Talk:The Suburbs

Track list

Still waiting for a real tracklist.

- unknown

Sign your posts, man.
Given that Burning Bridges, Breaking Hearts was reworked for the credits of Miroir Noir, I'd say there's a good chance that it's our third track.
That and Lenin from Dark Was the Night were the last two remaining songs from the Funeral era.
Maybe we'll also see a No Cars Go-esque reworking of another EP song.

- Rikkyc (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

New tracks

So we know two more now ("We Used to Wait" and "Ready to Start"):
http://www.weallwantsomeone.org/2010/06/14/new-arcade-fire-we-used-to-wait/
http://blogs.1077theend.com/aharms/2010/06/14/stream-1st-official-arcade-fire-single-ready-to-start/
Jwp2222 (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Blogs aren't considered to be reliable sources, see WP:SPS. While the "We Used to Wait" source goes through to Zane Lowe's website (which would be reliable), the site only says it is a single - no mention of the album. --JD554 (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That said, I've now found a reliable source and added the tracks. --JD554 (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Month of May

The arcade fire website says on the postcard that month of may is going to be on the album. fix this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.51.72 (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

More new tracks

From http://informationtypes.blogspot.com/2010/05/arcade-fire-suburbs-song-track-list-new.html and many other sources comes a tracklist. I don't know the legitimacy, but they all sound like Arcade Fire track titles if that helps. On the other hand, there are two new Arcade Fire songs, which haven't been confirmed to be on the album, but aren't on this tracklist.

1. Saturday Morning - 4:08

2. Month Of May - 3:40

3. Latchkey Kids - 3:38

4. The Suburbs - 5:24

5. Sandbox/Turf War - 6:32

6. In Iowa - 2:56

7. La Maison Dieu - 4:27

8. Tin Whistle - 3:08

9. Parson Green - 6:38

10. Asleep On The Beach - 2:45

11. Where We Fell In - 4:56

12. Never Stopped Running - 5:12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.90.147 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, a blog is not a reliable source, please read WP:SPS. We need reliable sources such as the music press, newspapers or websites that meet WP:RS. --JD554 (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. You know, it might just be better to remove the section entirely until the official track list is known. We could still mention the songs we know about in the article text.--Cúchullain ^t/c 11:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we might be cutting our noses off to spite our faces if we did that. The chances are the section would only get re-added anyway as it is a standard section for forthcoming album articles. The current semi-protection isn't due to expire until the 28th, and if necessary a longer period of semi-protection can always be requested if uncited additions continue to be added after that. Hopefully it won't be too long until Arcade Fire announce the full track listing! --JD554 (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Album rating template

I've restored the "album ratings" template to the reception section. Wikipedia:ALBUM#Reception is clear that "the text may be supplemented with the {{Album ratings}} template, as a summary of professional reviews in table form". Indeed, all the featured articles and good articles (Thriller (album), The Division Bell, Enta da Stage) I've checked have either this template, or the same information in the main infobox. It clearly should be kept here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Each of your examples had the {{Album ratings}} template added after they were promoted to FA/GA. --JD554 (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not Thriller, at least.[1] And regardless, they all have it now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, both Enta da Stage[2] and The Division Bell[3] had the information at the time they were promoted as well. In all three cases it appeared originally in the main infobox.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

At the time of promotion, Thriller and Enta da Stage did indeed have reviews in the infobox, because it was a requirement at that time. Thriller was promoted to FA in September 2008 and Enta da Stage was promoted to FA in July 2006, whereas having reviews in the infobox was changed in December 2009 (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 33#Reviews in infobox: scrap?). Given that the ratings template has only existed since November 2009, it was clearly added long after both those albums were promoted and, as neither have been reviewed since, it is difficult to say whether they would have been or would not have been promoted at FAC. As for Division Bell, I have no idea why the reviewer promoted it to GA with reviews in the infobox, it was something that was picked up on during the GAR but then subsequently ignored by the reviewer. That was a mistake in my opinion. --JD554 (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the same information, whether it appears in the main infobox or in the dedicated template. My point is that this information appears in literally all GA and FA album articles I've checked and in most if not all of these it was there when the articles were promoted. This is true of more recent promotions as well (The Notorious Byrd Brothers[4], Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire)[5], Electric Mud[6], World Painted Blood[7]) It would seem not having it is the exception rather than the rule. I can see the concern that it might hamper article development in some cases, but i don't see a reason not to include it in articles like this where there's already a developed "reception" section.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The review template is completely optional. It is certainly not a requirement--note the words "may be" in Wikipedia:ALBUM#Reception. Personally I don't use it because I prefer to focus on critical reception in the prose. This article already does that. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if it's optional it provides a visual for the reader and a summary to a section that is growing quite long. There is no harm in adding it and I do not seehow that prevents you from focusing on prose.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

04:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Among the main arguments against review infoboxes is that they do not adequately convey the prose of a given review; in some cases (ie. Rolling Stone) the rating is not assigned by the writer, but by the editor. Also, given they vary wildly in style (stars, numbers, grades), visual shorthands is useless for those unfamiliar with those sorts of review techniques. Prose is the best way to convey critical comments, since the review itself is the "meat" that should be cited. Also, you say "it provides a visual for the reader and a summary to a section that is growing quite long." That's before even getting into subjectively summarizing reviews without rating systems as "favorable" or "unfavorable". WesleyDodds (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The template may not be a "requirement", but it's certainly not true that it's deprecated either. As I've shown there is considerably precedent for its use in album FAs and GAs. Here, as in those articles, the template is not being used to the exclusion of a prose section; it's being used as a supplement to a decent "reception" section.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The template isn't depreciated; placing the reviews in the infobox is. Anyway, I don't see what the template conveys that can't be conveyed in the rather concise Reception section this article has developed. Just because some FA and GAs use the template doesn't mean all of them do or even have to (for starters, see Loveless (album) and A Weekend in the City). What's important is that the critical reception of the work is discussed, period. It's not even necessary to directly cite review if; in fact, finding secondary sources that describe the critical reception (such as books, articles, or documentaries) are preferable. This page isn't even anywhere close to being a Good Article yet, and using the reception template would have no bearing on the potential achievement of that status whatsoever. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My point was that there is considerable precedent for the inclusion this information, not that it affects GA or FA status. And there is: the template, or the same information in the infobox, appears on hundreds of articles, including dozens of GAs and FAs (and it's far more than some GAs and FAs, it's an easy majority of them). I don't think anyone thinks the box is preferable to a prose section or that the prose section here shouldn't be improved.

