Talk:"Weird Al" Yankovic (album)

Mr Frump

Mr Frump sounds nothing like Alice's Restaurant. It sounds more like carnival music. 67.188.172.165 21:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The singing style does sound alike though. Some of the humor of the song is that this song is so short, while Alice's Restaurant goes on forever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.48.235 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 11 March 2007

I totally agree that this is nothing like Alice's Restaurant. Also, the point in I'll Be Mellow When I'm Dead is not to be hyperactive, but is rather a rejection of yuppie fads that were popular at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.139.114 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 27 May 2007

Album type

The infobox now requires a pre-defined type code. I've put "studio" down for the moment as it's the most general. However, we could use "cover" or "tribute" if they're more appropriate descriptions of the album's type. What do you think? Alex valavanis 12:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Two versions of "My Bologna"

The original recording of "My Bologna" was done in the bathroom across from KPCR, and featured only Al on accordian with no other instrumental backing. The version that appears on this self-titled album is a studio re-recording of the song. The original bathroom recording is still notable, but since it's not the version on this album, I don't know if that bit of info should be left here. Thoughts? - Josh, March 31, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.10.143 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 31 March 2007

Vandalism

I noticed a little Vandalism on this page. I fixed it though.--Gen. Quon 15:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

82.10.118.184 (talk · contribs)

the song he did called straight out of lynnwood is even funnier to me as lynwood is a special school near to where i used to live! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.118.184 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 23 September 2007

Straight Outta Lynwood is not a song. It's an album. 174.0.46.168 (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Check's In The Mail

That song is basically a style parody of the song Madness by the band Madness on their One Step Beyond album.It's musically similar all the way,including the simulated handclaps heard at the end of both songs.The only difference is that Weird Al's song is a bit slower in tempo than Madness.If you even know the song Madness,you probably know what I am talking about.Just a thought.Any comments or criticisms?Frschoonover 02:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

reconstitution

As the previous iteration of this article had zero sourcing for verifiability, I've stricken everything for which I could not find a source. I've sourced the rest, as well as all of the new information which I've now included in the article. For anybody interested in finding sources for the stricken information, that version is here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked some stuff a litte bit, mostly by adding some of the songs and the old infobox and adding more references, but other than that, I didn't mess with it much. It looks good!--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I dig moving the personnel section, I probably would have based on the input at the peer review.

However, there's 0 sourcing for "The Ballad of Chuck and Diane" or the original intention for "Yoda"; the source for the former only cites that he performed for The Simpsons, but not that there was ever another song intended for this album. I want to give you a chance to source them should you have any, but otherwise I'l remove them again.

Why did you pipe the links from Rock 'n Roll Records to Scotti Bros. Records? I should imagine the former warrants an article, I'm just not inclined to create it; and per WP:REDLINKS, there's no reason to bypass that red link.

Lastly, I really don't like the table-formatting for a track listing. Nor does WikiProject Albums, their stylature guidelines for track listings (here) says that numbered lists should be used. Not only does it take a lot more space for the same information, but only 6% of Wikipedia's Featured albums have tabled track listings, the other 94% of them all use numbered track listings. Per precedent and guidelines, I would really like to know what necessitates we use tablature for this particular article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that you also excised the charting information from the Critical Reception section and tabled it w/o any rationale.

Why did you remove the reference from "Ricky"'s charting, and not provide one for "I Love Rocky Road"? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I added some more references, and created an article for "Rock 'N Roll Records", so I hope that fixes those problems. The main reason I think we need a table-format for the tracklisting is so that we can list the parodies and descriptions in an orderly fashion. I know what you're saying, but I think it would be best. For, Yoda, give me a bit to get the reference, because I know I've read somewhere, just can't find it! I added one "The Ballad of Chuck and Diane", so hopefully that'll fix that. And the singles, I just moved them and added a reference becuase, I was basing the format off of "Blood Sugar Sex Magik" by Red Hot Chili Peppers, which is a FA. If you disagree, I understand, feel free to change it, but I think it needs a table. I'm glad we're/you are getting somewhere on this article. Peace. 12/12/08 I just wanted to comment that I found the citation for the "Yoda" factoid.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I dig the RnR article, thanks for the initiative!

