Jump to content

Talk:Songs for the Deaf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeSongs for the Deaf was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 23, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

Songs For the Deaf EU vinyl

[edit]

I just found this album today. The album was made in EU, the cover is black with red font/pitchfork, and other then the UK bonus tracks the Spanish version of Gonna Leave You is on the album rather then the English version. I dunno if this is a special edition of the album. Also, the vinyl is black.24.68.50.33 (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MP3 Ripping

[edit]

It states that most MP3 ripping software can't rip the hidden track. What ones can?

Why are all the cover art scans in Google Images so blurry?

For those who care:

  • Best KROQ hit: "No One Knows"

Tokerboy

"Songs for the deaf" sound more like the title of a typical Leonard Cohen album.

Other bands that have used the radio station theme include White Zombie - La Sexorcisto: Devil Music and Powderfinger - Internationalist

Millionaire Vocals

[edit]

Who does lead vocals on "You Think I Ain't Worth A Dollar, But I Feel Like A Millionaire"? It sounds like the dude from Death From Above 1979. I know that Josh Homme did a mix of "Black History Month" for them, so I thought maybe this was what started their collaborations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs)

It was none other than Nick Oliveri. ^^ ... see "Six Shooter" off Deaf or Rated R's "Quick and to the Pointless" for comparison.. --Johnnyw 11:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what a great song it is.  :: RatedR Leg of Lamb 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal

[edit]

Jesus Christ that is long. It should be shorted, honesty who cares about legal personal.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.153.227.123 (talk • contribs) .

You are right, that is quite a list. I must have missed out on when that was done... Thx for pointing that out. --Johnnyw 10:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn´t Gene Troutmann play on half a song or something? He is in the credits on the CD inlay.

God is in the radio

[edit]

Can anyone tell what they are saying when the song goes very silent. I think its like backwards talking or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.199 (talk • contribs) .

It sounds a little bit it's a sound snipped of a a sigh and then voice in reverse, doesn't it? Don't know what it supposed to say though or if it is intended to be something more than just gibberish. --Johnnyw talk 16:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reversed the bit and the final words sound very much like "We're ants." The couple of words before that - I can't even guess. --Johnnyw talk 17:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 14, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Generally good here. I would still recommend that the article go through a solid copyediting. It never hurts to read the article aloud to catch minor errors. Here are a few things I noticed. In the first sentence "album" should not be wikilinked. A comma is needed after "magnum opus" What does "mainstream success in the media" mean? Record sales? Reviews (b/c that's already the critics)? Positive coverage? Appearances on late night shows? I would recommend taking that out, or being more specific. I would also add "available" to the end of the last sentence in the lead section. Take out "as of June 6, 2007" as that will sound hopelessly dated in weeks. That figure is not likely to change much, and can be adjusted if it does in the future. If you think it does change often, just add [[as of 2007]], to alert future editors to check it periodically. Quotation marks should follow terminal punctuation (periods, commas, etc...) That means "yada, yada, yada." The Yahoo quote should be removed, as it is a joke and not actual commentary on the quality of the album. If it is kept, it should only be used to explain that Grohl is not typically a drummer. There should be a comma after "great success" The last three facts in the Variations section should be turned into prose. The Artwork section should be turned into prose. There should be a comma after "musician Dave Catching"
2. Factually accurate?: This statement:

This is widely known as "The Real Song For The Deaf" because a deaf person could "feel" the song if using the right subwoofer.

