Talk:Out of Time (album)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Out of Time (album) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Alternative music High‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

There seem to be several inaccuracies on this page. For example, "Near Wild Heaven" WAS a single in the UK. Also, "Radio Song" is described as a "megaselling hit", although it didn't chart in the US and only reached #28 in the UK.

Acegikmo1 20:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that too, i just tried a cleanup effort last time I looked at this page, the state before was appalling. --Aaron Hill 23:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NPOV alert

Known for its eclectic nature, Out of Time's critical standing has lessened in later years, and is generally seen as being unbalanced and inconsistent by some reviewers.

I always thought it was unbalanced and inconsistent. It's not clear to me from what point of view the statement is coming from.Fantailfan 16:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing reviews

Please do not remove professional reviews that are deemed acceptable by WikiProject Album standards. --Fantailfan 22:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Song-by-song credits

I don't like this. Not at all. I'm trying to find out why this would be more useful than a straight track listing. I would like to revert it but am kind of tired of doing snap reverts without a reason. Unfortunately, I cannot contact the user who made the changes, because its an IP address. I'll give it a few days. --Fantailfan 17:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted song-by-song credits but used info to indicate bandmembers' instrumental contributions when not general.--Fantailfan 22:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Octave Guitar?

Is there really such instrument? I always assumed Peter Buck played electric mandolin in addition to his acoustic one. I don't actually own the album so I have no idea if this is correct.24.91.251.238 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the credits for OOT/LMR It sez "Bill—drums, percussion; Peter—mandolin, electric octave guitar; Mike—Bass, vocals, keyboards strings & arrangement; Michael—vocals; Peter Holspapple—acoustic guitar

This could re-parsed as "mandolin electric octave, guitar" They were out of time after all and may have futzed up the credits.

The collector's edition LMR has no credits. Fantailfan 01:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the revert wars!

Hey! Between the two of you, you have edited over 10,000 pages; I have edited over 3500. As a disinterested observer, I am citing the unofficial "way too much time on our hands" doctrine: Let's compromise!
a) Dudesleeper is correct on the dating. The reason for this is very simple: for many years now release dates have standardized on Tuesdays in America and Mondays in other places. The difference of a single day is not worth this craziness.

Proposed: We can use (as as has been the case elsewhere) one date with the UK release date and the second with the US one. You can even use cute little flag icons for them. (b) There are no explicit guidelines on how to incorporate an album article in a discography.
Proposed: We add a second discography using this format, with the albums discography taking top spot, the chronological one the second:

| Misc         = {{Extra chronology 2
  | Artist     = 
  | Type       = 
  | Last album = 
  | This album = 
  | Next album = 
  }}

Discuss, please. -- Fantailfan (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the article?

I believe this article should be more detailed, if at all possible, so that it's at least the same length as the Green article.

Perhaps we should add a Reception section, perhaps even a legacy section, or extend the details section.

Thoughts? Alternative Idiot (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute with Koavf in track listing section

Prior to my first edit, the track listing showed side two as having its tracks numbered 6 to 11. I changed it to show numbers 1 to 6, citing the LP label/listing in my edit summary ([1]). Which led to a content dispute:

My change was reverted by Koavf (1st revert), who argued the CD was the more popular format ([2]).
In response, I removed the pseudoheadings titled "side one" and "side two", which do not exist on the CD, citing this in my edit summary ([3]).
This was then reverted by Koavf (2nd revert), who said in his edit summary that all R.E.M albums have the headings ([4]).
In response, I reverted this revert (my 1st), citing in my edit summary a link to scans of the CD insert showing a listing without the "side" one and two headings ([5]).
In response, this was reverted by Koavf (3rd revert), with the edit summary "no CDs have sides". Which I did not understand.
In response, I restored (2nd revert) the CD listing with a citation to the CD release (with link to scans), as well as a citation to verify the note below the listing that had said the LP lists the tracks under side one ("Time Side") and two ("Memory Side"), with edit summary.

I left a three-revert warning at Koavf's talk page, and opened this section to discuss, if there is still anything to discuss? Maybe I am missing something. Dan56 (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q Magazine review

I added the quote and some highlights from the original Q Magazine review from 1991 by Mark Cooper. I left the review score from 2016 that it is currently there as I don't want to change it without consensus. The 1991 score was 5 stars.Karst (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the album title come from?

I recently heard someone on a podcast (can’t remember which) state that the band didn’t come up with an album title till the end and quickly plucked “Out of time” from the chorus of Prince’s song 1999 (“2000 zero zero party over, oops OUT OF TIME”). Is that true? If so that should be mentioned in this article. 24.22.151.109 (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The band would make a large list of mostly ridiculous album names and whittle away at them over time. This album had no title and the "winner" was Cat Butt up until the last minute, when they chose Out of Time because that's what they were. If you actually need a citation, you can check It Crawled from the South. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]