Jump to content

Talk:Radiohead/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

The term "Arab Jew"

The article refers to Johnny wife as an "Arab Jew". While Thom himself refers to her this way in the rolling stones interview, the term is misleading and is almost never used by Jews (either of middle eastern origin or otherwise), since they usually see themselves as part of distinct (non Arab) Jewish nationality and not as Arabs. It is very likely Johnny wife would not describe herself as a "Arab Jew". The term "Mizrahi Jew", used to describe Jews of middle eastern origin, probably better suit and should replace the term "Arab Jew" (which is sometimes used by foreigners as synonymous to "middle eastern Jew" although it is misleading and wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msnoker2 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Jonny's wife's Twitter bio reads "I am an arab jew". But as it seems likely to be contentious, I've removed it as I'm not sure it's very important anyway. Popcornduff (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed

electronics and lyrics inspired by war [citation needed]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2016

In the third paragraph the date for the release of the new album is wrong. It says 9 May, should be 8 May. Nahcirn (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Genres

The genre section of the infobox is getting needlessly cluttered with sources simply labeling the band a certain way. To clear it up, I've resituated those sources here:

Do not add any genres without reliable sources.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

References

References

  1. ^ "Radiohead: Biography". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on 12 June 2018. Retrieved 20 January 2009. ...the biggest art-rock act since Pink Floyd...
  2. ^ "Radiohead - British rock group". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 10 August 2015. ...arguably the most accomplished art-rock band of the early 21st century...
  3. ^ Lahann, Michael. "All Surprises: Radiohead and the Art of Unconventional Album Releases". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 May 2016.
  4. ^ Erlewine, Stephen Thomas. "Radiohead biography". AllMusic. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
  5. ^ Young, Alex (21 January 2016). "Radiohead will tour in 2016". Consequence of Sound. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
  6. ^ Robinson, Will (12 January 2016). "Sam Smith Hasn't Heard Radiohead's Spectre Theme". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
  7. ^ "Ranked: Radiohead". Under the Radar. Retrieved 8 May 2016.
  8. ^ Erlewine, Stephen Thomas. "Kid A – Radiohead". AllMusic. Retrieved 8 September 2011.
  9. ^ Iadarola, Alexander. "Why We're Happy Holly Herndon Is Touring with Radiohead". Thump. Archived from the original on 12 May 2016. Retrieved 11 May 2016.
  10. ^ "True Love Waits—Christopher O'Riley Plays Radiohead". Billboard. 21 June 2003. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
Is this a standard thing for Wikipedia, to hide sources on the Talk page instead? I've never seen it done before; seems weird... Popcornduff (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not. But some people (rightfully or wrongfully) dislike the use of inline citations in infoboxes. I personally don't find a problem with it.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2016

Hello, I would be very grateful if you would kindly remove the photo of me from the Radiohead page. There are many more appropriate photos, gratefully, Clive Deamer Clevermedia (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Hi Clive! I'm sure I speak for many other editors here when I say I'm a big admirer of your work with Radiohead and other artists. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia policy about people making edit requests to articles about themselves is. However, as another photo (seemingly uploaded yourself?) is already on Wikimedia, and looks like a pretty decent one to me, I'll go ahead and swap it.Popcornduff (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, Wikipedia is always looking for good quality photos. If you have any photos of yourself working with Radiohead you'd like to donate for the Wikipedia Radiohead articles, please go ahead. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

LLLP LLP

I noticed that at least on Spotify, all post EMI records are now labeled as having LLLP LLP, licensed to XL as their record company. According to beta company and similar websites, the members of Radiohead are the directors of LLLP LLP, but I couldn't find any info on whether the company is owned by XL or by Radiohead themselves, (or a third party). Since Ticker Tape has its own page, I think LLLP LLP should have its own page, but I am not sure if we have enough info on it.Merijn2 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it needs its own article, because, as you say, we have barely no information about it. I'm not sure Ticker Tape needs one either, for the same reason - and I also don't think it meets notability guidelines, having not received much coverage. Popcornduff (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Acclaim for The Bends should be noted in the lede

