Talk:Presence (album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move unsupported per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Article title "presence"[edit]

What about the concept of presence as an emergent technology (?): where one is, whether or not one is available, how one can be contacted, how one would prefer to be contacted. Where could an article on this topic be placed, how should it be named? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.151 (talkcontribs) 21:10, 22 June 2005

  • This article could be:
    • A) moved to : Presence (album)
    • B) Your new article could be called : Presence (technology)
Also, check Wiktionary:presence

WikiDon 00:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Even if I'm a PSYCer not a Jabberist I think presence technology should be the default page for presence whereas this one needs a rename. Anyone else in support of this plan? --lynX 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I also deem the presence technology article more important than the album article. A disambiguation page might also be a solution? --JRaue 17:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the disambiguation page is the way to go, and have filed a move request. Dancter (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose: The Led Zeppelin album is far more notable than some obscure computer software most people haven't heard. MegX (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - the status quo is fine. No need to change. Most people on the street would have heard more about the Led Zeppelin album than anything else. HelenWatt (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The word "presence" has many meanings and uses, and a routine pop music album is not a dominant meaning after it has been pushed to the backs of people's minds by the endless stream of many other pop music songs and albums coming after it. Let the plain name Presence be the disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose, nothing wrong with the current set-up. When I think of Presence I think of the Led Zeppelin album. Also some of the entries on the Presence (disambiguation) page are incorrect. The comic entries should be named "The Presence" (as it is written in the comic books) not "Presence", and I note there are two entries for both on The Presence. EastHills (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose, until another entry for the term gains moderate amounts of traction.LedRush (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The album article has over 26,000 views in the last month[1] as compared to at most 3,000 for the other topics:[2][3][4][5][6], which supports the album as primary topic. dissolvetalk 19:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Among the existing articles that are likely to be linked to or searched for under the precise title "Presence", the album appears to be tops by a fair margin. olderwiser 02:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible Confusion with album of the same name[edit]

Is it possible that this album may get confused with: https://itunes.apple.com/au/album/presence-live/id297107310114.30.111.1 (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. In fact, definitely not. Halmyre (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Secret Message On The Cover?[edit]

On The Cover Of Presence In The Water It Looks Like It Spells "CAR" In Capel Letters. Noone Know What It Is In The Water.Where They To Advertise For Selling A Car. Moved this from the article to the discussion page.The Illusional Ministry 23:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Im not seeing what your seeing..Brando26000 (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Nobody's Fault But Mine"[edit]

Althought the album is mediocre, "Nobody's Fault But Mine" is not a bad song.

It is also on the Page & Plant No Quarter: Jimmy Page and Robert Plant Unledded album.

Does anyone know if there is a Led Zeppelin live version out there?

Yes, on Zeppelins DVD release.

WikiDon 00:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, "Achilles Last Stand" is fantastic, my favorite Zeppelin song. 24.34.189.194 13:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"For Your Life"[edit]

The Yardbirds' track 'For Your Love' was written for them by Graham Gouldman, long before Page was in the band. Halmyre 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

...which is totally unrelated to "For Your Life" Edelmand 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

lolzVonbontee (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Move Discussion[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moveAnthony Appleyard (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Current vote is 13 supporting and 3 opposing the proposal to make "Presence" a disambiguation page. (21:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
Note: Struck votes are those of a confirmed sockpuppeter. -Teresa Knott
Addendum - all opposes are confirmed sockpuppets of a banned user. Exxolon (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Subject - should Presence be moved to Presence (Led Zeppelin album) and Presence (disambiguation) be moved to Presence? Our guidelines say that unless there is one single concept that is by far the most common then the page should be a list of all relevant possibilities. See Power for an example. As such I...

