Talk:Paranoid Android

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleParanoid Android is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 29, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 12, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 28, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Hitchhiker references[edit]

There is no talking pig in the restaurant at the end of the universe, it is a cow, trying to sell Arthur its body parts.

Actually I don't think it's either, but some genetically engineered... thing. I changed 'pig' to 'animal'. --Moochocoogle 03:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these allusions to the guide series seem a little contrived. Is there any way we can verify some of these references? --Jordan 12:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - even as a HHGG fan, some of these look to me like the most oblique imaginings of some dedicatedly obsessive fan forum.
I checked the most plausible-looking one - the "OK, computer" reference - and to my mind it's not even close to being accurate (at least according to my American edition of the book) - the exact quote (referring to Zaphod) is: "'Okay', he said, 'Computer!'". So the album should be called "Okay, computer", no? And Marvin has already been introduced some pages before this event, in the previous chapter. So the link between this line and the Paranoid Android/"Paranoid Android" is tangential at best.
Regardless of which, the vocative "Okay, computer" is something pretty mundane and unremarkable for Zaphod to be saying at some point in the narrative, since he's on a spaceship-with-a-computer-you-have-to-talk-to and all... (presumably this is why, five chapters later, he says it again...)
And before I get an objection on the grounds the quote comes from the TV series - Zaphod says "Hey, computer" at this point on the TV series.
"But it's from the radio series!", you might further object - well, he simply says "Computer!" in the radio series in this scene - so, hard luck guys.
But the title of this song does come from HHGG. Definitely. It really does.
And, er, that's it.
I vote the HHGG allusions should be trimmed down (and suitably tidied) to something verifiable like:

The title is a reference to a character from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy named "Marvin the Paranoid Android".

Then resume with "Lead singer Thom Yorke explained..." (or some suitably tidied up version thereof).
As the lead-off paragraph in this article, those alt.obsessive.nerd speculations look a bit embarrassing to me. --DaveG12345 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur 100% with DaveG's assessment. Those are fun and all, but they're essentially speculation. I'll check back in a week or so, and if nobody has objected, I'm going to alter it. --Woodstein52 16:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it appears that nobody has objected, so I went ahead and deleted the speculation about Hitchhiker's Guide. Speculative interpretation of song lyrics would seem outside the scope of a wiki entry. Woodstein52 04:32, 4 Sept 2006 (UTC)

I removed another largely speculative bit about Hitchhiker's Guide, partially due to the fact that "first against the wall" is a common saying in the English lexicon. Good enough.Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 21:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user came around and re-inserted the trivia; rather than get into a revert war, I just decided to tag it "citation needed". If someone can find a source of anybody involved with the band explicitly stating that the "first against the wall" this is, in fact, a reference to "Hitchhiiker's Guide", that's awesome. But if it hasn't happened in a couple of weeks, I'm going to take it out again, cos it doesn't belong. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 00:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I removed this:

as per above.Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 19:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now requested a citation on the sole Marvin reference left using {{fact}}. Over on the Marvin, the Paranoid Android page it states "'Paranoid Android' is the name of a song by British rock band Radiohead, possibly named after Marvin, but without any other apparent explicit reference." I really don't see any connection other than the name. If there is no citation for this then let's have it out. 216.123.197.3 04:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to self[edit]

Giggy (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

We need to tidy up the references somewhat - I'm happy to do it, but I'd like some opinions before I start. The specific issues are:

  • The "sources" use the {{cite book}} template, which uses the <last name>, <first name> convention whereas the "footnotes" use manual formatting, with <first name> <last name> convention. WP:REF says that articles should use a consistent style, so we need to make a decision.
  • The more usual section layout is "Notes" (containing footnotes) followed by "References" (containing the book sources).
  • If we're aiming for an OK Computer good topic, then we may want to adopt a consistent style between the following articles:

Let me know what you think! Papa November (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted all the footntoes to be <last name>, <first name>. Feel free to change the section headers to whatever you like (IMO). Giggy (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, looks much better now! Papa November (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a consistent ref style between articles. Internal consistency, yes, but we don't have to make all related articles the same. Also, the order of "References" and "notes" is purely determined by preference. I for one like having the fulll book references first, but that's me. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was more concerned with the headers rather than the order. I've changed it in the article - does it look OK to everyone? Papa November (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

There's a lot going on in this section, and I think a cleanup is needed. The History section follows the order:

<paragraph 1> Writing the song, interpretation of lyrics, influences, recording. <paragraph 2> sections of song, influences, evolution of versions of song, early performances, inspiration, editing