There's no way we can use a fan site (http://www.allthingsyank.com/) to cite the article ("Chuck & Diane", speficically); that, in no way, meets the requirements as a reliable source. However, I had missed the bit about "Yoda" in the Permanent Record liner notes. I re-wrote it a bit to clarify that our source doesn't explicitly state that it would have been on this album, only that it was written at the same time and delayed. I also consolidated the source, since I'd already referenced those liner notes several times before.

You're absolutely right w/regards to the charting. I've tweaked it per WP:CHARTS, and I put it back under the Reception section since, I feel, how the album (and its singles) charts is reflective of how the album has been received by the public/everybody. I got rid of the extra subdivisions for the charting as well because (a) such short sections were dissuaded in the peer review and (b) I think they're self-explanatory enough.

Lastly, the tabled track listing is still really chafing me! I'd like to work together on a way to keep the information prosed (as opposed to tabled), but still easy to read. Was it the two columns? Was it poor delineation of the non-prose in the list? I want to maintain continuity with WP:ALBUMS' guidelines, as well as precedent for Featured Articles for our best bet of acceptance w/our work. Besides, it's awfully gregarious and expansive—taking up far more empty area and page spacing than necessary. What do you think? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 08:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion re: tablature below (#tables v. numbered lists), but re: anything else I said here, please reply in this section still. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the fansite link, but its the best I can find. I'll look for something more suitable.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:"Weird Al" Yankovic (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Levy or Levey? I did some copyediting, but overall, it works. Standardize on American spellings, please? ("elabourates"?)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   If anything, I think there's more info out there. Is "Stop Dragging my Car Around" a parody of "Stop Dragging My Heart Around?" I've never heard the song, but various websites seem to think it is. Are the original songwriters credited on the album? If so, that would be a good thing to add. Lots of references to primary sources--is it possible to find more third-party commentary on the album?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   ON HOLD for editor/nominator feedback and/or corrections. As in, feel free to challenge if I've asked for something you've tried but can't find. Jclemens (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you continue the "hold status" through this weekend when I'll have more time to address specific issues? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. At least a week is customary, and I'll work with editors who communicate and make forward progress even if they take longer. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's do this thing.

• 1. All of my sources say "Levey", so I don't have any reason to doubt that. As for American spellings, more the problem is that I don't see any spelling problems. I see your example, and have changed it, but would appreciate it if you could please look it over yourself for non-MoS spellings as I don't see them to catch them.
• 2. I have interwebbed all over the place for more information on both the album and track six specifically, but I can't find anything more than what's in there now. There're two problem I've faced, (a) delineating from the artist himself when searching online is an absolute beast! and (b) Being his first album there's slim-to-no pickings (speaking of WP:RS, that is) when it comes to reviews or additional information. I'll keep on the lookout, but this is it for now I think.

  Are the original songwriters credited? I don't know, I don't actually have this album or its liner available to me. If his later albums are any indication, then he may have. I don't see any problem with adding them to the list; how's this?

  Again, I tried to find as many reliable, second-party sources as I could. Is it a problem that I couldn't find more if they're not out there to be found?

Whaddya think? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Passing per your improvements. Thanks for your efforts to nail down a few things that aren't RS'ed. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

tables v. numbered lists

I asked participants of an identical discussion at WT:ALBUMS to weigh in here, as this article falls under the purview of that WikiProject. Please read the above discussion to see arguments already made. For reference, the two formats that have been implemented here are linked as follows:

• Numbered track listing (a/o 14:59, 02 December 2008)
• Tabled track listing (a/o 08:24, 14 December 2008)

I am not trying to weigh this discussion one way or another, only to reach a wide consensus that (a) is in line with the approval of WP:ALBUMS, even if we change their mind or they concede special circumstances, and (b) make sure this article and its formatting decisions will keep it on a productive path for being Featured at some point (in the near future?). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've checked both revisions. I'll be honest with you both here: I dislike both formats used.

