Talk:Yankee Hotel Foxtrot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleYankee Hotel Foxtrot has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 13, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 14, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 11, 2007Featured topic candidatePromoted
June 11, 2009Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
July 15, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Phonetic Alphabet[edit]

Maybe this is of little concern to anyone, or maybe it's just purely obvious, but the words "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" come from the NATO phonetic alphabet. I would consider this ironic (although probably also purposeful) coming from the band "Wilco". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.103.219 (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"ironic" statement[edit]

isn't saying "ironically, Reprise and Nonesuch are both Time Warner companies." a POV statement? Why is this ironic? It seems simply to be the way things work in the land of giant corporations. Time Warner owns both companies because the two will make different decisions. It hopes both will profit. Both child companies attepmt to do different things to make a profit--namely, appeal to different markets and/or use differing advertising techniques to reach those markets. This all seems totally natural. — vijay (Talk) 07:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic because the same company paid for the same recording twice, which is illogical no matter how you look at it. It may be the way things work in the land of megacorporations, as you say, but that doesn't make it any more reasonable. I might also add that nearly all large record companies have so little brand identity anyway that the number of records sold would not have been affected by which company released it in the end. (This, of course, is not considering the subsequent publicity received by the album after Reprise rejected it, but I think you get the point.) — Fedallah 17:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what does missing an opportunity or making an unreasonable decision have to do with irony? rakslice (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also: You say that Warner "paid for the same recording twice". Many people are going to assume that, but did Reprise even really pay for the recording of the album the first time? My understanding is that record companies often will only finance the recording costs for an artist up front, and the artist then owes the record company for them (hopefully to be paid back from album sales, but still out of the artist's portion of the royalties). Whether Reprise effectively paid for the album might come down to the details of Wilco's contract and what advances they had to pay back to leave Reprise. If anyone can find a report or interview with specifics about what Reprise paid for outright or wrote off later, it would make a good addition to the article. rakslice (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 and Jesus etc.[edit]

The article mentions that the album was completed prior to 9/11 but "critics perceived references in the album to the attacks. For example, Jeff Gordinier of Entertainment Weekly compared the two towers of Marina City to the World Trade Center towers" curious if anyone else made the connection with Jesus etc. Just prescience or did Wilco have prior knowledge of the attacks!


What a load of bollox Derekbd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Streamed vs Leaked[edit]

I think the history books should show that the decision for the band to stream YHF for free on their official web site had nothing to do with being dumped by Reprise - it was in direct reaction to MP3s of the album surfacing all over the internet. It was probably one of the most illegally downloaded albums on the web by the time they started streaming it. Please leave this in the article.

Chart numbers for YHF[edit]

The Wilco article claims YHF entered the charts at #12, the YHF article says #13 this should be checked and cited.

Someone has cited the actual issue of Billboard. This also agrees with the all music guide entry which give a peak position at #13. I'm going to correct the Wilco article and copy the citation from here. -MrFizyx 00:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Status[edit]

This article is exceptionally detailed, well-written, and in my opinion meets all the criteria for Good Article designation.--NPswimdude500 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvement[edit]

More chart information would be helpful (e.g. how the album fared in terms of sales in the weeks following its release). Additionally, while it is not necessary by any means, a table would greatly increase the visual appeal of the tracklisting by making it cleaner and more organized. These additions, in my opinion, would bring the article to a level where it is ready for Featured Article consideration.--NPswimdude500 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does it sound like?[edit]

This article, aside from a genre listing of "Alternative rock" in the infobox and linking to a sound clip, doesn't describe the music at all. Can someone talk about the music itself? Or maybe that's not as interesting as the history. -Freekee 03:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the greatest challenge the popular music WikiProjects (musicians, albums, songs) will be facing. How shall we describe music in an objective, useful (and scholarly?) fashion? –Unint 05:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contradicting[edit]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the intro section states that wilco purchased the rights to YHF from Time Warner, but a later section claims that they were given for free when the band left the company. So which is it, or am i just reading this wrong? Random89 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Yankee Hotel Foxtrot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Kept[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

offered the entire album for free[edit]

I think this is not precise enough, which makes it kind of wrong: The album was available for streaming, not open for free download, which is currently suggested. That's not the same thing.

PAG (11-02-2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.248.195.1 (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the intro to read that "Wilco streamed the entire album for free", with a wikilink to Streaming media. Feel free to add any improvements to the article as you see fit. -M.Nelson (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011[edit]

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed czar · · 16:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

checkY 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. 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) 15:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yankee_Hotel_Foxtrot&oldid=1211583751"