There's a bit of overlap with the "Composition and lyrics" section, which we may want to move there. In other Radiohead articles, we've split the sections up to firstly describe the background and set the scene, and then to describe the actual writing, recording, production and release of the record. Should we consider doing this here too? Papa November (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's two examples of how I typically structure a song article: "In Bloom" and "Losing My Religion". WesleyDodds (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new heading - seems much more appropriate Papa November (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I also like the current layout :) Giggy (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paranoid Android/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Background
  • "The song was originally over 14 minutes long," Why was it cut down to six minutes?
  • The only motivation members of the band have mentioned is already in the article; they wanted to make different unrelated parts work together in a song and they were inspired by the Beatles' editing technique.
  • That says why the song was six-and-a-half minutes long, rather than why they thought about a 14-minute long song, but then cut it down. Peanut4 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the editing thing does say why they cut it down. Other than that no information is available for why they chose to start with a 14 minute version and then edit it down anyway, so there isn't any way to expand it to add a reason that hasn't been given. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going to jokingly answer with "because it was 14 minutes!" but yeah, I basically agree with BLZ. I'll take another look at the sources but I don't recall reading anywhere why they did it — just that they did it. Giggy (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • I can't see anywhere when the single was actually released.
  •  Done
  • How about anything about the CD cover art at all?
  •  Done
  • Impressive! :) Just for the record, is that stuff written in ALL CAPS on the actual CD cover? Even if it is, I don't think we should replicate that here as it makes it a bit hard to read. Giggy (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is presented in glorious all-caps-vision on the record, but I'll go ahead and change it. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only a couple of things, but I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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:

Meets all the GA criteria. Would be good to find anything on the point above, but it might be just a trivial matter not worthy of further clarification. A very good read overall. I just noticed it was a Alternative Music collaboration of the week, but a lot of good work has gone into it. If you were to push onto FAC, my only suggestion would be to get a peer review but it might not be that you will get much from that if it was a collaboration of the week effort. Otherwise, perhaps another image might help, but I can't make any other suggestions to help. Best of luck with any future work. Peanut4 (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I've been looking around for free imagery and have only found slim pickings — I doubt that video would be useful, and the other images are really far away from the camera so barely show anything. Giggy (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onwards :)[edit]

That's what I like to see!

I'm thinking we have all the content necessary (though I was thinking that before the cover art section was added (nice work, BLZ!) so I may be wrong), so it's really just a matter of polishing for mine. Any other thoughts on what needs to be done? Giggy (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do want to perform another prose check, but I think most of the major things are taken care of. Might want to ask some editors who hang around at Radiohead if they have any additional sources to provide. The main thing I'd like to see is a single review from NME or Melody Maker, if one can be found. This seems like the type of thing they'd award "Single of the Week". WesleyDodds (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's nearly done. I agree with Wesley that we could use a copyedit to make sure everything's written well. I'll check out the Single of the Week thing. Do you think any other images should be used for the "Packaging" section? I'm thinking the back of the CD 2 single, which illustrates both the color change and the stuff on the back of the single. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that'd work. As I said in the GA review I haven't been able to find anything free. I've found a few more snippets of information, but nothing major, so it does feel pretty complete. Giggy (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also contacted User:Mad Hatter and User:Everyking to see if they wanted to add anything. I think we're just about ready to nom this at WP:FAC, unless anyone has any objections. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say also ask Ceoil, NSR77 and Indopug to look at it. I probably trust the three of them the most to give the article a good, thorough review. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now contacted the three of them. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?[edit]

From the first paragraph of the music video section;

Eventually he devised a scenario that was to the band's liking after locking himself in his office and staring out the window at a distant bridge, while listening to the song over and over.[45] As Carlsson did not have access to the lyrics, the concept for the video was completely unrelated to the content of the song.[46]

I can't imagine how he could listen to the song repeatedly but still make a completely unrelated video, and still claim to be without access to the lyrics. Is it just me or do others find this odd too? Giggy (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily a contradiction; Even though he listened to the song repeatedly, he may not have understood Yorke's vocals, and he wasn't ever given a lyrics sheet. I reworded it a bit and added some additional info. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps; that seems like the most plausible explanation. Your reword was good. Giggy (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing notes[edit]

Giggy has asked me to do some copy editing on this article, and I've gotten a start tonight (well, I guess it's this morning!). So far, I have worked on the lead, the Background section and the Cover versions section. A couple of questions for when I work on the rest of the article:

  • Can the "Packaging" section be retitled "Artwork"?
  • The section's purpose is to cover "Paranoid Android"'s artwork and B-sides, and essentially all the information about "Paranoid Android" as a single rather than a song. Thus, "Packaging" is a more appropriate title than simply "Artwork". --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the song chart anywhere else outside of the UK and Australia?

