Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II

Non-capitalized Track Titles

MMBKG added to the article:

all of the unofficial track names are traditionally not capitalized

Indeed, after searching a dozen Web pages, it seems like this is the typical naming standard. Do you, or anyone else, happen to know why the track names are not usually capitalized? --Rookkey 23:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

It is likely because the tracks on the album are not "titled" in the normal sense, but rather a picture represents each track on the album. Essentially the "titles" are descriptions of the representative pictures rather than the actual names of the tracks. Methylene 03:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I Think the only one capitalised is Blue Calx, also being the only one with an actual name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.204.208 (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Lucid Dreaming

Lucid Dreaming my arse. This article repeats the press claims made by James (who admitted lying to sell more records to the guardian newspaper). It's quite obvious: SAW85-92: Invented acid house aged 14/master tapes survived a car crash. SAW II: Lucid Dreaming, RDJ album: dead twin brother, drukqs: Lost 300 songs on an mp3 player on an aeroplane. It looks good on press releases, and it sells more copies, but it probably shouldn't stay in the form it is now on the main page of an online encyclopedia.Joyrex 08:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

According to http://www.aphextwin.nu/learn/98136154898147.shtml , the "standing in a power station on acid" line came from an article written by David Toop in the March 1994 issue of The Face. As Joyrex noted though, Aphex Twin never tells the truth during interviews. Zoeb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

"Standing in a powerstation on acid" isn't true or false, it's an opinion. Being that it's the opinion of the man that made the album that this article is about, I think it can safely stay on the article. As for the lucid dreaming, it is absolutely impossible to prove that, (unless there is some way that I'm not aware of to analyse dreams and R.E.M. via brainwaves,) so we can simply say that RDJ claims this. 222.152.181.35 (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Selected Ambient Works Volume II cover.jpg

Image:Selected Ambient Works Volume II cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

mould or mold?

Is track 6 of the first CD called "mould", as stated, or "mold", as I see it referred to everywhere else? YellowFever 20:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked the edits a long time ago, and the spelling is British English, not American English, as Richard D. James is from the UK. Either way, Warp calls it "SAW2 CD1 TRK 6" 'cause there's no official title. see also "matchsticks" instead of "match sticks", etc. --209.146.241.90 12:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Are these the correct track times? Mine seem to be off around 10 seconds for each track. Sloclops 13:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[stone in focus]

The second most complete versions are the regular vinyl release and the Warp Records (UK) CD release, which has every track except for "[stone in focus]", omitted due to the capacity limit of the CD format.

So...does anyone actually own a vinyl copy? I have the chance to purchase either the limited edition brown pressing or the regular colour pressing, and since "[stone in focus]" means a lot to me, I'd like to know which pressing it can be found on before I purchase it. It should be the second track of four on the fifth side (the red one), and is the longest. I ask because discogs.com and Wikipedia say differently about its appearance on the regular edition. Thanks. --209.146.241.90 15:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

yes. you're not having it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.148.33 (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I own the black vinyl version and it also has track E2 (Stone In Focus) included. Article changed today to reflect this. 74.69.71.242 (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some things I plan to do

• Write a reception section and move the "professional reviews" template to it.
• Find some citations for some claims where I see necessary (such as the 'citation needed' parts)
• Upload the fold out artwork for the album. It may not get through Wiki's fair-use policy, but apparently the pictures are the "names" of the songs, so if if someone wants to know the "name" of a song, they can see what it really is. In my opinion a lot of the popularly interpreted names don't describe the pictures accurately enough, so this should be a really good kicker in getting it through fair-use, as I've seen pictures that are claimed to be difficult or impossible to interpret with words.

After that this article should look a bit more up to scratch. Feel free to improve it as you see fit. Pasta of Muppets (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should leave the fan-names in though. If you've ever been to any place where aphex twin is discussed, you'll notice people using the unofficial names all the time. - 220.239.227.105 (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a no-brainer. Those names have nothing to do with Aphex Twin, only AT's fans. 60.234.247.247 (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's still relevant to the album. You'll notice the third track has been scrobbled on last.fm far more times as "Rhubarb" than as anything else. I'm putting them back in for the benefit of this article, I can't see how that information would be detrimental in the slightest. Also Wikipedia:SPECULATION isn't really relevant here, none of the unofficial track names are predicting any future events (or are they????) and besides, they relate to the corresponding images in the CD/LP insert. - Drthatguy (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As this is the kind of page that people who love this album might visit, it is probably useful to mention here that the On Remixes EP from this era contains the "28 mix" which is most likely track 28 of the tracks considered for this album. Zoeb (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Going to be bold and remove the fan titles. I can't see them recognized anywhere as official. They are strictly fan-created and I have not seen any published work that recognizes them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Since people keep reinserting the fan titles, I thought it best to have both an official titles column and a fan titles column. The fan titles are actually used in the 33 ⅓ book, so that's a published work that recognizes them. It's irritating, though, that track #19 is called Stone in Focus, when it's actually a picture of wall-to-wall carpet. Kawayama (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Remove list of the use of the song in media

I'm suggesting removing this list "Media featuring tracks from the album", for the following reasons:

• It's uncited and has been uncited (WP:RS) for years. It's unlikely anyone is trying to add citations to it.
• Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. as " Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.". There is no suggestion here that any of it accurate.
• Fails WP:OR as "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.["
• It doesn't follow the Manual of Style for albums seen here.