Obviously better secondary sources like a book or dedicated article would be preferable to reviews; when some become available for this just-released album they should be incorporated.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because some articles use doesn't mean it has to be included. Remember, the template is optional. Whether certain articles use it does not give greater weight to it being used here. Arguing that dozens of GAs and FAs use it, thus this article should use it doesn't hold much weight, because their status is in no way decided upon the use of the reviews template. Copying superficial features of these sorts of articles will not correlate to this article being placed on the path to becoming one of those articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that. As I just said, all I mean is that the fact the material is included in so many articles, including top-quality ones, shows that there is substantial consensus for its inclusion. I don't see any reason not to include it here specifically, beyond the reasons that apply to all articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic Review in Album Ratings Template

Since there were two reviews, one (Adam Downer) being and the other (Tyler Fisher) being , on Sputnikmusic. I put it in the album ratings template as being , which is the average of the two, but this has just been changed, and I thought I should bring up the "issue" on the talk page. So, should one review be picked to be included in the template, should we use the average of the two, or should we exclude Sputnikmusic reviews from the ratings template entirely? I would prefer the second or third option.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

00:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If there were two full on reviews, we should not try to average the scores. The best thing would be just to remove them both and leave the discussion for the text.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

CD Compression ?

The article says 'although, as with most recent CD and digital releases, there is some compression applied.' AFAIK, CD is not compressed in the same way as a MP3 or other digital format, therefore I am unclear on the 'compression' that is applied to the CD format ? Jaruzel (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a different kind of compression. A good understanding may be gained by reading Dynamic range compression, specifically #Music_production and then comparing that to MP3. The topic hinted at in the article may be found in the article Loudness war. Whatever you think of this alleged 'war', it is clear that The Suburbs is a victim of compression. I have digital copies of both the vinyl edition and the CD edition, and the CD edition clearly has been amplified and chopped. Josejuan05 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The level of the CD is also very high which suggests high limiting resulting in a reduced dynamic range. Snoop God (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of artist name

(cur | prev) 20:49, 3 April 2012‎ Malcolmxl5 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,399 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Malcolmxl5 moved page Talk:The Suburbs (Arcade Fire album) to Talk:The Suburbs (album): unnecessary disambiguation) (undo | thank)

With The Suburbs EP, an extended play by The Suburbs and Suburbs, The Suburbs's 1986 album, this renoval of Arcade Fire from article title won't help all readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Andrewa (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The Suburbs (album) → The Suburbs – I think this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "The Suburbs" and I was surprised to see that it currently isn't, instead going to a band of the same name. I'd also support making The Suburbs a disambig page, if there's no clear consensus to move this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• The target is a locally important Minnesota band which has more mentions in books that the Canadian album, so don't think the album passes first criteria of Primary Topic, so Oppose removal of (album), it is an album. Also this should really be a multimove template but Support move of target band to The Suburbs (band). redirect baseline to Suburbs (disambiguation) if someone is willing to fix all the resultant mislinks. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Since The Suburbs (disambiguation) already redirects to Suburbs (disambiguation), The Suburbs should also redirect to Suburbs (disambiguation) per In ictu oculi. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support as proposed per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The album received 88.2% of the page views in the past 90 days, and there are only 3 topics that are titled "The Suburbs", especially with "The" and capitalized "Suburbs".[8] While the Minneapolis band is older, the album has more long-term significance. Arcade Fire is a much significant band and this is their most widely known album. It was a #1 release in the US, Canada and various other places, won the Grammy and many other major awards, and is generally being considered one of the greatest albums of its decade by major publications.[9][10][11] It also looks to me to be far more common on Google Books and Google News; in fact I'm having trouble consistently finding relevant search results for the Minnesota band without also returning hits for the album and suburbs in general.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per well reasoned !vote directly above. Dohn joe (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support assuming The Suburbs will become The Suburbs (band), and a hatnote will be added to the top of the album article linking to the band article. It would normally be ill-advised to make a notable album the primary topic over a notable band, taking the chance that long-term significance will favor the album. But here, I think it's pretty clear that one of the best-known albums from a Grammy award-winning band is more significant, both now and into the foreseeable future. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. An album that won Album of the Year at the Grammies and the Junos and the Polaris and the BRITs, and is generally named as one of the most important albums of an entire decade, is a pretty clear candidate for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over a band whose notability is primarily regional rather than international. And we don't privilege some kinds of sourcing over others — while In ictu oculi may be correct that the band have more coverage in books, the album has much greater evidence of coverage in newspapers and magazines (and that coverage doesn't just outweigh the band's newspaper and magazine coverage, it even outweighs the band's coverage in the books), and so the books don't singlehandedly overrule everything else. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support – clearly the primary topic per the arguments above. Conifer (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I note that the implied move reverting the move 04:54, 19 November 2011‎ RJN (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (25 bytes) (+25)‎ . . (moved The Suburbs (band) to The Suburbs over redirect: revert) has been notified on the appropriate talk page. Andrewa (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.