  • Support moving as above. Exxolon (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose the clear consensus was to keep it as a Led Zeppelin album. It was a clear cut majority too. This has been the Led Zeppelin album from the very start of wikipedia. MegX (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    • If I'm reading it correctly that proposal was different - to do with moving Presence (technology) to Presence. This is a new proposal and that consensus is not binding on it. The fact that the album has been located here since the start is not a compelling reason for mantaining the status quo. Exxolon (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support or, at the very least leave the disambig page the way it was. There was no need to change it; both sides were getting what they wanted. That's just being petty. HalfShadow 06:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support -Stevertigo 06:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • PS: Extended comment (moved due to interruption at AN/I): (Note: I wrote some things at Talk:Presence while it was a redirect that were apparently overwritten. Can someone please restore them?) I understand that MegX is a fan of Led Zeppelin and is therefore arguing from the point of view that an album by that band deserves top place in terms of article titles. In reality though, the term the band used has some meaning greater than just an album title, and since we're largely in the business of explaining things to people here on Wikipedia, the concept of "presence" should be explained, as it actually means something. Whey else would Rob, Jim, John, and that drummer guy choose it as the title of an album? One they spent months working on, if I recall correctly. So, as I read the above comments, I see MegX chiming in about six times talking about this "consensus," which is valid. But that was before I wrote the article that deals with the actual concept. I've now done it, and that's why I redirected it. I would have changed it to a disambiguation page, in fact (agreeing with others above) if had move priveliges, but I simply redirected it. Meg, in spite of his blanking the page, was kind enough to inform me of his issue on my talk. But now, unless anyone has any objections, I request that an admin move the disambiguation page to Presence, and move the current album page somewhere else. It doesn't have to be anything in particular; it just has to follow our naming conventions for albums (title (album)), and be subordinate in usage to articles that deal with more important things. Regards, -Stevertigo 06:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, since the album is not that important, even in LZ terms. The article has less than 1,000 views a day ([7]) while it's not sure that all readers come for the album. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose, we've only just had an advertised open vote on this. HelenWatt (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Did you read my comment above? -Stevertigo 06:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Nope, that one was about Presence (technology), not the DAB page. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
*Don't agree. If you read the comments, it was clearly letting this page stay the Led Zeppelin album. HelenWatt (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That proposal (and subsequent consensus) is NOT the same as this one. Just because that discussion ended 'no move' does not mean this one will be the same. My new proposal must be treated on it's own merits - that discussion is not relevant. Exxolon (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
*You're wrong. Read what User:Dancter said: "I think the disambiguation page is the way to go, and have filed a move request. Dancter (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)" It was advertised on the appropriate page as a request to move the dab page, not the technology one. HelenWatt (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, the album fails WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - and badly. I don't think there is a primary topic here. Exxolon (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the agreeable proposal seems to be to make this the disambiguation page. Naturally the Presence (album) will have a high place there. -Stevertigo 06:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The voting period isn't over yet. 06:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HelenWatt (talkcontribs)
The purpose of my dealing with this at all was based on the notion that people who might initally disagree with the change might be capable of reading a differing argument, from people who understand that this is an encyclopedia. -Stevertigo 07:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you're in a position to take the moral high ground on this. You moved the page, not to a disambiguation page but to your own religious belief, without even requesting a move first or reading the Talk page above. What's more you added a dictionary definition to the disambiguation page, which is not what a disambiguation is for. HelenWatt (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I respect your point of view, though I count eight inaccuracies in your above comment. -Stevertigo 07:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It should certainly be moved. If I had to pick a primary topic, I'd probably go with an article about the concept all the other articles are derived from, although we don't appear to have one. --Carnildo (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "Presence," as in "being present," is only a wiktionary item, though it's the basis for the theological concept. -Stevertigo 07:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
*God = Presence cannot be 1) scientifically proven and 2) is biased against atheists and non-believers, therefore it should not be the primary topic. HelenWatt (talk)
  • Well, can you agree that the "primary topic concept" is the general "being present" concept? Terminologically speaking, the "being present" concept is primary and the divine concept is secondary. Consider now that there is no article about the "being present" concept, and you might understand why your arguments do not succeed. -Stevertigo 08:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support putting the dab page there with wiktionary link. The album does not seem to be the primary topic as that refers to things that an overwhelming majority of users would be looking for. Rather it is a common word that has many different meanings. Even if one was relatively the most prominent - whether the album or the technology -, all readers looking for any of the others will be lead to wrong place and together they are probably the absolute majority.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

