Talk:Gish: Difference between revisions
WesleyDodds (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m Replacing {{WikiProjectBanners}}: merge numbered parameters and change to WPBS (2 banners) per consensus |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WPBS|1= |
|||
{{WikiProjectBanners |
|||
{{Album}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Alternative music|class=Start|importance=mid|pumpkins-taskforce=yes}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
Revision as of 12:59, 25 July 2009
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christgau rating
Am I the only one who thinks that the display of the Christgau rating is very misleading? It looks like he only gave it one star (presumably out of 5), but in reality, his * is intended to mean "honorable mention." (see: http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/bk-cg90/grades-90s.php) BlackberryLaw 19:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree; a couple of words is hardly a "review" anyway. Link being removed. Masebrock (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- If there is a problem with the notability or relevance of Christgau's reviews, it should probably be taken up over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. They explicitly mention him in the list of good, notable reviewers. Reviews of his containing no text at all have been used many times in Featured Articles, including Adore. Now, I do agree that his rating scale is a little odd, but that's how he's chosen to do it so that's how his ratings are presented. It may also be of interest to check out the full text over at Template:Review-Christgau. I am replacing the review. 66.93.12.46 (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Surely the notability of the review, not the reviewer, is what should matter here? He probably wrote this in five minutes, maybe without ever hearing the album. If it is to be kept, a note saying that he hasn't marked it out of 5 has to be included. Otherwise, the Pumpkins and Cristgau both probably have a libel case against us--MartinUK (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- If there is a problem with the notability or relevance of Christgau's reviews, it should probably be taken up over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. They explicitly mention him in the list of good, notable reviewers. Reviews of his containing no text at all have been used many times in Featured Articles, including Adore. Now, I do agree that his rating scale is a little odd, but that's how he's chosen to do it so that's how his ratings are presented. It may also be of interest to check out the full text over at Template:Review-Christgau. I am replacing the review. 66.93.12.46 (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This album is connected
All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages. Godlord2 20:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but i dont think Snail has been done. IDISLIKEcaugette 09:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind, just made a redirect for it now IDISLIKEcaugette 09:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Box set?
According to this article there is going to be a pre-Gish/Gish box set, tentatively coming late 2008. StevePrutz (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Primary Usage
I think this article should be perhaps be considered for movement to Gish (album) and Gish (disambiguation) be placed in this mainspace.
If the entity is not significant enough to be mentione off-the-bat on the dismabiguation page, I am very concerned that it is not the primary use of this term.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)