I will continue working on this in about 8 hours. Risker (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re. the charting question, see the charts section; that's all we've been able to find. Giggy (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More questions:

  • "though part of the second section is in 7/8" - how big a part? is it one or two bars? more than 8 bars? a full bridge? The sentence doesn't really work as previously written, but I hesitate to change it too much without the facts.
  • "...a coda that returns to the tempo and key of the second movement, repeating the same acoustic riff. After a second solo, a brief riff is introduced..." (emphasis mine)
    • The repeat of the word "riff" is problematic; can we use "refrain" or possibly "chord progression" the first time? (I am trying not to change the meaning here.)
      •  Done Reworded to "... a coda that returns to the tempo, key, and musical patterns of the second movement." --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Risker (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And still more:

  • "...a Radio 1 producer had to take a lie down after first hearing the song..." - this needs to be in quotations if it is a direct quote, and needs a proper reference regardless. If it isn't a direct quote, then the expression "take a lie down" probably needs to be changed, as it is a bit too colloquial.
  • "Peter and Jonathan Buckley wrote in The Rough Guide to Rock that it was "the breathtaking high point" ....high point of what?
  • Opening sentence of the section on the Music Video needs some work. Who commissioned Carlsson? Probably more needs to be said to explain the "Robin" character, as it isn't very well known in North America (and possibly not even anywhere else, given how long ago it was created). Note that the article on Robin isn't all that great, so it would be helpful to this article to improve that one.
  • "...an angel who plays table tennis with Robin after the protagonist rescues him."
    • Please clarify who is the protagonist and who is the "him" referred to. A formal parsing indicates that the protagonist rescued Robin, which I am pretty sure is not what is intended.
  • Last word: Good work on this article, everyone; I understand this has been a team effort, which can sometimes make for some internal stylistic inconsistencies, but you've managed to avoid it. If the various editors can respond to some of these points, I'd be happy to work the responses into the text; I'll keep this page on my watchlist in the interim. Risker (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Radio 1 thing was a quote, I've modified it as such. The ref is at the end of the sentence.
    • High point of OK Computer. Adjusted.
    • Re. The angel/protagonist... I thought Robin was the protagonist. The image caption seems to agree with this. I've reworded it to indicate that the angel saves Robin and then they play table tennis (which is what happens), let me know (anyone) if I've misinterpreted anywhere.
    • And finally... thank you! :) (I've left the two comments above untouched as I'm not sure on either of them. Brandt Luke Zorn did that section, I believe, so I'll defer to him.) Giggy (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Pissing ourselves"[edit]

In O'Brien's quote about the original live performances of the song, he uses "pissing ourselves" to mean "laughing" while the literal meaning is quite different! Does this make sense to non-UK readers? If not, we might want to substitute "[laughing]". Papa November (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to this Australian (though we use British English so I'm not sure how much use this comment is of). I think your suggested substitution might be a good idea but I'd wait for someone non-UK to comment first. Giggy (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a godless American, I have to say it made perfect sense to me. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It made perfect sense to me and I am also an American. I think that the quote probably shouldn't be changed (or added to, for that matter). Apolloae (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Release and reception[edit]

The section feels a bit too congratulatory to me. Wasn't there any neutral or negative criticism of the single? For something so complex and risky to be released as a single, surely there must have been some critics who didn't "get it"? Also, there are a huge number of quotes here - do we need all of them? I mean, four quotes about the Queen comparison may be a bit excessive! How about something like:

The style of the song was compared to that of Queen by Rolling Stone's Mark Kemp,[1] while other critics, including David Browne of Entertainment Weekly,[2] Jon Lusk of the BBC[3] and Simon Williams of NME[4] wrote about its similarity to Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody". Williams described the song as being "not unlike 'Bohemian Rhapsody' being played backwards by a bunch of Vietnam vets high on King's Cross-quality crack".[4]

Papa November (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked through all of the negative reviews that are on the OK Computer page and... Nothing. The reviews that weren't entirely positive about OK Computer still either praised "Paranoid Android" (Time, The Independent) or didn't mention the song in any way in their review (Christgau). I like the rewording of the "Bohemian Rhapsody" bit, although Giggy's the guy to ask there because he wrote that section. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also yet to find a critic that didn't get it... =\ I've made some minor stylistic changes to the above chunk of text, but I have no objections to it. Giggy (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done OK, I've made the edit. If there was no negative criticism in mainstream press, then well done to Radiohead! Papa November (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kemp, Mark (10 July 1997). OK Computer. Rolling Stone. Accessed 4 October 2008.
  2. ^ Browne, David (23 May 2008). OK Computer. Entertainment Weekly. Accessed 4 October 2008.
  3. ^ Lusk, Jon (25 April 2007). Radiohead, Paranoid Android. BBC. Accessed 4 October 2008.
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference NMErev was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Yay[edit]

