Talk:Not Available

The "concept" section is, word-for-word, the liner notes of the album. All of the "citations needed" are confirmed by Cryptic Corporation. MMBKG 1:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't make a damn bit of sense. AlephGarden 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite?[edit]

This article may need to be rewritten. None of it is referenced, and most of it appears to be rumor-based or someone's personal interpretation of the album. The article even appears to contradict itself at one point, in explaining the origin/purpose of the album. The Concept section in particular is problematic. I considered rewriting the Concept section down to a small summary, but for the life of me I can't understand hardly any of it (all I get is that it's about a love triangle of some sort). This article could be a Residents song itself, considering how incomprehensible it is. If someone can translate this into Encyclopedian, please do. -kotra (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the idea of the album being intentionally "forgotten" has been confirmed and is perhaps the second-best known Residents in-joke (aside from the story behind Third Reich and Roll). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.126.218 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure one of the residents wrote this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.145.129 (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but the original research itself is a joke on the readers, since it is _completely full of shit_.

Quote: As the faux piece reached its peak, the trio - two holding pistols while the third hid in a bush - came to a realization that the lovely young Edweena had eloped with the independently wealthy and no longer uninvolved Uncle Remus. At this point, the tension, previously thicker than frozen mayonnaise, was shattered by the Porcupine... With illusions of love shattered, the three were then able to forgive, embrace and even welcome the traitorous Remus back to the fold, once he had returned from his less than blissful honeymoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.158.23 (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Concept section, other than the one line introduction, is just a quote from the liner notes. It says so right in the mentioned introduction. So the source is the liner notes. Rewriting it would be folly. 193.71.152.5 (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (Nick)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Not Available.jpg[edit]

Image:Not Available.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 insure 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) 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concept album?[edit]

Does it count as a concept album? MrLW97 (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Not Available (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090427113140/http://residents.com:80/historical/page0/page7/page154/page154.html to http://www.residents.com/historical/page0/page7/page154/page154.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Not Available/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.

This article lists no references at all. Also, it sounds like original research to me.

Substituted at 18:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)