Surprising though this may come, I prefer a much simpler format. See The Kenny Rogers Singles Album (current revision is 255372512) to see how I do it. I think presenting just the text in this format would be a good way to format the article.

Keeping in honesty, however, I do see one thing that the current table revision does. It lists both the parody style and a description. If you were to use my formatting suggestions, here's how I'd rewrite it using just the first two tracks as an example (BTW, is a citation on every single track name absolutely necessary? I beg to differ, but I've also omitted keepers in the example). EDIT, 06:58 UTC: I've added track 7 to demonstrate Side A, Side B - though I've omitted using headers for talk page purposes, see my articles for their exact use. Numbered lists do reset this way; that's fine for records while unacceptable for CDs, which should be a single list.)

Side 1

1. "Ricky" [2:36]
       Style: "Mickey" by Toni Basil (written by Mike Chapman & Nicky Chinn)
       An ode to I Love Lucy with Yankovic performing as Ricky and Tress MacNeille as Lucy Ricardo.
2. "Gotta Boogie" [2:14]
       Style: Original
       A play on words discussing a man with a "boogie" on his finger and his quandry therein.

Side 2

1. "My Bologna" [2:01]
       Style: "My Sharona" by The Knack (written by Doug Fieger and Berton Averre)
       A song in which the narrator talks about his obsession with bologna.

I'd say that looks clean! IMO definitely cleaner than the other two formats, as tables can look cluttered when you throw in things like descriptions taking up five tabular lines compared with a single-line title; it just looks sloppy. And the two-column linear format also does not work with me. Just give me clean text and I have all the info I need for each track right underneath it - and it's easy to edit if something is missing. =) CycloneGU (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I wholly appreciate your honesty! I think the new look is a good compromise as well, it's clean and keeps the information prosed, while maintaining delineation of the separate songs' details. I also agree with your views on the aesthetics (or lack thereof) of tabling the information! (The cites on the songs' names are actually for their lengths, not the song title itself.)

Are you vehemently against the columnization of information? I find it makes better use of the page, especially when each line of information will wind up being so short. Lemme show you what I mean, and tell me what you think. Here're our options:

• 
  1. Two columns using paragraph breaks
• 
  2. Two columns using line breaks
• 
  3. One column using paragraph breaks
• 
  4. One column using line breaks

You know, now that I see them laid out like that, I'm torn. What do others think about these proposals? (Of course, this isn't the only idea on the table, it's just the first so far; if you have a different proposal, please tell us!) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I definitely am for line breaks; as discussed on my talk page, it uses less whitespace between the lines and appears smaller. If information is connected, this is a good thing! CycloneGU (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Since no one else has replied yet, I'll add on to yesterday's post. I forgot to give my opinion of columns vs. single rows. Look at my earlier example. The text from the entries all fits within a single line on each line. Some entries have more text, and thus you'd need additional lines to put that information anyway, thus possibly creating a need for a single line for a single word or two in that column. Also, while the text may fit on my screen with extra room, some people still use smaller monitors. Putting two tables means their browser may create some very short columns, and it may look cluttered that way. Thus, I still propose the single column layout; sure, many of us will see whitespace, but those locked into smaller resolutions will appreciate it. CycloneGU (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Line breaks definitely look cleaner/tighter than paragraph breaks, except when the lines wrap, in which case they look terrible... Isn't there a way to get the benefits of both? By the way, {{Spaces}} might be easier than using a bunch of " "s:

1. "Ricky" [2:36]
       Style: "Mickey" by Toni Basil (written by Mike Chapman & Nicky Chinn)

# "Ricky" [2:36]<br>{{spaces|4}}''Style: "Mickey" by Toni Basil (written by Mike Chapman & Nicky Chinn)''

Also -- and forgive me if this has been discussed elsewhere -- is "style" really appropriate for a direct parody? Some of Weird Al's songs are style parodies, but I'm not sure that term is appropriate for parodies of actual songs...