*I would like to know for those who are voting to support the move, what's their opinion on the disambiguation page for The Wall being moved to The Wall. If you look at the The Wall (disambiguation), there are in fact more entries there than Presence disambiguation. Why isn't The Wall being moved? MegX (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Simple: It's The Wall, not Wall (or Meddle or Presence). Not to mention, the Floyd album sold a bit better than the LZ one and is wider known. Plus, did you notice the merge proposal at the DAB page? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 08:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
*That's a pretty lame merger proposal considering there are many articles on the disambiguation page named "The Wall", not "Wall". MegX (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that calling someone's proposal "pretty lame" is itself "pretty lame." The Wall has little usage from the album other than a generic local place name (for things which have more unique names), TV shows, and wrestlers. That out of the way, what's your next unhelpful argument? -Stevertigo 08:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
*As someone else has already pointed out, you're in no position to take the moral high ground over this. MegX (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose. this was already voted on with the same proposal a number of weeks ago and that was a legitimate vote not to change it. ZhaoHong (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support both moves (to album article and disambiguation page). The album is by no means the primary topic for this word. It's highly unlikely that majority of people who search for "presence" will be interested in reading about an album. As for the opposes which mention little more than "we voted on this before", consensus is not set in stone. Also, consensus ≠ majority vote. Chamal talk 10:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with Chamal_N Theresa Knott | token threats 10:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose On the contrary, I'm interested in reading about the album and I'm not even a fan. Also Stevertigo, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. No-one here by the looks of things agrees on your redirect to a religious term. A-Kartoffel (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support fairly obvious that the dab page should be the main page, there's no obvious primary topic. Black Kite 11:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Linking to the dab page is more appropriate in this case as there is no straight up article. There are many entries in the dab page, and it just seems like the fans here are only voting because they enjoy the song. I'm a fan, but lets be logical here. To everyone saying there was a vote a short time ago, there is no time limit on how soon another vote can occur. The previous vote was different to this one as well. It seems a bit more of a range of people have been attracted this time, which is good. Matty (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: It makes far more sense for Presence to link to Presence (disambiguation) than to the Led Zeppelin album. -- Darth Mike (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move as proposed. While the album may be well known to many, it is not known to many as well. It is better to be presented a page which can direct them to the correct place than to have to keep clicking through links to get to the disambiguation page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I really can't buy that an album should be a primary topic for this dictionary term that obviously has multiple associations. Dragons flight (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move as proposed... c'mon, an album name as the main name? That doesn't even meet the common sense test. DreamGuy (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment – This discussion has been seriously compromised by sock puppetry. It has recently come to light that MegX, HelenWatt, ZhaoHong, and A-Kartoffel are all sockpuppets of User:JamesBurns. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    • So they are - that makes support universal. Exxolon (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support both moves. Lets not continue to permit an article about a minor album to squat on the page name of such a common noun. There are over 200 incoming links from other Wikipedia articles, and not all of them intend to link to an article about this album. Some examples are Scenera Research, Mobile Web Server (Symbian OS), and Glossary of rhetorical terms. I am in favor of moving the dab page to Presence so that the incoming links can be properly disambiguated. --Una Smith (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, in a case like this some fraction of the page view stats actually are unintentional views by people seeking one of the other pages listed on the dab page. I see the dab page gets a steady 20 or so hits per day; visiting the dab page is only one of several ways that a reader can recover after visiting the wrong page, so the true unintentional view rate may be higher. --Una Smith (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Snow close?[edit]

  • Since the only oppose votes have come from sockpuppets of a banned user can we snow close this as passed? We'll need an admin to do this probably due to page histories etc. Exxolon (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I was going to snow close this, but it's barely been 24 hours since this was proposed and there were some legitimate users who supported this page as the primary topic in the section above (mixed in with the socks, of course). I say give it another day or so and if the consensus is still strong move it then. Oren0 (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You are not actually correct, and there is certainly no point in validating a troll by postponing what everyone agrees is a basic page move. There is no valid opposition above and therefore voting and discussion are not required. Admins can now go ahead and move this article to Presence (album), and move Presence (disambiguation) here (Presence). -Stevertigo 09:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recording time[edit]

In the article it is stated, the whole process of recording and mixing took them 18 days and it was finished on Nov 26, 1975. So, why is it stated in the info box "recorded November-December 11975" when it just was November? The mastering was maybe done in December. Saemikneu (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Presence (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Presence (album). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Presence (album). 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 08:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Presence (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 16:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


Infobox[edit]

  • Released: 18 June 1976 (US) → source?
Where does it say that? It was April.

