Talk:Richard D. James discography

Richard D. James discography (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 30 April 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Electronic music High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discographies

This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.DiscographiesWikipedia:WikiProject DiscographiesTemplate:WikiProject DiscographiesDiscography articles

article created[edit]

the necessary and evolved version of the RDJ discography, based on an article by Shoejar, hope you dont mind dude. --AlexOv Shaolin 03:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological order[edit]

...would be much neater I think. --kingboyk 14:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it would be impossible to navigate to find specific releases by alias. --AlexOv Shaolin 04:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

: Done and done. ChunkyStyle (talk contribs) 17:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cool, flesh it out some. --AlexOvShaolin 01:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reformat[edit]

I've noticed this discography looks fine at a sufficiently high resolution but like crap on lower-res screens (1024x768 and lower). It needs reformatting. -- Shoejar^talk/edits

Live stuff?[edit]

I have a track called "crappy (live mix)" as well as "live in sydney 1997" - does anyone know what releases these are from? Deusfaux 21:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unreleased --AlexOv Shaolin 07:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, that "Live in Sydney" track is from the 1997 Big Day Out festival, and the recording you have is probably from the Triple J broadcast of the show. 128.148.31.120 21:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

star wars theme?? fake?[edit]

Is the star wars theme song that's available on P2P really by Aphex Twin or is it just misattributed? If it's really him, where does it fit in the timeline?--Sonjaaa 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unless you're talking about the Joyrex J5 EP songs its not aphex twin. please try not to attribute shit p2p songs to aphex twin, its not very kind. --AlexOv Shaolin 07:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tuss[edit]

i'm going to wait on some kind of official confirm before i add this in. if u know what i mean kewl, if not dont worry. --AlexOv Shaolin 04:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think you're going to be waiting forever for this. it should be included in the RDJ discography IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kooosh (talk • contribs) 04:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, The small RDJ discography template includes the tuss, So you should add the tuss discography because it does so in the template. Conkern65 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Selected Ambient Works Volume II cover.jpg[edit]

Image:Selected Ambient Works Volume II cover.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cometodady.jpg[edit]

Image:Cometodady.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use removal[edit]

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content has been removed. Please do not restore them. -M^ask? 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dice Man[edit]

not The Diceman who is another musician...

Fair use rationale for Image:AphexTwin4.ogg[edit]

Image:AphexTwin4.ogg 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AphexTwinComeToDaddy,PappyMix.ogg[edit]

Image:AphexTwinComeToDaddy,PappyMix.ogg 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AphexTwinGirlBoySong.ogg[edit]

Image:AphexTwinGirlBoySong.ogg 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AphexTwinWindowlicker.ogg[edit]

Image:AphexTwinWindowlicker.ogg 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ugh[edit]

this is by far the most non-navigable and confusing page I have ever seen. the album names are buried in the fourth column and don't stand out, the sorting is totally useless, and most of the columns distract and don't apply to half the rows. I'm thinking about fixing it to look like a regular discography page so people could actually use it. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 06:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to look a lot better but was overhauled for some reason. I for one prefer the previous layout - if consensus is to revert then it should be changed. Don't understand why this discography in particular needs all these colors, etc. - eo (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone else agrees. I'm not thinking about reverting, though; making a brand-spankin-new layout that mirrors the style of featured discographies is what I'd like to do. It would look somewhat like it used to, but we could consider rearranging things a lot. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 07:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a new version of the page ready to go; I posted it at User:5theye/Richard D. James discography so people don't get freaked out by me suddenly changing things. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 20:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has said anything, I'm gonna go ahead and be bold and replace it. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 19:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

omg... a straightforward list with bulletpoints? umm uhh err I, I, I, can't understand! too confusing! where are the colors and fancy fonts? decorative flags? sorting options? i can't take it! seriously, it looks much better. - eo (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's good to hear. Any problems with the right-aligned TOC? = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

konklaver publicity stunt[edit]

There's some guy from Italy (khrimson) - and he just happened (;p) to release his own "konklaver" with "afxlike" track names (http://www.lastfm.pl/user/khrimson) ...BE WARNED! Look for this (or similar) tracklisting! (this is still unconfirmed)

  * 01 - Flan Ard (4:10)
  * 02 - Saint Water 2 (5:59)
  * 03 - Gatelewn (5:43)
  * 04 - Mist In Storage (2:57)
  * 05 - Konklaver (8:41)
  * 06 - Fashionable Headpiece (4:32)
  * 07 - Kashing For (5:03)
  * 08 - In (Fank2) (9:37)

Released As Richard David James[edit]

I have the album Melodies From Mars, which in this article is attributed to Aphex Twin, but it was published under the name Richard David James. At least my version is, i would apprieciate some clarification as some people here clearly know a lot more about his many names and how he uses them than i do. 90.207.158.100 (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melodies From Mars is an unreleased album. Therefor, His psudonym wasn't placed on the album itself. How did you get it? Did you download it?

Conkern65 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete overhaul[edit]

I've given the entire page an overhaul, so it's closer to WP:DISCOGS standards. I've included release dates, chart info, the works. I would appreciate if this format was left well alone, I put a lot of work into it, and it was very satisfying to clean up what once looked like a catastrophe of shit. Besides that, this new layout is by far a huge improvement, and should be kept that way simply for that reason. I may have missed a few releases, I just included the ones that were already on the page before I edited it, though I removed anything that is "unreleased" Pasta of Muppets (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I thought my overhaul looked pretty good too. I guess this is more standards-conforming but it's kinda hard to read. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 17:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sorry, I was kind of exaggerating about "catastrophe of shit". To be honest, apart from all of the extra alias sections which only have one or two releases, it looked pretty good, just a little sparse, without much information. I mean, you could get most of the same information from the Template:Richard D. James artist infobox aside from label and release date information. Aside from that, I think the layout should be this way basically because it's the standard for discography pages.Pasta of Muppets (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video's[edit]

Are "Milkman", "Monkey Drummer", and "Rubber Johnney" not considered Music Video's? Also, Didnt David Firth do a music Video to the "Boy/girl" song and "4"? And there was one for Vordhosbn too I think. Conkern65 (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singles or EPs?[edit]

Half of the entries in the Aphex Twin Singles section are called on their linked pages EPs. What criteria should we use to distinguish between them: a number of tracks, a total length? --Akhenaten0 (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]