I get that The Bends is oh-so-primitive and basic to a lot of hardened 'head fans, but there are a million publications who name it one of the best albums ever (see the album's article for a sampling). It's hugely acclaimed, and the article should reflect that rather than cater to the opinions of die hards who think the "challenging" OK Computer and Kid A are just the greatest things ever. 185.54.163.33 (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Several of Radiohead's albums are regularly featured in greatest-of lists, but Kid A and OK Computer get particular attention. Popcornduff (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
No, they don't. OK Computer does, but The Bends is far more prevalent in "all time" lists than Kid A. Again, the article should reflect history, not snobby Radiohead fans' version of history. 185.54.163.252 (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?b=819
The top-ranked album is OK Computer followed by Kid A, in positions #1 and #6 respectively. Radiohead's other albums also place highly - off the top of my head, Amnesiac, HTTT and In Rainbows all feature in Rolling Stone's most recent list of the great albums ever, for example - but OKC and Kid A dominate by a clear margin. Rolling Stone, Pitchfork and the Times ranked Kid A the greatest album of the 2000s; The Bends can't compete with that. I will concede, though, that it might be worth mentioning that not only OKC and Kid A have received mentions in best-of lists.
Maybe you could stop calling us names, making weird suppositions about our tastes in Radiohead, and start producing some good sources to back your claims up? Popcornduff (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, User:185.54.163.33's tone is hostile and unproductive. But s/he has already pointed us to The Bends, where there appear to be several sources supporting her/his claim. So we should take this idea seriously. Mgnbar (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
"Rolling Stone, Pitchfork and the Times ranked Kid A the greatest album of the 2000s; The Bends can't compete with that."
Actually, it can. Being ranked the best of one decade is not the same as being ranked as one of the top 10 greatest of all time, where The Bends has been ranked by innumerable publications. Decade lists pull from a restricted selection, meaning that Bloggs may rank Kid A as the best of the 2000s, but only like it 1/10th as much as the record he ranks as the best of the 1990s. Kid A does not have the same presence in all-time lists that The Bends has. 185.54.163.232 (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, The Bends has appeared in numerous best-of lists, but you haven't produced any evidence that this isn't bested by Kid A. Nonetheless, I'll rewrite the lead to mention that several RH albums have achieved placements in various best-of lists. Popcornduff (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You simply will not collaborate. I suggested that acclaim for The Bends should be mentioned in the lede; Mgnbar said this was an idea to take seriously; and you yourself added such a mention before reneging on it due to a clear WP:OWN issue ("repetition" is a poor excuse when all you have to do is tweak some wording). It's patently obvious that The Bends is regarded as more of an all-time record than Kid A, and if two albums are to be singled out, they should be The Bends and OK Computer. Call it a "supposition", but yeah, I think it's pretty clear that this article has been hijacked by the same "nothing-before-OK Computer-matters" elitists who plague sites like ateaseweb and greenplastic. Hoity toity nonsense is just fine on those sites, but this is supposed to be, well, an unbiased encyclopedia... 185.54.163.141 (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Drop the speculative personal attacks and start making sensible arguments. "It's patently obvious that The Bends is regarded as more of an all-time record than Kid A" - I've produced evidence to the contrary, you haven't. Evidence, please? Popcornduff (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
"Yes, User:185.54.163.33's tone is hostile and unproductive. But s/he has already pointed us to The Bends, where there appear to be several sources supporting her/his claim. So we should take this idea seriously." - Mgnbar 185.54.163.242 (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The Bends article contains sources for The Bends appearing in best-of lists. It doesn't contain sources for it being more acclaimed than Kid A. Popcornduff (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The article is indeed a rigged hagiography, projecting the version of Radiohead that overzealous fans want the world to believe in. Given that Wikipedia's average user is an affluent, white, 32-year-old male, you're probably on the wrong site if you're looking for an impartial article about Yorke and co. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.227.192.46 (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain what you think is biased about the article as it stands? Neutrality is important on Wikipedia. Popcornduff (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hagiography is a common problem in Wikipedia articles about popular culture, because editors self-select based on their interests. But, as Popcornduff said, you could be more helpful by giving comments on specific parts of the text. Or be bold and make edits yourself. Mgnbar (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"The best albums of all time"