should be removed because (1) It's kind of a wonky fact. The deaf can "feel" most songs on the album (or any album) that have a strong enough beat if they use subwoofers, high volume, etc... (2) It's original research. The last sentence in Tracklisting needs a reference.
3. Broad in coverage?: I almost failed the article for on this criteria, but I wanted to give you a chance to fix it - but you only have a week. I think that, prior to the Critical reception section, you would benefit from having a section (or sections) on the album development. How did Grohl sign on? How did they choose a producer? What was their goal for the album? Were there snafus that almost halted production? Where did they record? All those kind of questions. To see an article that is well done in this regard, see Enta Da Stage. In the first sentence, you might want to mention briefly (in parenthesis) who Dave Grohl is (like "guitarist of Nirvana fame" or "lead guitarist for the Foo Fighters," or something like that)
4. Neutral point of view?: I would say yes here. Even though it is mostly glowing, it is substantiated with outside critics.
5. Article stability? No edit wars.
6. Images?: Great here.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second your opinion, especially regarding 3. Actually, I was quite surprised to see the QOTSA albums nomination, since I closely followed the articles after working on lots of QOTSA stuff a year ago. Not sure if I would be able to join on a ride to get this thing to GA though, since I have some other babies to look after right now, but hopefully, due to Era Vulgaris there will be sufficient Queens fans to fill in. And on a side note: Grohl was the drummer for Nirvana; I would say he's actually more acclaimed for his drumming skills than for his singing/guitar duties with Foo Fighters.--Johnnyw talk 15:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also for this, though I'd be inclined to simply fail the review based on the fact that there's almost no background information rovided at all, the lead needs to be more expansive and there's some basci wikifying needed (here and there). The fact that it's on hold gives it a little bit of time, but this article needs some serious work before being GA level. --lincalinca 03:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did my best to improve the article according to the hints, and I have re-take descriptive grammar test for college credit tomorrow. I'm afraid I can't contribute anymore today, and tomorrow is the deadline for final statement about Good article. Does it have any chance now? Brokensoul talk 14:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say, relax, don't worry about the article. After passing the test (good luck :) work on the issues step by step. Rushing things would do no good for you and the article.. Maybe I'll join in next week, when I have time. Then, I'd resubmit the article. --Johnnyw talk 19:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Johnny's right. Real world first. This can wait. It'll happen before long, I'm sure. I would encourage enlisting more people who can be constructive and possibly one or two who can be completely objective too. --lincalinca 04:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA hold follow-up

[edit]

First I would like to apologize for not getting back. I am working on a FAC as well as real life, and this slipped my mind. I rarely put articles on hold, and I imagined someone else would do follow-up when the seven days were up, but I was clearly mistaken. Again, apologies.

Second, I am really impressed by the real improvement in this article since I read it last. The Overview and background section has grown and expanded, and gives nice insight into the article. Overall, I see major improvement. However...I still have to fail it for the following reasons:

  1. The article still suffers from prose issues: parenthetical phrases that chop up sentences, run-on sentences, and sentences that cram in too much information are the biggest offenders. This is a perfect example:

    Dave Grohl put his band on temporary hiatus [5][6] (despite Foo Fighters having already recorded material) which delayed the release of their album, One By One to October 22, 2002[7], because of touring duties with Queens of the Stone Age.

  2. Bulleted subheadings are bad. Well written prose is always preferred over sparse lists, especially when a list is unnecessary. This article abounds with lists, and I think there are even more than the last time.
  3. The songs from which the audio samples are taken are not discussed in the article, making their fair use claim tenuous.
  4. Inline references should appear after punctuation.

I think with more effort this will will reach GA status. Best wishes!--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nom

[edit]

