Talk:You Are the Quarry

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 Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The Deluxe Edition that I have has all audio tracks (the original album plus the nine b-sides) one one disc, and the video tracks on a DVD disc. I don't know if there's an LP version that included the b-sides on a second disc, but, as far as I know, the deluxe edition (in CD format) has all the b-sides on the same disc as everything else, contrary to what the article states. Heck, I'm currently listening to "Don't Make Fun of Daddy's Voice", and there's been no change of CD since before "I Have Forgiven Jesus".--Waterj2 02:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chart position

Whoever it is that keeps changing the chart position to #2, would you please stop. It's pathetic. The album was #1 and that's all there is to it. For goodness sake, there are at least two other people who are changing it back to #1 after you've vandalised it, and you still don't get the message. Then, you have the nerve to get us banned for trying to fix it. You are a moron, and I am not going to stop fixing it to #1, so get used to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.44.37 (talk • contribs)

This tone of voice and the refusal to discuss the matter isn't helping your case. Because of your tone, I am going to revert to the last version and protect the article to stop the edit warring. If you can provide a verifiable reference, I am more than willing to let your edit stick, but please be aware that Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks. --Nlu (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm the person who keeps changing the chart position to #2. Why? Because every source I've seen tells me that the album reached #2 on the chart: True To You, a semi-official fansite, Passions Just Like Mine, a comprehensive discography, and Morrissey-Solo, a news source. Why would three credible Morrissey fan sites claim the album reached a lower position than it actually did? They wouldn't. If you can cite multiple, reliable sources which state the the album went to #1, you can change it and I won't contest. If not, I will continue to work to ensure that the correct information remains on the page.

Cheers,

Acegikmo1 22:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute?

There isn't a dispute here. It was a #1 album, no questions asked. I can't believe you idiots can keep on thinking you're right when the evidence is stacked against you horribly. It has been edited by other people to say it's #1! I read it had got to #1 on Ceefax when it came out! For god's sake, the sticker on the box says #1 Album! This is pathetic!!! I'm right, you're wrong, and that's all there is to it. It's a #1 album and I'm right. It's not even like this mistake is without precedent. You've made loads of mistakes with chart positions on this site.

If you continue to give people incorrect information, you're not much of an encyclopedia, are you?

#1 Album

I can't wait until you realise you were wrong the whole time, and that it was in fact a #1 album like I've been saying it was. I'll be expecting a little article on here apologising as well, since you've basically been making me and other people correcting it as vandals for the last few months. Can't be logn now until you realise you've lost.

Not long now

Not long now until you'll have to admit you were wrong and change it to #1 album.

By the way, since I have nothing to prove I'm not actually checking any sources. I know I'm right, so why should I have to look for evidence? That's up to you. I'll look forward to seeing the corrected page and not having to edit it any more to compensate for your lack of intellect.

Please see [1]. There is your evidence. Now please refute it. Acegikmo1 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm also convinced it was a Number 1 album and I remember hearing it referenced by Johnathan Ross when it came out as being a number one album as well as reading several mini biographies in magazines which said #1. Having said that, I can't actually find any sources to suggest this. I'm very confused and even though i'm convinced, I suggest keeping it as #2 until (if) a source saying otherwise is found.

Can't find it listed as #1

None of the souces I can find, including The Official UK Charts company http://www.theofficialcharts.com/ list the album as number 1.

Request unprotection?

This page has been protected for about three weeks now, with no substantive discussion until recently. Can we unprotect the page, or at least move it to semi protection? Calwatch 06:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the user who keeps changing the chart position to #1

I (and others) cannot find a reliable source stating this album was #1. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, so please verify your information on the chart position and cite your sources, before changing the chart position again. If not, your edits will be considered a factual error and be reverted again and again. --Stijn Vermeeren 12:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Drama

The Official Moz zine ( http://true-to-you.net/morrissey_albums ) lists YATQ as #2, the official UK album chart site does not include YATQ as a #1 album, and the man himself has joked about Keane getting the top spot in the UK. I know this wont halt the work of the vandals who continue to retroactivly award the album with a #1 berth but hopefully they will tire of this stupid game and allow the facts to remain as they are. Jackbox1971 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prog Rock?

Seriously? Prog rock? I am guessing this is because some of the tracks on Southpaw Grammar were over 6 minutes long? Surely prog rock needs more than length as a defining characteristic if the genre? EDROCKS 05:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Amgxvadzkq8w6

--CactusBot (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC) \\[reply]

I'm not going to edit article because I don't really care, but what sort of bitter fan boy wrote this article? It's appalling. Sort it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.34.73 (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Munich air disaster

Munich Air Disaster 1958 redirects here, but there is practically no discussion of the track at all. I've made reference to what the track refers to, and a hatnote to send those who were looking for the disaster itself on their way. I'd be tempted to move the redirect given the lack of information on the one particular track here, and the fact as far as I can conceive that people searching for Munich Air Disaster 1958 are more likely to be looking for the crash, but I would welcome others' input. Harris (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As no discussion has occurred, I've listed this for discussion as below Harris (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Munich Air Disaster 1958" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Munich Air Disaster 1958. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 11#Munich Air Disaster 1958 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Harris (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]