The phrase "the best albums of all time" appears in two consecutive sentences within the lede. I propose that one instance be altered to "the greatest albums ever made", in order to ease repetition. Thank you. 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:3CE2:4E31:8781:E595 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That would only be a superficial fix. It's one of the reasons I was opposed to adding the Bends' appearances in such lists to the lead (see the discussion above), because it makes the lead quite repetitive. I might try to rewrite it to make a general statement about numerous albums' appearances in best-of lists, instead of listing them in order. Popcornduff (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Paul Thomas Anderson

Is he really relevant enough to have his picture included on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.42.66 (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. Removed. Popcornduff (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Toronto stage collapse

There's a new Pitchfork article about the Toronto stage collapse, and the ongoing case: http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1310-waiting-on-justice-for-the-radiohead-stage-collapse-that-killed-scott-johnson/

There's also this source about the collapse which looks useful: http://www.stagetech.com/sites/default/files/TPINOV12_Radiohead_comp.pdf

I'll set about incorporating this information into the article, but I'm wondering if we now have enough information that it's deserving of its own article. This might be especially useful considering the information is currently duplicated in both the Radiohead and The King of Limbs articles; we could cut back the information on both pages and just link to a new article explaining it in detail. Thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Done: Radiohead stage collapse

Facial collapse

The stage collapse reminds me of an incident at the Glasgow SECC on 30 November 2003, in which an 18-year-old male from the East End of Glasgow suffered a severe injury during the heavy section of "My Iron Lung". His head/face was sandwiched between the back of an audience member's head in front, and the forehead of another person behind him: the result was an appaling "facial collapse" which involved the destruction of his entire facial skeleton. I have clippings from Scottish newspapers the Daily Record and the Evening Times covering this story. Is it notable for the article (or possibly My Iron Lung or Radiohead live performances)? 194.88.142.251 (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016

Laugelaugelauge (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

Update band image to this: http://beardedgentlemenmusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Radiohead-2016-620x350.jpg 2601:C2:C000:FA40:1DE5:FFCC:AA8B:C10 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done It would be great to use this image, but unfortunately the copyright doesn't belong to Wikipedia. Popcornduff (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2017

To the section "Collaborators" add the following sentence at the beginning of the paragraph that begins "Dilly Gent has been responsible......"

Jim Warren has mixed the live sound for Radiohead shows since May 3rd 1992[1], and continues to do so to the present day. He was awarded a TEC award for outstanding creative achievement for live sound production [2] for the Hail to the Thief tour. Profcomp (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Your source doesn't seem to say that. Popcornduff (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.mixonline.com/news/profiles/2004-tec-awards-winners/377224
  2. ^ http://www.mixonline.com/news/profiles/2004-tec-awards-winners/377224

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Radiohead. 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: 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) 16:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Radiohead. 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: 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) 21:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment: do we need the List of unreleased songs by Radiohead article?

Last month I started a discussion on the "List of unreleased songs by Radiohead" talk page but it didn't attract a lot of responses. Since many of the unreleased songs have since been released, I'm not convinced we still need the page. If any other editors have any feelings I'd like to hear it. Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Radiohead. 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: 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) 09:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Tour controversy