Hey, I've just done a partial assessment and there's just a few more things needed and then you'll be cooking in the GA kitchen. • More imagery would really be appropriate, perhaps photos of the band including Grohl, live photos of the tour where Grohl played with them. • The article indicates that Grohl only played with the band for 3 months and then left, but I saw him with them when I went to Big Day Out in 2003, Foo Fighters and QOTSA both played in the same day and he played for both, so there's either an error there or he came back. Either way, if he came back, it should be noted. If not and he never left, then the dates he was with the band need to be amended. • There's no expert opinion section relating to the actual music of the album. You've got parts of it dotted throughout "critical reception" and "Album production and release." If this information can be encapsulated so as to depict the kind of music in its own section, that'd be good. • Although AMG uses several terms to describe the music type, WP:ALBUMS suggests not to use quite so many. One or two is best and they should be basic types. I'd suggest Heavy Rock and Experimental Metal as the descriptors. Once these things are done, the album should be all the way there. --lincalinca 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, there are youtube vids of Big day out 2003 and it's Joey playing. And on the subject of opinions on the music, should it just all be placed together in say, 'Musical Styles'? red157 16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should clarify, Grohl was on drums but stepped down a few songs from the end because FF played right after. And yes, "Musical styles" is the appropriate name. --lincalinca 06:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's obvious that if they're around playing together, Grohl makes appearance on drums for QOTSA. Even though Lanegan wasn't official member of the band, when QOTSA and Mark Lanegan were around, they also played some songs together, so it should be noted that he was joining the band sporadically when they were playing at the same festivals here and there, that's all, no big conspiracy theory... Broken soul 09:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, it should be noted that he does, and threason it should be here in stead of on the band's article is because this album's creation is its antecedant. --lincalinca 10:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But then again, Lanegan has played with QOTSA spontaneously a number of times and it seems this Big day performance was the only 'relapse' so to speak on Grohl's part... And what songs did Grohl play, as I'd have expected him to do 'A Song for the Deaf', but Joey play ed that. red157 20:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Just an FYI - a musical styles section is not necessary for a GA (or any) article. I did a quick search, and I don't believe any such subheading exists in Wikipedia.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Musical Styles' specifically? Maybe not, but many GA articles have something alone those lines, obviously worded differently. If not, somebody renominate it as that is the only thing I see this article lacking. Red157 04:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Hammer

[edit]

Does anyone know who sang this? It sounds like Jack Black to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuah Hounshell (talk • contribs) 12:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Oliveri. Mondo Generator rather than Qotsa used to play it live infrequently. Skomorokh incite 13:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Songs for the Deaf/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Lead
  • "Dave Grohl, well-known Nirvana drummer and current Foo Fighters guitarist and lead singer, as a guest drummer." I'd remove well-known, it's a bit WP:PEACOCK, I'd simply change it to former. Secondly what does "current Foo Fighters ..." mean? You shouldn't use current as per WP:DATE. Neither is it clear whether that means he was the Foos guitarist and singer at the time of SFTD, or is still in the Foos now. I'd reword it to what you want it to mena of the two above options.
  • "having sold 986,000 copies in the country as of June 2007 according to Nielsen Soundscan." This info is a year old. Either update it, or re-write it to have a less dated feel.
Overview
  • "Dave Grohl (of Nirvana and Foo Fighters fame)" Again it's a bit WP:PEACOCK. Also remove the brackets. If it's important enough to use, it's important to use without brackets.
  • "He replaced the previous drummer, Gene Trautmann who started working on other projects." Should be a comma after Trautmann.
  • "Grohl was a keen admirer of Queens of the Stone Age (the band opened for Foo Fighters on tour) " Again remove the brackets, otherwise it looks a bit like it's thrown in as an afterthought, when it is quite clearly one of the reasons Grohl admired QOTSA.
  • "He joined Queens of the Stone Age in October 2001 when he received a phone call from Josh Homme with whom he had been friends with since 1992 when Josh was the guitarist for Kyuss." This sentence needs a couple of commas to break up the different clauses.
  • This section includes three paragraphs of just one sentence. It doesn't look good that way and, I know we're not at FAC here, is frowned upon at FAC.
Album production
  • What's Gallery of Sound? I'd add a brief explanation before it, e.g. in an interview with XXX Gallery of Sound.
  • Ditto with HMV, although the wikilink is good.
Critical reception
  • "Songs for the Deaf received very positive reviews, including a total score of 89 out of 100 on Metacritic as of June 2007," This is again dated. Although I don't understand the relevance of the date anyway.
Artwork
Track listing - variations
  • Is there any specific reason for the bullet points. I feel it would be better in full prose.
  • Can you add the fullname of the writers on their first use.
Personnel
Charts
General
  • Remove the use of brackets.
  • Don't link years for no reason. If it needs linking do so to 2002 in music, etc. But I'd remove most of the year links, which aren't full dates.
  • References should be placed immediately after punctuation.