 Done

Lead[edit]

  • Add the single release.
I'd rather not, as Zep were very well-known for not being a single band
Nevertheless, it is a single released from the album. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Something regarding the artwork as it is mentioned several times in the article.
Done

Background[edit]

  • Physical Graffiti → date in between brackets
  • intending to start a major US tour on 23 August → year?
  • throughout October. → year?
Copyedited to make clearer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talkcontribs) 20:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done

Recording[edit]

  • with longtime group associate Keith Harwood engineering → he is the engineer right? This is poorly worded.
Tweaked. Harwood did the button pushing and knob twiddling, but Page called all the shots in the studio.
  • Black and Blue. → year?
The recording was 1975, but can't that be inferred from the rest of the prose?
I meant the year of release, which is 1976. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • about Page and manager Peter Grant about booking → about Page and manager Peter Grant booking. Avoid repetition of vocabulary.
Done

Songs[edit]

  • the remaining song → you can say its name
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It was the only track on the album credited to the entire band → we already know that from above
I think it's worth mentioning it again here, though

 Done

Packaging and artwork[edit]

  • Fine.

Release and reception[edit]

  • In Britain it attained one of the highest ever advance orders, shipping gold on the day of release. → source?
Lewis 1990 p.57, as stated
  • No. 1 on the US Billboard Pop Albums chart and entered at No. 24 on the Cashbox Top 100 Albums, before rising to No. 1 the following week → not on the charts
I don't think I added that. Not in source given, removed
  • I believe it is relevant the peak positions in Japan, Norwegian, France, and Australia since they are all top five.
I think with similar articles we only logged the peak markets of the UK and the US, unless you were thinking of a summary here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Candy Store Rock" was released as a single in the US, but it failed to chart → release date is in said source? If so add it here as well.
No, the source is just a list of US released singles with (1976) as the only information given
  • received lukewarm reviews upon its release → not on source give.
Trimmed

2015 reissue[edit]

  • and as high resolution 96k/24-bit digital downloads. → not sourced, on top of this it is high quality for sure, so this information doesn't seem relevant.
I didn't write this bit, trimmed anyhow

 Done

Track listing[edit]

  • Use the sleeve notes for backing up the track list.

 Done

Personnel[edit]

  • Fine

Weekly charts[edit]

  • Australian Kent Music Report Albums Chart → missing source
Had a look online and couldn't find anything beyond Wikipedia mirrors, so removed. If somebody finds a source, it can always be put back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talkcontribs) 21:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done

Certifications[edit]

  • Fine

References[edit]

  • Reference 31 has no URL either find it or remove the URL since its Q magazine.
Removed, I don't think it's vitally important that we only have 7 reviews compared to 8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talkcontribs) 21:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I found it. 1 MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Entertainment Weekly has connection issues, see the URL as it is different.
Can't find it - so removed. I don't think it's vitally important to have so many reviews. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • PROMUSICAE source is dead, use Hung Medien.
Sorry, where is that source? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Automatic sources. See here: 1 and then here, there are a lot more charts the album made it, 2 Add it and then add to the commercial performance section. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't a clue how to do that :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I did a couple. They are most from 2015 so only add them to that collum. Do the same for the rest, just change country and peak position. Let the first collum be the way it is. So add new countries that never charted before and older that charted either with higher peaks or lower ones. Check the date by clinking in each country seeing if the peak week is in 2015. I believe it is. Good luck! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

External links[edit]

  • Fine

Overall[edit]

Quick holding reply, sorry I've been away over Christmas / New Year so won't be able to get round to sorting this out until next week. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: fine dude. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll hopefully get the remainder of the issues sorted tomorrow. Sorry about the rather glacial pace of this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: You should add two reviews to the boxscore and also added them and others if possible to the prose. At least don't let the box go into another section if there is more material to add. You can change the English I used to one that pleases you more. In the meantime I will change the charts section, and you should consider split the commercial performance from the critical reception. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Up for this?
Oh crikey, I'd forgotten about this review. Ummm, okay : "you should add two reviews to the boxscore" - what reviews? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
You can either add Past Magazine, Pop Matters, Mojo (I would avoid his one), The Quietus, Classic Rock Magazine, Uncut... pick your poison. On top of that do the charts thing I asked you for. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm failing this review as I don't understand what any remaining issues are in the article. You've lost me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:

  • Add two more reviews that are on the metacritic website.
  • Add the charts positions of 2016 when the album re-entered several charts, you could see what I have done. I did the table and added some positions you just had to o the rest.

That was it, another problem here and there that I would fix. I don't get what you don't understand. I replied to you and explained everything above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)