I'm concerned that the paragraph covering the controversy about the Tel Aviv show is bloated. Thinking of moving most of it to the Moon Shaped Pool article instead. Is that a good idea? @Brandt Luke Zorn: want to weigh in? Popcornduff (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@IAmTylerSanders: Thanks for tagging the section as overlong recently - even though I consider myself a pretty ruthless editor when it comes to trimming, as the only consistent editor on this article, I can definitely lose the plot sometimes. I'd appreciate your feelings about the issue above, if you have any. Popcornduff (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I boldly trimmed it to one paragraph.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit.[2] Do you realize that this section takes up more space than their most popular song, Creep. This is an excellent example of WP:RECENTISM, where something relatively unimportant, but recent gets more coverage than something more important, but long ago. I'm just picking Creep as an example. There are many things way more important than this non-event that gets less coverage in the article. In fact, wouldn't a single sentence more than suffice? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@A Quest For Knowledge: I understand your concerns and I think your points are reasonable.
The thing about Creep is that there's an entire article dedicated to it, so we can just summarise it in the Radiohead article. But there's no dedicated article to cover the Radiohead tour controversy. I understand the recentism argument, but the controversy nonetheless received wide coverage in numerous reliable sources, and involved some high-profile artists. I think it deserves a decent summary somewhere.
Would it be better covered in the Moon Shaped Pool article, under the "tour section"? If not - I don't think it's worthy of its own article, is it? (I'd be happy to write it, if anyone wants to persuade me that it's notable enough.) Popcornduff (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, I'm kind of on the fence about this issue, so if others editors want to chime in, I'm happy to go with consensus either way. Popcornduff (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, on reflection, I think you were right - even if there's nowhere else to put the information, it was taking up too much space on this page, so I've trimmed it down. If anyone has suggestions for where else it could be covered in more detail, I'm all ears. Popcornduff (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

The following is in paragraph 4,"In 2005, they were ranked 73rd in Rolling Stone's list of "The Greatest Artists of All Time";" I am proposing a reference should be cited, as occurs for Jonny Greenwood, Ed O'brien and Thom Yorke within the same sentence. Here is the link to the source: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/100-greatest-artists-147446/radiohead-9-86226/.

I am a new user to Wikipedia. Thank you,in advance, for your patience and support.

--Jstevevt (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Time for a new infobox pic?

The newer photos (2017-2018) of the group taken by Raph_PH seem to look good enough to make a new collage. The photos in the infobox now seem pretty grainy and outdated.100cellsman (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, the current photos are old. Thom in particular now looks completely different. If someone wants to try making a new collage that'd be great - not my forte. Popcornduff (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
So I went ahead and made one! [3] Thoughts? (apologies for the license error)100cellsman (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that! Hmm - a couple of things look a bit odd to me. First, it would be good for the interests of visual coherence to have each member facing the same direction. Second, three of the photos are just a bit weird - Jonny is indistinct, Colin looks like he's either eating a snack or shaving (and is partly obscured), and Ed looks like he's having a bit too much of a good time. Perhaps we could find some better photo sources among those uploaded by Yasuko Otani - her work is on the Thom Yorke and Ed O'Brien pages, for example. Popcornduff (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
You do have a point. I'm sure I can find replacements for the other members but I was surprised by the lack of photos Colin has, I couldn't find any better recent pics of him. (by the way, these collage things are much more harder to create than they look)100cellsman (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I expect they're a pain to make, especially because we have to assemble them out of license-free sources. Popcornduff (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
So it doesn't matter when the photos were taken, right?100cellsman (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it probably does matter a bit. We don't want to have a photo of Thom Yorke from 2018 next to Phil Selway from 1994. To be honest, though, incorporating images and media into Wiki stuff is not my strong area, and we could benefit from some more opinions.
I meant to say that I could incorporate say a 2016 pic to a 2017 pic so it's much more closer to home.100cellsman (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Some Wiki articles use non-license-free promotional photos of bands and artists and seem to justify it by having people who understand copyright regulations properly. That would be the best result. It's irritating that we can't easily use those kinds of thing when it's exactly what they were intended to be used for - to identify/represent artists in articles, magazines etc. Popcornduff (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I see some press shots that other record labels or endorsement companies post to flickr that's CC, and some press shots are uploaded here with an OTRS license. I'm not entirely savvy with managing images here as I mostly upload them and swap from other pics.100cellsman (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Popcornduff, Here's round two of my photo montage attempt! [4]
100cellsman Nice job. I think that's good enough. The only one I really question is Colin. He looks a bit corpse-like. Popcornduff (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Well I had no other good options besides that one pic where he looks like he's eating a snack, alot of the recent photos of him give too poor views.100cellsman (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Man, wouldn't it be great if we could use this photo? Sigh. Popcornduff (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2018