This information has been removed and re-added twice with "simply remove the valid information outright and then force others to reinvent the wheel.)", which stating the above, is not the case since I can't find any notability or secondary sources discussing the music here being used in other articles. The second was that "some of it was cited.", which linked to a youtube video which makes it fail as a reliable source. If there is no further information to add, I'll remove this section in a few days. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• It has many citations, including Wikipedia links that are itself cited, such as the GTA 4 soundtrack. Thus the claim that you say you cannot find any notability or secondary sources is quite alarming and should demonstrate the lack of effort on your part.

• A video is not simply failed as a reliable source just because it is from Youtube, as indicated here. It is from the original editor himself and, unless you can disprove this, is a form of primary source itself.

• From the Manual of Style, second sentence: "the Album article style guide, which documents recommendations...It is intended only as a guide"

You will not be removing any section in this article. I fully support a sprucing up of the section, including adding lacking citations, but outright removal is out of the question.216.24.69.35 (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It has one citation. Which goes to a youtube link. Which is not notable, and there is no sufficient proof that the creator uploaded it. Anyone can claim they are anyone on YouTube. You have ignored that this still fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:OR. Which are not guides. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Remove all - now, per WP:BURDEN and WP:TRIVIA. Re-add only with sources, and in better form than a random collection of bulletpoints. Sergecross73 msg me 05:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been over a month, and no effort has been made to add sources, or confirm current source under question. I'll remove this section now per WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:BURDEN. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As it keeps getting added back not only without sources but with users removing the banners stating it requires sources, I've removed this section again. Please remember WP:BURDEN, if you want it included. Find sources for it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, PER WP:WPNOTRS, we don't use other wikipedia articles for sources. Unless you can find sources. Do not re-add them. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The majority of this page lacks citations, unless you're removing all unsourced content (thereby nearly blanking the page) your point is moot as the article stands. 73.152.154.221 (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The others are not as controversial, but I'd rather have nothing that uncited material. Per WP:UNSOURCED, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)" Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Very well. By your definition, I will now remove uncited material on this article. 73.152.154.221 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

And it's done. If you'd like to readd those sections, please find and add sources for them appropriately as per WP:UNSOURCED. 73.152.154.221 (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is not my definition. This is general rules and standards. I'd suggest reading up on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, before tackling it again. I'm glad your interested in the Aphex Twin and this article, but it's best to have it up to code. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Rhubarb = a confirmed title.

Richard, in his SYROBONKERS interview, included a lot of tracks to be embedded into the interview. One of these was a reversed orchestral cover of, what is technically, CD1 Track 3, titled "rhubarb orc. 19.53 rev". This was later re-released on his Soundcloud here. I think this is the first official acknowledgment of any of the fan titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.215.210 (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Conversion of the tracklist

Hey yall, would it be an issue if the tracklist was converted to a format like on drukQs ? It would be more legible to read this:

Vinyl and cassette pressings

Disc one

No.	Title	Length
1.	"Untitled" ("Cliffs")	7:27

than this:

Title	Fan title	Length	Track number
			Download	UK CD	UK vinyl	UK cassette	US CD	Streaming
Untitled	[cliffs]	7:27	01	1-01	A1	A1	1-01	#1

I suggest having the headers in this section to be 'Vinyl and Cassette pressings'; 'CD pressing' (with a note that "Hankie" is only on UK CD in the table's Notes field); and then 'aphextwin.warp.net Bonus Track' for that. The terrible US vinyl reissue can be mentioned underneath all tracklistings as a note. Again, way easier to read and organize, and it's already a standard across the rest of Wikipedia. Thoughts ?

Seems easier to read in the first example. I would also suggest that the tracks should not include fan titles, as these are not, as far as I know, in any way authorized. I find it a bit of an imposition. Putting them in a paragraph or section discussing their origin or linking out would be preferable. Spiralford (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Davest3r08 (talk · contribs) (now 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)}) 16:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Zmbro (talk · contribs) 18:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Initial comments

• The article only sources Marc Weidenbaum's 33&1/3 book once. Although this is not FAC, material from that book could surely be used a LOT more here.