--Fru1tbat (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: "style", if you look at the image examples I galleried above, you'll see I tweaked the wording to better fit the specificity of "Weird Al"'s parodying. I totally understand what you mean. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 10:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Re the spaces, it's funny you should mention that; I tried NBSPs on the 1997 Kenny Rogers Love Songs album this morning and found some more work done on it during my absence (no complaints, we're all here to improve it) eliminating the spaces; his method was to establish a bullet on the second line for info. Apparently this is done by using the pound sign and adding an asterisk (SHIFT-8) immediately next to it, as here:

1. "Ricky" [2:36]
   • Style: "Mickey" by Toni Basil (written by Mike Chapman & Nicky Chinn)

It works, check the page. It does look cleaner in the edit process as it's not all cluttered on one line, but sorted in an easier to read format for editing purposes as well while still accomplishing the objective. Too bad we don't have bullet options. *LOL*...but then, they should all be the same as this is all one big huge encyclopedia. CycloneGU (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the bullets make it look too busy if utilized here: bullets after numbering, especially since we're talking about having two additional lines after the track title. What do you think about this?

A-side

1. "Ricky" (2:35)

   Parody of 1982's "Mickey by Toni Basil (written by Mike Chapman & Nicky Chinn)
   An ode to I Love Lucy with Yankovic performing as Ricky and Tress MacNeille as Lucy Ricardo.

2. "Gotta Boogie" (2:13)

   Original words and music by "Weird Al" Yankovic
   A play on words discussing a man with a "boogie" on his finger and his quandry therein.

... as opposed to ...

A-side

1. "Ricky" (2:35)
   • Parody of 1982's "Mickey by Toni Basil (written by Mike Chapman & Nicky Chinn)
   • An ode to I Love Lucy with Yankovic performing as Ricky and Tress MacNeille as Lucy Ricardo.
2. "Gotta Boogie" (2:13)
   • Original words and music by "Weird Al" Yankovic
   • A play on words discussing a man with a "boogie" on his finger and his quandry therein.

... or ...

A-side

1. "Ricky" (2:35)
       Parody of 1982's "Mickey by Toni Basil (written by Mike Chapman & Nicky Chinn)
       An ode to I Love Lucy with Yankovic performing as Ricky and Tress MacNeille as Lucy Ricardo.
2. "Gotta Boogie" (2:13)
       Original words and music by "Weird Al" Yankovic
       A play on words discussing a man with a "boogie" on his finger and his quandry therein.

It utilizes your idea of the multiple lines (I think I'm foregoing the 2-column idea) per item. Using the paragraph break after the title breaks it apart from the block of text to follow, but keeping a line break for the "plot" (if you will) keeps us from spacing everything out ridiculously far (and will provide for clean break for the next track title.

Definitely don't think I hate the latter two(!), I'm just espousing my thoughts and generating discussion. Fru1tbat's right, the latter two are "tighter", but the second one's busier to the eye (imo) and the third one will wind up with the ugly carriage returns Fru1tbat (and we have) mentioned (especially at lower resolutions). Whaddya (all) think? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 10:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus XIII (talk · contribs) replaced the existing table with a new one. If anybody wants to discuss it, please; but I think our current consensus is in favour of one of the undecided-upon numbered list variations above. FWIW, I'm not in favour of the new table, even over the previous version by Gen. Quon; its width is artificially truncated (for me, at least) and its entries' horizontal alignment are out of whack. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

pd_THOR asked me to comment on this, noting that current consensus regarding this track listing was leaning towards a WP:ALBUMS compliant numbered list. First of all, I do not have a strong opinion on the merits of a table-based over a numbered list (or vice versa) in this particular case. The motivation for my edit was merely to replace a custom table with a pre-formatted template, out of practicality. That being said, if we want to follow WP:ALBUMS to the letter, the second of the above drafts is probably the closest so far. The guideline mandates nested/bulleted lists for additional per-track information in extra lines, which, incidentally, also results in considerably simpler/more readable code. Also note that track lengths do not go in parenthesis, songwriting credits do, while lengths are en dash-separated:

Side one

1. "Ricky" (Mike Chapman, Nicky Chinn) – 2:35
   • Parody of "Mickey" (1982) by Toni Basil, an ode to I Love Lucy with Yankovic performing as Ricky and Tress MacNeille as Lucy Ricardo.
2. "Gotta Boogie" ("Weird Al" Yankovic) – 2:13
   • A play on words discussing a man with a "boogie" on his finger and his quandry therein.

That's the most WP:ALBUMS compliant format I'd come up with on the spot – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 12:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem with (and the reason I didn't do) this particular iteration is that it's patently unclear; "Ricky" (Mike Chapman, Nicky Chinn) reads that Yankovic's performing a song written by Chapman and Chinn. That's why we added the additional specific deliniation to clarify parodies and original songs, like Gen. Quon originally intimated. Are you adherently against the previous version you streamlined (and if so, wherefore)?

Also, the "A" and "B" side specifications are found in the "discogs" reference; I've reverted those and added a hidden comment for clarification. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the credits for the parodies to address that ambiguity. As for how to denote the LP sides, I went with the format I have encountered most often in other articles. Note that the terms A-side and B-side tend to be associated with singles, hence my avoidance of the letters. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 22:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the discogs numbering scheme isn't just their own, completely independent of what's actually printed on the LP. I spot-checked several old LPs (Sgt. Pepper's, for instance), and discogs labels them all A1/B1 etc. The Wikipedia articles for those albums use "side one"/"side two", which seems to invalidate the discogs numbering. Unless someone here has an original Weird Al LP to check...

As for the writing credits, it might be easier (and more compliant) to just reflect the credits as listen on the album. Unfortunately, my CD for this particular album has a bare-bones booklet with no credits whatsoever, but on later Wierd Al CDs (UHF, for instance), the credits are generally listed with Al's name added to the end of the original writers. e.g. "SPAM by William Berry, John Stipe, Peter Buck, Michael Mills, Al Yankovic".

One more comment: The current lines of text below the track names are worded (or punctuated) a little ambiguously. "Parody of 'Mickey' by Toni Basil, an ode to I Love Lucy..." makes it sound to me like the original song is an ode to the TV show. A semicolon would be better there. It doesn't work for all of them, but it works for most.

--Fru1tbat (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

For the "A" and "B", the discogs cite is our only reference for such, and I think we should use it until one better comes along. I tried to find an image online of the back of the LP, to no avail.

I'm less concerned with the writing credits being just like the album as I am for them to be comprehensive and easily understood/clear. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My point was that it's not actually a reference at all; it's just the same system discogs seemingly uses for all LPs, i.e. their own system, not driven by the terms printed on the actual LPs themselves. Given this, i.e. since there isn't any real source for any specific labeling scheme, we should default to the standard for referring to LP sides, which is one/two... If it turns out that discogs doesn't use A/B for all LPs, I stand corrected. I checked LPs from a variety of labels and artists, though.

As for the track listing, it's not so much that I'm necessarily concerned with the appearance being the same as the album, but as songwriting credits are official and have legal implications, I think it's important that the encyclopedia have accurate information. Choosing them haphazardly seems unfair to the artists, as well.

--Fru1tbat (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the "arranged by" clarification, that's better. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was intentional, but Cyrus III removed the following from the track listing.

"Weird Al" Yankovic is the only album in Yankovic's discography in which the accordion is prevalent in every song; in subsequent albums it's only used where deemed appropriate or wholly inappropriate.