I found the sentence "Producer Nigel Godrich made his name with Radiohead, working as an audio engineer on The Bends and as their producer on every studio album since." (under "Collaborators") to be slightly unclear (for want of a better word). My reasoning for this is that I was reading the page for OK Computer, which mentioned that Nigel Godrich was the producer for that album and every album since. This then prompted me to think to myself "Wait, didn't I just read that he was the producer for every studio album since The Bends?". It was only after I had gone back to this page and reread the section, that I realised he was actually an audio engineer on The Bends, and a producer on all of the later albums. I believe that if the sentence was written slightly more clearly, I (and possibly others) may not have made (or make) that mistake.

My suggestion for making the sentence clearer would be something along the lines of: "Producer Nigel Godrich made his name with Radiohead, first working as an audio engineer on The Bends, and later their producer on OK Computer and every album since." Skrike (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I've reworded this to be more explicit. Does it help? Popcornduff (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"Band members" Section

There should be a timeline within the "Band members" section of the article. Dean12065 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Why? Popcornduff (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Radiohead has had consistent members, so there isn't much of a point with adding a timeline. 100cellsman (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of The World According to Radiohead into Radiohead

On it's own, it is not a notable enough topic to warrant it's own page, but it is still valuable information relating to the Radiohead band that it should be preserved. Stickymatch 22:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Never heard of that before. I'm not convinced it even deserves to be mentioned in this article, let alone given its own article. What is the notability? Popcornfud (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think merging that article into this one will be of much benefit to this article, since it's a stub that doesn't have much to say about the film. In fact, maybe the article should be deleted altogether since Google didn't bring up any sources that I'm certain are reliable. ｖａｐｏｒｇａｚｅ💬 (please ping on reply) 20:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Station Popularizing "Creep"

I noticed that "KITS" is described as the station that started playing Creep in the US.

1) The next-cited article doesn't mention any particular US radio station.

2) Checking the previously-cited article, it mentions "KROQ", not "KITS" as the station that gave Creep airplay in the US. Someone who has permissions should make that appropriate change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossmoody88 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Rossmoody88, you're right, these claims don't seem to be in the source, so I've just removed it. We don't need that degree of detail in this article anyway, it's just a summary of the key points. Popcornfud (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Great! Thanks very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossmoody88 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Related move discussion

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Glastonbury 1997

This local press source says: "Q Magazine named it the best gig of all time. Far Out Magazine said it "rescued" Glastonbury. Michael Eavis, the founder of the festival, once put the set in his top five Glasto performances of all time." Rolling Stone said here: "One month after OK Computer landed, Radiohead was given the prestigious Saturday night headlining slot at Glastonbury. The show was an absolute triumph, and seven years later Q Magazine called it the single greatest concert of all time, topping even the Beatles on the roof of Apple Records and Queen at Live Aid." Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, what would be useful would be if you could find the original sources for those claims. Would be good material for the Glastonbury and OK Computer articles. Popcornfud (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Of course. Perhaps you could look also? The current text, "the performance was acclaimed", is incredibly tepid and bland? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Myself, I'd describe that as factual, clear and concise - appropriate for a Wikipedia, whose purpose isn't to excite or titilate. The potential plus here would incorporating more detail about the critical reaction, though I think this is better incorporated in the OK Computer article, where I've added it to the Tour section. Popcornfud (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. Looks like a good addition. I think it would be quite suitable here also. But never mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

change 'Radiohead are an English rock band' to ...

I propose that the word Rock is replaced with another genre, like Alternative, or ALterative Rock, or Art Rock.

