Talk:The Eraser/Archive 1

Track names: capitalized or not?

On the initial announcement of the tracklisting of this album on Pitchfork, it was stated that the album name and all of the tracks are not supposed to be capitalized [1]. Should the tracklisting be changed to an all under case format?

I vote no. Pitchfork is the only site I've seen who made that statement, and they're by no means official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.164.118 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

UK album chart information

I don't see why BGC has repeatedly removed the text about The Eraser being the highest new entry in its first week in the album charts, so hopefully he/she will discuss it here. Surely it's notable that it was the best-selling new album of the week? I'm putting this here rather than on BGC's talk page in case anyone else wants to share their opinion on the matter. --CapitalLetterBeginning 12:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

BGC's response (in an edit summary) was:

"it was "the highest charting debut of the week" in many countries... redundant"

That doesn't make it "redundant". It would be redundant if it was information that could be gathered from something said elsewhere in the article. And, by the logic you present, the fact that it entered the album charts at #3 or #2 in many countries also means that having information about its placing in any such a country is redundant. I would argue that any reasons for including the chart performance of the album in a particular territory in the first place can be extended to include mention of the fact that it was the best-selling new album of the week (if, indeed, that is the case) in the same territory. --CapitalLetterBeginning 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mavis' comments

should be taken down, they have no bearing on the recording at all and are in no way encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.79.152.188 (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

to-do list

• Words about "The Eraser Rmxs" Lacrymocéphale 14:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Genre Discussion

Would've thought it was obvious to even the most musically unaware that The Eraser hardly falls into 'rock', no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.8.147 (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Eraser is Dub step, this should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.164.39 (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can find several reliable sources like major newspapers or music magazines which describe it as dubstep, then it can certainly be included. Personally, I have never heard it described as a dubstep album! Papa November (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: Why is The Eraser labeled Indie Rock?

Just because it is with an Indie label doesn't make it Indie Rock, In Rainbows was released in the same label and Wiki hasn't labeled it Indie, i've even tried and it gets erased.

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.23.253.161 (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely rock-ish about the Eraser album, I'm removing those three genres. InHaze (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. He plays guitar, sings etc. This is not just an Electronica album. Snoop God (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? As if playing guitar and singing is exclusive to rock music. I think you'll find many genres where that goes on. The Eraser isn't anywhere near a alt/indie rock album. There should be other genres, (both electro and non-electro), in the box ahead of anything rock. InHaze (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Eraser/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.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Start class: Y A reasonably complete infobox Y A lead section giving an overview of the album Y A track listing N Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient) Y Categorisation at least by artist and year C class: N All the start class criteria Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art Y At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians. B class: N All the C class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details N A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources. Y No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Aww! It just lacks a personnel section to be a true B class really! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC) What stopped you from taking the one minute it takes to assemble a Personnel section for an album which has basically one performer on it? Warren -talk- 15:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)