Talk:Boy (album)

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

Live songs

"Interestingly, this is the only U2 album from which every song (as well as every B-side) has been performed live at least once." Isn't that always the case with debut albums? /Hugoflug 18:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it isn't that extrordinary from that perspective, but it's unique among U2 albums with that distinction, so I think it's worth a mention. --typhoon 20:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact that U2 had been touring prior to the release of their debut album and played other non-album songs (11 O'Clock Tick Tock, Another Day, Boy/Girl, Inside Out, Father Is an Elephant, etc.), I also think it's worth mentioning.

Bono quote

There's a Bono quote where he says something like, "Most rock albums are about losing your virginity, but Boy is about your virginity." I don't remember where I read or heard it (might've been on one of the DVDs?). Does anyone have the full quote (ideally with a link to an article that quotes it, so we have a cite)? I think it says a lot about why this album is so different. --typhoon 20:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In Bono's interview with Rolling Stone's Jann S. Wenner, he states, "...extraordinary themes; the same theme as our recent album [How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb]: innocence vs. experience...it's being savored before it's let go...it's not about losing your virginity, it's about your virginity." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.59.120 (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

An Cat Dubh/Into The Heart combined

"Early compact disc releases (identified by being West German-pressed and in a digipak) combined the two songs into a single track at 8:14."

My copy of the album also has these songs combined (iTunes clocks it at 8:15 in length), but mine doesn't seem to have anything to do with West Germany. Rather, mine was "MADE IN CANADA BY CINRAM LTD." and came with a standard jewel case, with the American album art. Is this variant worth mention? Heep (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely be changed from just West German at the very least. My copy is exactly the same. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So then, so far we know the West German and the Canadian pressings combined these tracks (though oddly, they're not combined in the track listing on the back of the case). I wonder if any other pressings combined the tracks? Heep (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Father Is an Elephant

I only recently heard of this song and when I asked around for it I couldn't find it in any of the bonuses to their albums so I started looking in P2P software. I've only found one version of the song and it's labeled "Live Canterbury 801111". Could this be the only existing recording? Lironhallak (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't bring these questions here. This has nothing to do with this album. Talk pages are not message boards. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Info

Might be some worthwhile information working from here. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boy (album). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724225536/http://u2_interviews.tripod.com/id11.html to http://u2_interviews.tripod.com/id11.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626050454/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 21:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are you so bent on having two review scores from Rolling Stone, from the same year?

Why not, @Y2kcrazyjoker4:? Because the maximum capacity for this ratings template is 10 scores; awkwardly cluttering one row in this box with two scores still makes it two scores, for a total of 11. And because it is blatant favoritism to one particular publication, of no benefit to the reader. Pick a score, the three-and-a-half or four stars, but we do not need both to bludgeon readers with the fact that Rolling Stone liked the album in 1981, at the expense of eliminating a more useful representative in the ratings template. Which is what we'd have to do if you continue to pursue this special treatment for another damn row of gold stars attributed to Rolling Stone. Dan56 (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

You know that you're addressing more than one editor. I initially restored the one you removed yesterday and gave you a reason: it's one of the most respected music publications. It's quite common to include two reviews from the same source. There is no favouritism, blatant or otherwise. We do not need several of the other reviews though. I appreciate the addition of the Spin book's review, but if there are two reviews from Spin, we would likely include them both as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

If it is quite common to exceed the 10 score limit outlined by the template guideline, then it is quite clear some editors are doing something wrong. Dan56 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not quite common to exceed ten reviews, it is common to have more than one review represented in a single slot.

Yes, you are doing something wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that in this unique instance, two review scores crammed together into one slot is actually one review score and it does not total 11 in the box?

You're right. I am doing something wrong: using reason with you. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It’s not unique. Using two reviews for a single publication is used on occasion. It's not one score, it’s two. I don’t care how many reviews are present as long as they fit into the infobox and they are professional, reliable sources. When we have 10 reviews and add Metacritic, we have 11. If AllMusic has reviews for an original release, a special edition and an anniversary release, each by a different reviewer and each with a different score, it makes perfect sense to supply them. If a publication had five, I might think that’s too many, but if local consensus is that each one is needed, I see no reason to override that . If Robert Christgau were to review an album and then revisit the review and change it, it makes sense to list both. The template holds only ten reviews, but as a table, the cell can hold many more and there is no prohibition against that, so if we feel that the information should be conveyed, there is no artificial rule stating they cannot or should be excluded.

And you're not using reason, you're using bad math. I will refrain from any further personal commentary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Metacritic is not a review score. Dan56 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template quite clearly says "include no more than ten reviews" Dan56 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

You're linking to style advice. It's not even a guideline. The template cannot contain more than ten parameters. There are reviews and review scores, and we're discussing the review scores, and the advice does not stipulate how many review scores are permitted per review site. Multiple review scores are perfectly legitimate, unlike changing the talk page comments or !votes of other editors. And your RfC question was far from neutral which is why I changed it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Awfully defensive there. Dan56 (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Not really. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should two scores from Rolling Stone, from the same year, be included in the ratings box?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Engaging in personal attacks (and linking to essays) does not help your cause and I am convinced of the case for including 2 scores.∯WBG^converse 18:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Should two scores from Rolling Stone, from the same year, be included in the ratings box? A recent addition included a second score, bringing the total scores in the box past the limit of 10, and the total Rolling Stone reviews to two represented in the box. Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

!Votes

• No - MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template: "Include no more than ten reviews in table form ... keep a neutral point of view". Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely It's been explained why above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - It’s one of the most prominent music sources in existence. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - It's not meant to burden the reception section with Rolling Stone reviews, but because two different reviews with two different ratings were published, it seems like it's best to present them both instead of choosing between one or the other. Most publications will only offer one "canonical" review/rating of an album, but as mentioned, this appears to be a case where that it is not true. Dave Marsh is a very notable critic, so his review is certainly notable. And on the other hand, the review that is still available on Rolling Stone's site is the Cohen review. If the issue at hand is the exceeding of 10 reviews, I think we can remove one of the retrospective ratings. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • While we're at it, let's make a special little ratings box just for Rolling Stone, to show readers just how important the magazine is to this article's topic... Dan56 (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Dude, we get it. You don't like Rolling Stone. Time to move on... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 11:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I like Rolling Stone plenty, dude. I do not have to compromise a Wikipedia article like a fanatic just to prove it. The readers will not know that the review is by Marsh from a glance at the ratings box, so I fail to see what good this does: all you are doing is showing two scores without context. Is Debra Rae Cohen a very notable critic? If not, then take hers out. Dan56 (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• No We should not give more weight to a particular reviewer. Rzvas (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes there's still only 10 publications in the box, exceptions can be made for cases like these --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There are actually 11 publications, since the source used to verify the score is not Rolling Stone, and even if it were it would be a different issue of the magazine, which is another publication. And the limit defined by the guidelines specifies 10 scores, not 10 publications. An exception to what end? Dan56 (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    • You're not good at counting. Ten publications. One publication has two alternate review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
      • You're not good at English; a publication is a piece of published material; an edition or issue of a magazine is a publication. This is what you choose to respond to? Gzus. So petty, Walter. Dan56 (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
        • It's got multiple meanings [1] [2][3][4]. A review, by itself, is not the whole magazine, so it's clear that the writer meant a publishing house. You stated you were going to drop it, so by continuing here, I may be petty but not a liar, like you. Going forward, nothing you say can be trusted. And I would say, pedantic, rather than petty. But I suspect you use that word since people frequently use it in conversation with you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Pffftt. What exactly have I lied about? Dan56 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Hmmmm... maybe I won't drop it, just to match your pettiness.😏 Dan56 (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The ratings template was not made to pay tribute to the popularity of any one source, @Sergecross73: Dan56 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Fuck it. If you all want to make this article a touch bit tacky while pretending to ignorance of clear-cut guidelines, go for it. It is merely a U2 article, after all. Dan56 (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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.