Talk:The Amazing Kamikaze Syndrome

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

Rock music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:AKS.jpg edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image:AKS.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Peacock and other issues edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article has suffered from WP:PEACOCK /WP:NPOV issues for some time. I noted it as such, and a couple small edits would be made, and the Peacock notation removed. Ultimately, I went in and made substantial edits, not only fixing the Peacock and POV issues, but also fixing misspellings and grammar and usage issues, fixing awkward phrases, and what appears to be WP:OR.

Ajsmith141 (talk · contribs) reverted the edit; I reinstated, but I'd like to provide some examples of the bases for my edit. This isn't comprehensive, but I'll explain for each section I edited, the gist of my edit.

Lede: peacock phrases such as "It was unlike anything Slade fans had seen before" (which fans? All of them? Unlike anything they'd ever seen?); "big sellers", "breakthrough" are pure peacock. Replaces with text indicating how the record performed on the charts.

Background: opinion ("well received performance"), mind-reading ("RCA Records expected hit singles from the band.")

Slam The Hammer Down: removed apparent WP:OR; eliminated redundant "begins the album"; yes, it's already listed as the first track.

In The Doghouse: entirely Peacock/OR, removed.

Run Runaway: some repetition removed.

High And Dry: Mostly OR, POV ("unapologetic commemoration of insensitive womanising"). I deleted in its entirety, but looking at the diff, there's nothing wrong with the factual " The song was originally covered by Girlschool which was produced by Holder and Lea," although it would be better if sourced. I'll add that back in.

My Oh My: No edits (although some sourcing would be nice).

Cocky Rock Boys (Rule O.K.): Apparent OR.

Ready To Explode: no edits made

(And Now The Waltz) C'est La Vie:no sources, apparent OR.

Cheap 'N' Nasty Luv: consists solely of OR and opinion. Deleted.

Razzle Dazzle Man: no significant content; it appears the writer was trying to comment on every song. There's nothing interesting that it "closes the album"; that's inherent in every album's last track.

Non-album tracks: All OR/POV.

Personnel: misspelling

section headers: unnecessary to have one tiny section per song. A single section on the songs is sufficient. Also, {{Main}} was used inappropriately; it's enough to link the song titles that have articles, and that's already done in the track list.

That's my summary. If Ajsmith141 or other editors want to judiciously edit this, I've got no problem with that but 1) let's go easy on the fanboy peacock stuff; 2) no OR and objective material only; 3) both of these are true even if quoting from the album notes, which are expected to be peacock and fanboy.

I would not object to a well-sourced section on the reception of the album a la WP:CRITICISM, as long as we make clear that these are the views of cited respected critics, and not just OR and a coat-hanger to hang more peacock feathers back onto the article.

Note that some of the tone of the article as it appeared prior to my edit would be fine in a music magazine covering this kind of material. You expect things like "It was unlike anything Slade fans had seen before" and "unapologetic commemoration of insensitive womanising" in a context like that; but it's not appropriate tone for an encyclopedia that objectively describes the subjects of its articles. — TJRC (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Merging edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I believe that both articles should remain seperate. As the main contributor to the Slade articles, much of the info on both articles are similar as I haven't got around to writing further info on each. At the moment, I am using the band's fan club newsletters to provide some album detail which 1983/1984 has not yet been used.

Both albums are seperate releases although with alternate track listings, released in seperate years, different title/artwork and seperate chartings. This album is notable alone for being the only hit album that Slade scored in America - "Keep Your Hands Off..." and not "The Amazing..."

This release situation is similar to Slade's 1979 album Return to Base and the 1981 album We'll Bring the House Down. With the failure of the 1979 album, many tracks were re-used for the 1981 album with some new material. These both have seperate articles as they are still seperate releases. It is also similar to the 1980 compilation Slade Smashes and the 1984 compilation Slade's Greats. Both albums have similar track listings except the 1984 compilation removes three tracks. These again have seperate articles as they are still seperate products.

As wikipedia's notability states any album that has been on a national music chart is notable. I see that both albums have charted and so deserve seperate articles.

Allmusic both rate Power Supply and Kamikaze differently with Power Supply given four of five stars and Kamikaze given two of five stars. Finally, the article for Power Supply was created in late 2006 and has not been questioned before. Ajsmith141 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Amazing Kamikaze Syndrome. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 12:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Amazing Kamikaze Syndrome. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic