a source for the quote, I wouldn't object to integrating the quote into the article body in some place where it contextually makes sense. Something like Cobb said the album "must have been made in heaven". But it isn't the sort of quote that makes sense to draw out and place in a separate quote box, other than to sort of glorify it. As I said in my original edit, I don't think it even really makes sense to someone skimming the article (and quote boxes/images/captions are read by skimming first - they should be able to stand alone). Popcornfud (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Those seven words still make perfect sense to me. Yes, I was basking in its glory. For this place, I thought it was cool. Silly me. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a book source, from Brian J. Fraser (2004), here. And The Times used it in it's 2020 obituary for Cobb here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, thanks for finding those sources. I've used them to integrate the quote into a place where I think it makes more sense, with context. Popcornfud (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, well, whateva. "Heaven is a place, where nothing ever happens (to cool quote boxes)." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Cobb is introduced in the lead. Piotr Jr. (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Um yes, he's linked in the second sentence. But allegedly we can't count on people "reading the article prose to find out who he is." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to dwell too much on this because IMO the lack of context is not the biggest problem with the quotebox. The biggest problem is why it was significant enough to pull out into a box in the first place.

However, it's good practice, in box captions, to provide context for what it is the box is showing (a quote or a photo or whatever) and help the reader understand why it is significant without having to read the entire article first. Although we're talking about a quote box here, and not an image caption, the guidance at MOS:CAPCONTEXT applies here.

As I said above, this issue would have been easily rectified by simply adding "Drummer Jimmy Cobb". Popcornfud (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

In any case it's not a big deal, if you both feel this quote is self-evidently significant and valuable enough to draw out in a quote box, and can't be paraphrased, go and put it back. and we can just mention "Drummer" in there to solve the context issue. We just need to make sure it has the correct source on it this time. Popcornfud (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

As I said before, I really don't see how this quote can be usefully "paraphrased". lol. I thought the quote box was elegant. I think the prose alternative is entirely pedestrian. Just my opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Add section on "Kind of Bloop" incident

Copystrike on the coverage high profile case. --Greatder (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain what you're talking about? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: basically someone made an 8bit chiptune of their personal interpretation of the music and got sued for using the pixelated version of album picture. It blew up. Some links:

- https://boingboing.net/2011/06/23/why-fair-use-doesnt.html

- https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/benjaminj4/why-remix-culture-needs-new-copyright-laws

- https://observer.com/2011/06/andy-baio-jay-maisel-kind-of-bloop-lawsuit-sue-2011-06-24/

- https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2011/06/articles/attorney/trademark-copyright-infringement/kind-of-bloop-an-statutory-damages/

--Greatder (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explaining. Yes, it looks relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not essential to an understanding of the article's topic. Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The article's topic is the album. This is a trivial item in the story of the album cover. Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr.: It had relevant and wide reception in news cycle and the article needs to be updated to reflect those news and discussions. --Greatder (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't consider any of the sites you referenced to be relevant or indicative of widespread coverage. And in and of itself, the story seems like a footnote. Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

In fact, two of your sources are listed at WP:RSP with cautionary notes. Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Why do we need an entire section dedicated to this story? How is more than one sentence summarizing its connection to the album not sufficient enough? How does mentioning more help readers understand Kind of Blue better? How does not mentioning it at all deprive this article of all requisite information to understand the album? These are the questions we should be asking ourselves. You are free to add the information yourself to the article, but stop tagging it as if it needs this. It doesn't. Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Not really "influence" is it. But kind of legacy-ish? One sentence may well be enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Notes on 'Background' edit, 15–04–22

This edit does not constitute vandalism, nor does it change the meaning or context of the material, nor does it include information not found in already cited sources. It includes incremental changes made in good faith to improve the previous version of this paragraph, which had several areas in need of improvement: 1) the letter 'a' in 'alto' was incorrectly capitalized 2) the sentence's readability is hindered by its clumsy grammar and punctuation as well as its long length 3) the events mentioned near the end of sentence were listed non-chronologically: the mention of 'Kelly...November, 1958' precedes 'Cobb...May, 1958' 4) the sentence as written states that the pianist (Evans) was replaced in 1958, but that a drummer was added— the latter is incorrect, as the previous lineup also had a drummer (Philly Joe Jones) who was replaced in 1958 by Jimmy Cobb. Hagaland (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. But you've left the first paragraph uncited. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 15:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. (I don't have a problem with providing a reference, but it's worth noting that no other information/instrumentalist in that paragraph was cited; perhaps you can enlighten me regarding why...) Hagaland (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Because you split it from the other text, which had citations toward the end. Which is customary to place a citation covering a whole paragraph at the end and not repeat it elsewhere (WP:OVERCITE). So can you check your previous revisions and see which citation was verifying that entire paragraph? 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 21:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Certified sales

What is the point in the 3,495,572 (with reference) under certified sales, when it has been certified platinum 5 times in the US (i.e., sales over 5 million)?

1) It's out of date: It went platinum one more time since this reference was added.

2) Surely the certification agency is the best source.

If it wasn't a good article I'd just do this myself, but perhaps I'm missing some nuance here. Dhalamh (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Your suggestion was boldy implemented. Citing online magazine Vulture over the RIAA is ridiculous. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Playing times

1. The SACD booklet gives 5:37 for "Blue in Green", instead of 5:27.

2. The booklet with the SACD says that the tape recorder was running at the wrong speed for the first three tracks, so they were played back sharp and faster on all releases until the gold Mastersound release. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Good to make a note (or footnote) of these, all referenced to reliable sources, of course... a la Agharta (album)#Track listing. But the main listing of lengths should be the originals, I think. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 13:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, except maybe list both times. I presume that the ones on the SACD are different from the originals, but I don't know. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)