(cites removed for talk) I'm not sure where's better for it to be located except with the songs to which it's referring. Are there any objections to my replacing it? Also, we've lost the original (cited) LP track lengths; shouldn't those be referenced? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

done it to it

Based on our discussions here, I've reconstituted the track listing as a numbered list. Whaddawe think? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me! --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll agree. It looks good.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

I adjusted the images a bit. Images are generally no larger than 180 pixels, but since several of these were vertical, I made them smaller. There's an attribute for that, but I forget what it is ("vertical", probably). Also, the first image is of Rick Derringer, onstage, behind his guitar. Not extremely relevant to the recording of this album, but it's okay. I think it should be small. Maybe even smaller. Same with the one of Jim West. The one of Dr. Demento is good. I question whether the picture of Eugene Chadbourne should be in the article at all. First of all, he's a critic. Nobody knows or cares what he looks like. Second, he's shown playing a banjo, which has no bearing on the record at all. When I first saw the pic, I had to read the text to find out what his role was, regarding the album - none! And why aren't there any pictures of Weird Al himself? -Freekee (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I generally eschew manually sizing images—per the manual of style—because it overrides users' individual preferences. I don't see any need to size the images at all, as users whose resolutions are such that it crowds the text will have already set their preferences duly. I'd like to remove the manual sizing unless you see a pressing need to override those users' preferences and defaults.

That being said, I certainly don't mind the move, and can understand what you're saying about the Chadbourne image. I like the Derringer image because (a) it's cool, and (b) ... well, I just like how it looks. If you or anybody really feels stridently opposed to it, I won't fight that fight. I added the Chadbourne image because it was recommended the article have some libre images for aesthetic purposes, and I just included ones that could be construed as apropos. Ditch him, no biggie. As for "Weird Al" himself; I really don't want to include any images of Yankovic in the article that aren't of a contemporary time; ones from later in his career (as seen in his article or on the Commons) inserted into the article, even with noting the date, I feel would be misconstrued by readers as being particularly relevant to this article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I think the variable you're thinking of is "upright". Iff the "upright" variable sizes duly based on users' preferences as preferred by the MOS, then I can side with using it on the particularly tall images (not the Hansen image, though). You'll have to look into the coding of "upright" and see how it affects images' sizing and display. Or I will. Just not tonight.  :^) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "eschew manually sizing images", that's fair enough. But use the upright attribute. I don't have a problem with those images, only that they are very large. It's sort of an undue weight issue. And speaking of image guidelines, if we're not sizing the images, we really should use the upright attribute. Unfortunately (IMO), the pics of Derringer and West are very narrow, so they still appear a bit larger than recommended. Also, Derringer should be kept small since he appears opposite the infobox.

I'm removing the pic of Chadbourne, since I just don't think it's relevant, but here's where to find it, if anyone wants to add it back: File:Eugene Chadbourne.jpg. -Freekee (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm in concurrence. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Who?

Thrice BulsaraAndDeacon (talk · contribs) has included the blurb "Towards the end of the song, it is revealed that the person in the song actually went on the bus to meet The Who." into the description of "Another One Rides the Bus". There is no such revelation; the narrator is simply comparing the crowded bus conditions to a The Who concert:

The window doesn't open, and the fan is broke,

And my face is turnin' blue.
I haven't been in a crowd like this

Since I went to see The Who

Unless my many years of experience in listening to and reading the English language have suddenly failed me, a The Who concert is just a basis for comparison and not the narrator's unrevealed destination (see lyrics). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

@pd_THOR - you are correct, more specifically, not just any Who concert, but the 1979 Who concert concert in which eleven people were killed. FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

the D

In the WP:BRD cycle, this is the "D" aspect. Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) boldly (the "B") made extensive changes to the article today, several of which I either disagree with, question, or do not understand. I've reverted it for the time being (the "R"), since there were such diverse and extensive changes.

I'll start with asking about the re-organization of the article. In 2008 when it was originally promoted to GA-status, I'd modeled the organization after what I found was the format of a majority of FA-rated album articles. Since the ultimate goal for any article should be FA-status, such modeling made sense as it formed a pattern. Has this changed? Has the standard formatting/organization of featured album articles changed trends? If not, what was the reason for moving about?

