Talk:Even in the Quietest Moments...

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Not in the mood to write an article (even a stub) right now, but should anyone ever write an article about fool's overture, it would be useful to tell that the 'we shall never surrender' speech played during the song is actually a speech from winston churchill. i'd say it signifies the song's title. Cetheriel 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actually Churchhill or the actor who did radio broadcasts pretending to be him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.184.1 (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Allmusic guide[edit]

There seems to be a mini-war over the rating from the Allmusic guide. I noticed it because one of the people involved (an anon IP) also changed Pink Floyd's Ummagumma page, which I'm watching. Getting back to EITQM... according to the Allmusic website, the rating is 3.5.

Looking at this article's edit history, I see that there used to be a comment, "DO NOT change to 4.5 again!" The anon IP in question removed the comment, and later changed it to 4.5. Well, that's not right! If you want to dispute it, this talk page is the place to do it, once a message like that has been inserted. I don't see any previous discussion of it on this page.

I also see previous changes have an edit summary that says "change star rating back to its original rating, which it still should be", and "3.5 stars to 4.5..what allmusic.com gave it and it will soon have again..do not change back as authorized by the allmedia guide". (I don't think Allmusic has any authority to make demands on Wikipedia!) That edit summary was made in August 2007, and the predicted change to Allmusic's site has not been made.

I must conclude the changes are being made in good faith, and for that reason I'm not going to change it back yet. I have changed the Ummagumma page, though, as there are no edit summaries on that page's history explaining what's going on. I should also note this anon IP has been making some ratings changes that DO match the website, so this is certainly not a vandalism issue.

What we need, is to have somebody explain why the Allmusic site is wrong, where older information is coming from (a book?), where someone is getting the info stating which of 2 conflicting ratings is the "correct" one, and who is saying it is going to change on the website, when clearly that isn't happening.

If the answer should turn out to be that Allmusic's online database has a lot of errors they know about, and never get around to correcting, then maybe they don't deserve to be used as a source. After all, when we quote them, we are essentially advertising them. If they don't properly support the online community, the online community should not support them.

I could suggest more immediate remedies, but first I need to have someone confirm what's going on. I'll notify the anon editor that I've left this message. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reply yet, so I've changed it back to the website value AND re-inserted a warning, "DO NOT change rating; see talk page discussion". --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the rating on Even in the Quietest Moments back to 4.5 stars because thats what the rating was on allmusic.com. I've been a fan of the website for years and remember that, as well as Crime of the Century were both 4.5 stars, which both now are not. I think that the site is making mistakes, their moving moments in history down in the ratings, allmovie.com is doing the exact same thing which is very irritating, why are they doing this? I want people to know the albums true rating, not its mistaken replace that allmusic.com fails to see. Look on allmovie.com for proof, go to the site and look under the horror section, Scream was 5 stars, now is 4.5, Nightmare on Elm Street and The Thing were 4.5 stars now are both 3, the list goes on, allmusic is doing the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.0.227 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. The big problem is, there is no way we can verify what these websites rated in the past, and no way to tell why these changes are being made. One could just as easily say the old rating was the mistake. Most likely neither is a mistake, and the editors are revising their opinions over time. You say you want us to know the album's "true" rating, but how can any rating be "true" if it's just an opinion, and their opinions change? I agree it's a strange situation, and I have to go back to wondering if we should be using their ratings at all, if they fluctuate.
In any event, it's wrong to try to hide the current rating by removing the link, as you did. Also, when a warning is inserted saying not to make the change, and to discuss it on the talk page, that doesn't mean to do both at once before concensus has been reached. And making changes that say the website says what it doesn't, just doesn't make sense. I suppose we could consider adding a comment below the rating, saying it was 4.5 in the past, but how do we reference this? I would object to adding that statement since it is unverifiable. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

May I ask since when Supertramp is cathegorized as a progressiv rock band? They have some progrssive elements specially in their first album but I would rather call them a Pop/Rock band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.209.88.152 (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think their first album (not to mention Crime of the Century and Brother Where You Bound) only "has some progressive elements", then your definition of progressive rock is clearly very different from everyone else's. Without knowing what your definition is, I can't comment further than that.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Even in the Quietest Moments.... 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Even_in_the_Quietest_Moments...&oldid=1211180720"