That was a fun collab - well done all :) Giggy (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job everybody! This was really fun. BTW, "Karma Police" should be fairly easy to get to GA; I haven't found as much to work on it as I'd like to but this weekend I plan to give it a shot. Anyone else up for it? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, all. Collaborations such as this are what Wikipedia is all about. Risker (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done everyone! Sorry I haven't been as active recently. I'll have a look for holes in Karma Police today if I get a chance. Papa November (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As will I - FT here we come! Giggy (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usage[edit]

Ergo Proxy uses this track as a closing theme, would it be proper to make some mention of cultural use of a song such as this? 74.13.38.191 (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say probably not. Most popular songs are used in multiple TV and film soundtracks, so this doesn't really tell us anything remarkable or important about "Paranoid Android". Papa November (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree. This is a theme played at the end of every episode, not an insert played once or twice or whatnot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.5.10 (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I highly suggest that we add a reference to this. 76.15.238.242 (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The episodes themselves would suffice as a source. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

when i am king you will be first against the wall[edit]

this line is from the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy. please add —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.124.204 (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase might've been popularised by the series, but it wasn't the original source. The quotation's been floating around a long time (probably as long as revolutions and shooting people have been.) See for example Citizen Smith, released a year before broadcasts of THGTTG began: Wolfie: That's it mate. Come the revolution, you'll be first against the wall bop-bop-bop! Ken: My God will be with me. [3] GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity in the video[edit]

You ought to qualify the censoring by MTV part - it was censored in the US but not in Europe. The US isn't the world, you know. 81.156.125.51 (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other cover by El Ten Eleven[edit]

The band El Ten Eleven covers the track on their album These Promises are Being Videotaped

Ergo Proxy usage[edit]

Where would be a good place to insert the fact that it was licensed and used as the ending theme for the 2006 anime TV series Ergo Proxy? --Eyevocal (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seriously[edit]

is this progressive Rock or not, can you please make your minds up, every time I go on the article it's changed and the big deal seems to be if it is, or isn't progressive Rock, well? 188.222.41.105 (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to say not, there's no elaborate soloing, no unusual chords, and no real shows of technical proficiency. There are a few bars of 7/8 thrown in, and the song's in excess of six minutes, which makes people wonder whether it's appropriate to label it prog. Yes, the song is undeniably prog-influenced, but no, it's not prog, and unless someone cites otherwise, it really shouldn't be listed as such 143.92.1.32 (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section timings[edit]

I reckon the fourth section starts at 5:38 (give or take a second or two) - long after the currently stated 4:58. 27.96.215.179 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paranoid Android. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

With over 30 quotations included, this is not currently an article of Featured quality. We would have to either greatly trim the quotes or consider delisting it. --John (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I might trim it myself sometime. Or I might not. 12:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Paranoid Android. 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) 14:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paranoid Android. 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) 12:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo is 82 BPM, not 84 BPM as per Griffiths[edit]

Radiohead is so well covered here that I don't want to venture into the main Article page, but I've measured this tempo with a digital metronome, BPM Tapper, and liveBPM. It holds so steadily at 82 BPM that it's probably done with a click, but a lot of Radiohead isn't done with a click, so not sure (and I'd love to read more inside information about this topic on Wikipedia), The fast part is exactly double, 164 BPM, then 63 BPM for the "God loves his children" part. Then the frenetic part at the end reverts to a very steady 82 or 164, depending on you count it. It's a bit of a nitpick, but 2 BPM is much more meaningful at a slower tempo and this is a pretty important piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevintimba (talk • contribs) 06:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: adding the band members' names in the picture description under the "Music video" section[edit]

I suggest that the band names are added in the image description under the "Music video" section of the article. I am aware this addition is not vital. But i thought i would suggest it anyway.

I suggest an edit in the likes of:

"The members of Radiohead (from left to right): Thom Yorke, Colin Greenwood, Ed O'Brien, Jonny Greenwood and Philip Selway, as depicted in the "Paranoid Android" video. The video's protagonist, Robin, is shown at far right." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryagen (talk • contribs) 08:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paranoid_Android&oldid=1195538141"