Talk:Rush (Rush album)

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Rush (Rush album) → Rush (album) — Renamed as a preemptive disambiguation. While there may be several albums named Rush, none are listed on Wikipedia, and those that exist may not merit a writeup under this title. Anyway, the debut album by the band Rush would likely be the most notable. edgarde 08:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support — as per nom. If it's the only album by that title in Wikipedia, it's certainly more notable than any other albums named "Rush" that might exist. Use of the word "Rush" twice in the title appears needlessly redundant. Robotman1974 22:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Robotman. --Serge 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - better title. -Part Deux 20:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, no sense in having "Rush" twice in the title. PC78 10:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Some background on preemptive disambiguations, which are in most cases a mistake.

• There are multiple precedents for undoing preemptive disambiguations — EP7, LP5, Manowar.
• The Eric Clapton album of that title is a movie soundtrack called Rush_(soundtrack). As the Rush debut album will likely be the most notable article with the title Rush (album), any other instances should use either the {{otheruses4}} template (as is currently in use), or the {{otheruses}} template (which links to a DAB page).
• There is a current arbitration in effect on the subject of editors who insist on preemptive disambiguation. They are going against both precedent and the majority of editors. If you want to advocate for preemptive DAB, you might want to comment in that arbitration. — edgarde 08:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

orphaned in-line references

Found these at the top of the article:

• Rush at Resist
• Billboard

Neither seems worth including, but perhaps (for instance) an editor was going to seek a sub-page on Billboard or something, so I'm save both links here. — edgarde 09:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Cover?

Can anybody tell me the difference between the alternate cover and the main cover? On this article, they appear to be the same thing, only pictured twice... Any explanations? 64.254.191.151 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

One is supposed to be the original pink-lettered cover, the other the corrected color. These will probably both be deleted from this article before too long. / edgarde 23:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I will delete the alternate cover. I can't see any difference between the two. Sittingonfence 00:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Lenghts

There is said that these song lenghts refer to the remastered CD version, but are they really different on the vinyl version or the first CD-release? --212.149.208.22 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fancy Dancer/Garden Road

I've changed "what may be the unrecorded original song" to "the original songs", because Fancy Dancer and Garden Road have both been recorded, though they've never been officially released. I found recordings of them both on YouTube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.225.253 (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Date error(s)

ANC 1-1001 is a CD and is listed as being a 1977 release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.197.241 (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Early Canada and US releases in this article are listed as being from 1972 which is obviously an error since the first actual release was in early 1974. Someone with edit rights should correct this error, PLEASE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.111.162 (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

limited POV reception

Should "Reception" be included as an entire article section with only one review? That lends undue weight to the one review (which, in this case, is a bit narrow-minded and doesn't take the album for what it is but for what the reviewer wants it to be - but the point about imbalance (good or bad) would remain regardless). Maybe just delete the paraphrase section, retaining only the link box, until more reviews can be scrounged up? Either way, more reviews need to be scrounged up. If 2+ reviews say the same thing or if they provide alternate views, then great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.197.241 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Progressive Rock

Just as "Jack Sparrow" always says "There ought to be a 'Captain' somewhere in there," shouldn't the term "Progressive Rock" occur somewhere in this article? Rush is, after all, a Progressive Rock band. Perhaps more-so than "Heavy Metal."

This album isn't progressive rock. Their later albums are but this debut should not be considered a progressive album, though the subtitle "heavy metal" probably would fit this one record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.33.59 (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rush (Rush album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article requirements: Y A relatively complete infobox Y Cover art in the infobox Y A lead section giving an overview of the album At least one section of informative prose other than lead Y A track listing (for "start" class), containing track lengths & composers (for "B" class) A list of personnel (specific band members (for "start" class), guest musicians and technical (for "B" class) Y Categorisation at least by artist and year

Last edited at 07:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 05:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rush (Rush 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/20140823055546/http://www.themasterdiskrecord.com/2011/11/andy-vandette-on-remastering-14-rush-albums/ to http://www.themasterdiskrecord.com/2011/11/andy-vandette-on-remastering-14-rush-albums

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

1974, not 1972

in the 'Release history' section, "1972" is wrong, it should be '1974'.

Canada ------ Moon ---- Vinyl ---- MN 100 ----- "1972"

Canada & US - Mercury - Vinyl ---- SRM 1-1011 - "1972"

Canada & US - Mercury - 8 Track -- MC8 1-1011 - "1972"

Canada & US - Mercury - Cassette - MC4 1-1011 - "1972"

https://www.discogs.com/Rush-Rush/master/7764 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.207.105 (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Progressive rock in the infobox

Further proof that genre tags on music articles are worthless. I guess you can include anything as long as it has a citation next to it, doesn't matter if it makes any logical sense or not. Does "low-importance" mean lower standards? 2600:8801:710D:EA00:9124:EE86:732B:C146 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2024

Put in the genre Heavy Metal. 104.231.83.1 (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 21:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)