There's quite a bit to do, but I feel most of it should be do-able in the next couple of days so I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further

Most of the stuff in "Dave Grohl and other contributors" is rather irrelevant to this album ... "Grohl's first performance with the band occurred at 7 March, 2002 in The Troubadour, Los Angeles, and his last performance was at the Fuji Rock Festival on 28 July, 2002. He returned to the Foo Fighters soon after.[8]" -- There's no need to tracks these guys' entire involvement with the Queens at all.

Try to combine stubby single-sentence paragraphs together to make it more readable and the appearance of the text better. We have a very strict non-free media use policy (particularly #3, #8) at Wikipedia; I don't see the music of any those samples being discussed in either the prose or the captions. Three samples are too many to include if you aren't going to discuss the music at all.

Are all those track listings necessary? They convey no extra meaning to the general reader (whom we are supposed to write for) and simply make the article more listy. Is there any discussion on the main album cover? indopug (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added those song segments eons ago when I just thought such things made the article look nicer. I can understand that at the moment, they neither hinder or really help a it getting to GA status. If in however many days the article is good for GA, I guess a segment specifically about the music would have to be added if it were ever to be pushed for a featured article, and then the song segments would be useful. Likewise, the mentioning of Grohl's tour status would become justified if 'Songs for the Deaf tour' was added. And I'm removing the tracklist for the touring edition forthwith. Never liked the look of it there... Red157(talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very confused. If Red157, you suggest a section about the music should be added, then at the moment the GAN would fail on criteria 3, because it lacks major aspects and hence is not broad in its coverage. Peanut4 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please split the lead into two or three paragraphs per most other album GAs/FAs, for better organisation and readability. And please expand on the audio sample captions; they currently don't assert the educational value for which they are used. —Giggy 12:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final review.

It's been a few days since any activity on the article and it's been on hold for more than a week now, so I'm going to fail it unfortunately. It's nearly there, but I've a couple of concerns.

  • Two other editors have voiced concerns about the breadth of coverage, and this is easily my biggest concern. The article seems fairly short for a major album, and light on details about the album/music itself. Please see the specific concerns above.
  • Stability. A lot of changes were made during the GA process by two main contributors. There are no edit wars, but it might be best to discuss your thoughts on the article and possible improvement on the talk page before coming back to GAN.
  • Images. There are two perfectly fine images, but are there any more of the band or anything specific to the album. Like stability, this isn't a clincher to pass/fail GA, but I will bring it up when it's an obvious point of future improvement.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Peanut4 (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame. GA articles seem to be tougher to achieve than they used to be. Red157(talk • contribs) 13:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of pictures from Flickr showing the band performing live on the Songs for the Death tour to address one of Peanut4's concerns. Cavie78 (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A" Song for the Dead/Deaf

[edit]

Is there anything that can be done about this particular part of tracklisting? Every now and then some unregistered user comes along and deletes both A's, while the tracklist on the album's back cover clearly shows that they should be there. Can this be protected or something? -NineInchRuiner (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

[edit]

The article does not give any negative criticism. I'm proposing that "Release and reception" be split into two sections, "Release" and "Critical reception." Granted the album was generally a success, there should be some negative reviews added to the section to be more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tea4all (talk • contribs) 05:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

The genre parameter in the infobox currently contains the following list:

Back in 2008 when the article was being considered for GA, the list was shorter:

I think we need to follow the sources which describe the genre of the album.

These reviews show that the stoner, alternative and psychedelic labels are not appropriate for this album's genre. We should put only rock and hard rock, as most reviews are centered on those two genres. Other genres such as heavy metal are mentioned less often. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resulting in genre warfare.

[edit]

I'm talking towards Binksternet. I've never seen him work or edit on any Queens of the Stone Age page, he probably hasn't listened to any album or song by them anyways. He continues to edit on the pages and thinks he knows what he's doing. Just because he is a higher wiki editor than most of us, he shouldn't be the one in charge neither to take over, over other people.

There was no genre warfare before your editing came into hand. You are continually insulting me about the genre changes and even saying I'm not sourcing them when I did with my last edit, falsely accusing me.