The reason why is because of two reasons, mainly that a lot of Radiohead after the Bends and OKC can't really be compared to mainstream rock and roll as the word Rock represents,

but mainly because of this interview, which can be found on Youtube, its titled: Radiohead - Reflections on Kid A (2001 Documentary)

At 4:45 in this Amnesiac era interview it goes

Interview: and you were considered one of the greatest rock bands in 1997

Thom: "well god help us if we fucking were, because, you know, as far as we are concerned even being called a rock band was a bit of a nightmare really"

Interviewer: "Why?"

Thom: "Cause it sucks fucking rock music sucks man I hate it, I'm just so fucking bored of it I hate it, its a fucking waste of time"

He then goes on to clarify he means more about the mythology and culture around being called a rock band, being a rock star with heavy touring. Which to me just affirms the case that they should be specified as a blanket Alternative band to include all their electronic, experimental, kraut rock, alt pop, orchestral genres scattered throughout their albums since OK Computer. Or they could be called an Alternative Rock band or an Art rock band, but ever since hearing thoms views in that interview it always pops into my mind when the first thing describing them on Wikipedia is as a rock band.

Hi there. The problem for Thom is that it doesn't matter how he prefers to see his work - Wikipedia goes with the descriptions used by the majority of reliable secondary sources. Radiohead are overwhelmingly described as a rock band by sources, so that's what we go with.
It wouldn't be wrong to describe them as an "alternative rock" band, either, and certainly lots of sources do. I guess the more open-ended "rock" term is used 1) to accommodate the various other rock subgenres they're lumped into, like art rock 2) because being that specific in the lead sentence isn't necessary.
Really, at the end of the day, Radiohead are a rock band. Popcornfud (talk) 10:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Leave sub-genres to infobox and Thom's ranting (which may be notable in itself) to the article text. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC) p.s. please sign your posts , thanks.

Radiohead were not Grunge

To label Radiohead in any way grunge is a grave error, it is fine to say they took some cues for their earlier music, especially on Creep, from the Grunge movement but the vast majority of their musical output was more Alt Rock. Also, the citation used for their description as Grunge in no way states that they were known in any way as a Grunge band... Dormarch (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

"Some critics compared the band's early style to the wave of grunge music popular in the early 1990s". The band is not categorized as Category:Grunge musical groups nor "Grunge" appears as their main genre. (CC) Tbhotch™ 01:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

Change the section on Kid A introducing an innovative method for setting the purchase price....this was " In Rainbows" 207.191.246.98 (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't find this in the article. Can you copy/paste the section here so we can see exactly which part you mean? Popcornfud (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

New band photo?

Why does radiohead get its band photo as just a collage of the individual members? most other pages for bands show them performing or at least being together, i say we get a new photo for the page Saejal (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If you have a good, recent photo of the entire band together, that shows all of them clearly, then please submit it. But remember Wikipedia can't use photos that it doesn't own, unless the owner of the photo donates it to the project. Popcornfud (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
where do i submit? Saejal (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
You can use the upload wizard. Popcornfud (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

Radiohead actually formed in the city of Oxford, which means that Abingdon, Oxfordshire is wrong. Instead of having Abingdon, Oxfordshire in the "Origin" section of the infobox and in the opening sentence of the article, it should read as "Oxford, England" in the "Origin" section of the infobox and as just "Oxford" in the opening sentence of the article. Here are some sources to prove my claims:https://www.allmusic.com/birthplace/oxford-england-mz0000008252/asc/2 https://www.culturecalling.com/uk/music/features/top-5-bands-of-oxford 2601:407:4181:4260:D0C4:EC96:3B9C:1950 (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Radiohead formed at Abingdon School in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, outside Oxford. This is explained and sourced in the article. As Oxford is a world-famous city and Abingdon is not, sources often refer to Radiohead as being from Oxford, but that's not quite precise. Popcornfud (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radiohead/Archive_9&oldid=1226448261"