Talk:Walk Among Us

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Punk music (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music articles

CD version[edit]

Why is it that the CD cover has a large black border around it? Runningofspace (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have this on CD? If so, please add the album length to the ablum info box. Thanks! Paige 19:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Excuse the multiple edits to the same link. I was working from a "What links here" page and things got progressively clearer as I went through them. — OwenBlacker 23:51, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Title[edit]

Shouldn't "among" in the title be capitalised as well? It just doesn't look right. --Bacteria 10:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

I've put this as a "Debut album" because it seems to be their first full length CD that wasn't an EP or a single Jubella 10:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Static Age was recorded in 1978, although not released until 1997. 70.162.66.142 05:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Is it just me, or are they all pretty much the same? The one in the infobox stands out because of its red hue, but the '82 and '88 versions are pretty much the same thing. Do we really need them both? What purpose does it serve? --Bacteria 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The far less superior, but still infinitely cool '88 cover has a green border around the text, while the '82 version has a red border. I own both. User:Nishaddatta7:24, 12 December 2006 (EST)
I feel that the different versions are necessary for encyclopedic purposes on the various pressings. Joshuah Hounshell 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bootleg Pressing[edit]

I recently acquired a bootleg pressing of this album on double 7". I am including the information in this entry. Joshuah Hounshell 22:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:WAU1988.jpg[edit]

Image:WAU1988.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:WAU1stpress.jpg[edit]

Image:WAU1stpress.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:WAU2ndpress.jpg[edit]

Image:WAU2ndpress.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts regarding suitablity of alternate covers[edit]

Does anyone have opinions on the suitablilty of the alternate covers in this article?--Rockfang (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could, I would like some rationale for why you think having 5 non-free cover images in an infobox is necessary, when the only substantive difference between them is color variation. There is no way this type of use could possibly pass WP:NFCC, specifically criteria 3a and 8, as it is quite easy to explain in text that the album cover had different color variations. These images do not significantly increase a reader's understanding in a way that words alone cannot convey, and they have to go. One image is fine. If there were several covers that were entirely different from each other, such as Yesterday and Today, then I could see the rationale, but these are all the same cover, just with different colors. Since we are a free encyclopedia, I can't see a valid rationale for having 5 non-free images in a completely unreferenced article, and I doubt these would survive any type of scrutiny ie. GA/FA/peer review. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the different covers were not discussed in the article, I could possibly understand removing the images. But, because they are talked about, I think that people being able to see the covers does indeed help them understand those sections better. I suggest waiting about a week for other editor's opinions. If consensus indicates that removal would be best, then so be it. If within a week noone else comments, I'll start an RfC.--Rockfang (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Walk Among Us asking other editors to join this conversation. Personally I think the case to keep these images is made even weaker by the fact that none of the "discussion" of the covers is referenced, and therefore isn't verified. If there were critical commentary on the different cover versions, referenced to reliable secondary sources, then we might have something to talk about. But as it stands, with an unreferenced article, we're pushing it at 1 image as it is. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea posting on the NFCC page. I didn't think of that. I disagree with you on your last statement though. I think having at least 1 image is pretty typical on an album article regardless of whether the article is referenced or not. At least from my experience.--Rockfang (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is common practice to have 1 cover image in the infobox even when an article is unreferenced, but if the article stays unreferenced for a long time then the image is likely to be removed on the basis of NFCC #8 (and the article likely proposed for deletion). Non-free content is usually the first thing to be cut from poor (read: unreferenced) articles. Again, though, common practice is to leave a single cover image in album infoboxes, since we assume that most unreferenced album articles have the potential to be improved (reviews of most albums being readily available from a variety of sources). I totally support having 1 cover image in the infobox; it's the 4 extra ones I object to. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Coming here from NFC) None of the alternative colors pass WP:NFCC#1, because they can be replaced with text saying "Alternative covers show the regular album cover in different color tones such as purple (1982 2nd Pressing Cover and Post-1988 Cover), green (2006 FTW-13 Bootleg Cover) and orange (Orange w/ Purple Logo Cover)." That reason alone demonstrates that the images should be removed (leaving one image in the infobox for identification should be fine). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was going to say. One cover is fine and the rest can be derived from free content text. --MASEM 22:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Sgeureka is right. One cover image is generally allowed, but nothing is being gained by the others. If they were significantly different, and there was sourced critical commentary on all of the alternatives, then they could stay. As it happens, as IllaZilla says, one is pushing it. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more to say than - yup, these are replaceable by text. To be honest, even if they were significantly different, I think you'd still be struggling to provide a rationale unless the alternative cover was particularly notable for some reason. Black Kite 10:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell when I'm outnumbered. If anyone wants to remove them, I won't revert it.--Rockfang (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop punk?[edit]

i saw a newly citated source stating one category of this album as "pop-punk". Even though the citation states this album in their top 50 pop punk albums i do not think this album is pop punk at all. Just because of Danzig's singing and catchy choruses doesn't make this a punk-pop album whatsoever. Haroldandkumar (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]