All in all I think you should let other people help out and not be the boss here and take over in charge. I'm a tremendous QOTSA fan, maybe you know more about Wikipedia editing than I do, but you do not know more about QOTSA than I do, especially involving their genres. TheHolyKiwi (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:No original research. The genre parameter is not for you to decide because of what you think is right. It is for WP:Verifiable genres that come from WP:Reliable sources. The WikiProject Albums even has a list of reliable sources: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. You can ask them to help out. Binksternet (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still though, you just arrived on editing Queens of the Stone Age Wikipedia pages, and you're acting like your the head superintendent. You're not even apart of the taskforce which I am apart of. Also, I am still bothered though that you gave me a last warning on editing genres resulting in a soon to be ban, even though I did source it. So if you're were a little nicer and told it to me lightly it would've been better, it'd be great if you apologized or at least cleared it up. TheHolyKiwi (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I'm the one who arrived on the scene to discover that the band's fans have been deciding the genre in a manner that does not fit Wikipedia's guidelines. It was going to happen sooner or later – somebody was going to come and spoil the party, most likely somebody trying to perform a bit of cleanup. That somebody happened to be me. I did not realize at first that the genre problem was so deeply rooted and that the old practices would be so strongly defended.
I'm not head superintendent, but seven years of fairly heavy participation have given me a firm grasp of Wikipedia's guidelines. The guidelines emphasize very strongly that everything should be WP:Verifiable. If song, album and artist genres are determined by various editor opinions then they are not verifiable. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Songs for the Deaf is what musical genres? RFC

[edit]
No consensus. I don't think there has been enough participation in this RfC to call a consensus. However, the article currently uses options 1 and 2, which are consistent with the discussion and should be fine, as far as I can see. As an aside, do we really, really need six citations to support the contention that this is a rock record? Seems a bit excessive. Formerip (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The album Songs for the Deaf by Queens of the Stone Age should have one or more genres listed in the infobox to describe the album as a whole. What should we put in the genre parameter?

Note that album genres, like every fact on Wikipedia, should be WP:Verifiable, referenced with reliable sources such as those found in the list hosted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. The songs on this album have their own genres which vary quite a bit, but the album genre is not a collection of all the song genres. Rather, the album genre is its own entity, being about the album overall. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • 1 and 2, per argument made above at Talk:Songs for the Deaf#Genre. Reviewers have offered a number of genres but the most prevalent are the ones saying "rock" and "hard rock". A third choice is "heavy metal" but I don't think that that genre appears often enough to rank as highly as rock and hard rock. "Stoner rock" is specifically denied by two sources which say that the album is a break from the band's usual stoner rock. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 and 2 - Rock and hard rock are the only sourced genres in the article, and they are also the most noted by reviewers. Infobox presents an overview; what represents the record. Those two genres do according to the sources used. Unless multiple reviewers note heavy metal or any of the other genres as significant aspects of the album or categorize it as such, they should not be included in the infobox. They could however be mentioned in the prose (in a composition/style section, or under reception). Suggestion: include all or most of the sources' statements in the prose, as opposed to having 10 citations next to genres in the infobox. Unrelated note: Release should be its own section per WP:MOSALBUM --Lpdte77 (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Songs for the Deaf. 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 {{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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Songs for the Deaf. 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 {{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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Songs for the Deaf. 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) 21:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Songs for the Deaf. 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) 01:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Reissue

[edit]

Universal music will be releasing a 2019 reissue as "Gatefold Anniversary Reissue" on 2 LPs. LP1 is the album in the edited/radio versions and on LPs the uncensored versions due to release 22 November 2019. Source Saemikneu (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did Gene Trautmann really play on Millionaire and Go With The Flow

[edit]

Whenever I try to find sources to see if Dave or Gene played on millionaire or go with the flow there's basically nothing. I can't find anything for millionaire and I keep seeing sources going back and forth on who played on go with the flow. I can't find any citations for either song so does anybody have any idea? Susrage (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Songs_for_the_Deaf&oldid=1218556315"