• Limited pages can be previewed here – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Zmbro, I will go to the library to check the book out, however I'm not sure that they use Rock's Backpages. — Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 21:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

    I got Rock's Backpages so you don't need to worry about that. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• The release date is currently sourced by a primary source. A secondary source should at least also be included.  Done Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 15:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• ref 17 is a blog dedicated to James and is therefore unreliable.  Removed Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 15:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• refs 12 and 18 seem to be the same thing  Done Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 21:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• I have no idea if ref 42 is reliable. Based on their about us I would say no but it might be helpful to ask WP:ALBUMS.  Removed Smells like cryptocurrency spirit. Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 21:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• This might not be something you can answer but at the very top, it states ""SAW II" redirects here. For the film, see Saw II." And over at Saw II there's actually a "For the Aphex Twin album, see Selected Ambient Works Volume II." I have no idea if this was decided on long ago but maybe it would be beneficial to find a source or something else that says this record is also known as SAW II? Clearly at some point in time there was a reason that warranted these tags on both articles, but does it still warrant it now? Just pondering.  Done Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 15:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• This Pitchfork source (already cited in the article) actually uses the SAW II name frequently, so you might be able to use that. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Selected Ambient Works Volume II had a mixed reception from critics on release," this is the only time the term "mixed reviews" is used to describe the album  Removed Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 22:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Once again, the lead does little to describe the record's actual importance in terms of ambient music. Yeah it's listed on best-of lists, but why? Get my drift?  Done Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 11:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• James's move from R&S Records to Warp Records was touched on in the 85-92 article but there's no mention of that here. Or maybe that information belongs on Surfing on Sine Waves since that was his first release on Warp.  Done Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Currently zero recording information in the article (as of this revision)
  • @Zmbro: What do you mean by "recording information"? Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 15:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly what it says. When/how/where did James record the album? The record didn't appear out of thin air one day. 85-92 has both when it was recorded and the type of equipment James used. The same is to be expected here. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reception sections will need reworking (more on that later)
• Similar to the last GAN, some publications don't include authors in prose (i.e. "Rolling Stone described..."). Make sure we're consistent. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Done Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

General notes

• Simon Reynolds seemed to be really fond of this record, as he is sourced in five different references. He also (apparently) reviewed this record twice back in 1994: once for Spin (currently sourced) and another for Melody Maker. It might be beneficial to cite both so I can work on that.  Not done I don't have the issue. Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 18:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Nevermind, I'll look for it. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Like with 85–92 I'll check Newspapers.com as I'm sure that will have a bunch of helpful stuff.

That's all for now. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Continued comments

• As of this revision, the lead looks better, although the lack of a source with a direct quotation is a problem. Also, this quote is not attributed and to me isn't that important to be in the lead. Furthermore, one person saying this doesn't mean that's how the record itself is viewed by everyone.  Removed 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• refs 23 & 57 are the exact same thing  Done 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Going along with that, I think the page could still use more info from Weidenbaum's book
• I was thinking about this the other day: none of the album's (aside from "Blue Calx") are actually named (the article correctly notes this on both CD and streaming. The titles that are currently listed under track listing were adapted from a fan (Greg Eden). The source states: "Not only did Eden's titles become canonical for referring to specific tracks—his are the ones that load from the Gracenote CDDB when you rip a SAW II CD—but he later went to work for Warp, which has released James' most iconic work." I'm wondering if, instead of listing Eden's titles as the actual titles, we should change it to how they originally appeared on CD (Untitled 1, Untitled 2, etc.) and maybe put Eden's titles in parentheses () next to it? I'm wondering what your thoughts are, because to me, using fan titles that "became canonical" doesn't sit right in an encyclopedic setting.
  • Yeah... that's where some issues start to kick in... The AllMusic entry uses what seem to be the fan titles,, and the Spotify and Bandcamp releases use the #1-#23 titles. Do I just use the #1-#23 tracklist? 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  I honestly think we should change it to the numbers only as the official titles (as they technically don't). But I think the "canonical" titles are still beneficial to have. Like I said above, I think we should put those titles in parentheses () (using note in the tracklist template) then clarify that in prose above the table. That way we have both but it still displays that none of the tracks had actual titles when the album originally came out. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• In Release: "though the master was made from a US CD copy (see tracklist for details)" remove (see tracklist for details), very improper  Removed 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• I'd like to get the refs out of the infobox (similar to this edit I made on 85-92). It's not required I'm just a proponent of that.

That's all for now. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• The main problem with "retrospective reviews" is that it lacks a substantial amount of exactly that: retrospective reviews. All of the prose that calls it one of the best albums of the 90s is here when it should be in legacy and influence; there's even a quote that states "influencing everyone from Radiohead to Timbaland". I advise move all of these to legacy ala 85-92.  Done  Not done Apparently it's common for album articles to do this? 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• The wording of "stature has grown considerably in subsequent years" in the lead is technically WP:OR because it is not mentioned anywhere else (and reception doesn't really support that argument either).  Removed 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Also, make sure you look at what's currently sourced and what's not. Multiple times you've added sources that are already on the page separately that I've then had to ask you to remove or have removed myself. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • zmbro (talk) I think it would be better to fail this nom. There are too many issues with the article that cannot be resolved in a reasonable amount of time. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

    Ok. If you think that is what's best. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 19 April 2024 (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.