Secondly (and lastly for now), was the change from a paragraphically-aligned {{quotation}} to a {{quote}} box aligned underneath the infobox. The quote by Yankovic is essentially a second paragraph under the "Production" heading; had I simply re-written it, I would have just made it another prosed paragraph in line. However, I didn't feel I could improve on the words "from the horse's mouth" if you will; since a paragraph-long quotation is antithetical to the manual of style, I used a blockquote in lieu to make the same point. Moving this to under the infobox (as {{quote}} will not sit alongside), it distances it from any chronological relevance between the two other paragraphs in that section. Therefore, what was the rationale for moving it out of that position? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you that the quote should be left alone. I'm fine with that, but the critical reception, personnel, etc. should be changed. I too re-arranged it based on the current state of FA-rated album articles. Indeed, a lot of the formatting has changed, most notably, the critical reception is above the track listing with a box with the various reviews stationed in it, like I had. All I'm doing is updating this page. To give you an idea of some FA articles I'm basing if off of...

• Ghosts I–IV
• Pinkerton (album)
• Surfer Rosa
• Rock Steady (album)
• Blood Sugar Sex Magik

And here's some of the GA articles I'm basing it off of...

• The Fame
• Future Sex Love Sounds
• Confessions on a Dance Floor
• Hard Candy (Madonna album)
• Ray of Light
• Like a Virgin
• Off the Deep End

All-in-all, I think you're worrying about a set format for GAs and FAs that doesn't really exist. I promise that all my edits are made in good faith and are an attempt to "modernize" this article (if you will) and make it looks like modern FAs and GAs.

--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Derringer Guitar

Derringer did play guitar on this album. Unfortunately I don't have the liner notes any more so I don't know which songs. JoeD80 (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Singles released before the album, listed as being from the album?

Among the singles mentioned as being from the album are "My Bologna" and "Another One Rides the Bus". Both of these singles were released years before this album, so do they belong there? With "My Bologna", it was even a different version of the song released as a single. Any thoughts? -Joltman (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a good question. I'd say that including "Another One Rides the Bus" makes sense, because while it was released before the album even materialized, it has been understood as a post facto single for some time now. "My Bologna" is trickier, as you note that it's a different version.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Joltman: I went ahead and removed MB from the singles listing, since the version on this album is completely different from the one on the Capitol release. I left ARtB, though.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

"Gotta Boogie" (most likely) a parody

"Gotta Boogie" is, in fact, Al's original composition, but it's also a style parody of the whole disco genre. Disco was very popular (at its peak, even) in the latter half of the 70s and early 80s, and Yankovic recorded the original version of "Gotta Boogie", for his Placebo EP, in 1980.

I mean... it's obvious: the general theme of going out and partying, the song's musical structure, and even some of the sound effects used (including the "shooting star" sound effect, very often used at the time) are displaying it most prominently. That's why I think it sould be mentioned in the track listing. 212.67.149.248 (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

If you can find a third-party, reliable source that says it's a disco style parody, then we can include it. Otherwise, it's just original research, alas.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Tour Setlist

Could someone add a tour Setlist please? MemeLordes (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Fourthords and HorrorLover555: I wanted to discuss this edit. What do you think would be needed for us to restore that info? I can't imagine many other sources have those tour dates archived, and given the notability of the artist and the album, I think a short section mentioning tour dates might be warranted, if done correctly. Maybe with a collapsible table or something?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It could work if there are secondary sources from non-primary sources (the Weird Al past tour dates on his website, being an example of a primary source) to support that. If independent secondary sources can be found - then it could work to restore that section. A collapsible table is a good option if no notability from secondary sources can be found. I would also suggest reading into WP:NTOUR. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there a policy issue with primary source use here? Note that WP:NTOUR says "Tours that cannot be sufficiently referenced in secondary sources should be covered in a section on the artist's page rather than creating a dedicated article." That seems to mean that a tour table could be supported here.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

By all means, if a tour table can be supported, it can be restored. To update, I did find through Google Books a seource of a show, so I think we are in luck. HorrorLover555 (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)