Talk:Super Fly (soundtrack)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

R&B and Soul Music Top‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Spelling of title

The film is at Super Fly (film). I noticed the spelling here was different, and moved it accordingly, but I suspect they should be the same. I would have written it as one word, despite the layout on the promo. Anyway, I think we should be consistent. - Jmabel | Talk 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two-word layout on the poster is just a style thing. The spine of the soundtrack CD as well as every mention of the title in the track listing and the liner notes are all single-word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.118.211 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2004 rolling stone review

Good job Dan56 for cleaning up this article. I've always wanted to tackle it but..I got lazy. :) I removed the 2004 rolling stone review for this article. Only because it was a bit mis-leading. We'd need a page number for that cite to make it anything useful and it made it not clear which review (the original one, or the 2004 one) actually gave the five star rating. To make it more clear later, perhaps in the reception section something about that 5 star review should be added to that section. What does anyone else think? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for incorporating the album review into the article, but that was only half the point. With that extra review, that makes 11 reviews in the infobox. That's a bit too many. Also, with that five stars it wasn't clear which review (the 2000's one or the 1970s one) is the 5 star review. The average reader of the article wouldn't know which is which. To make it clear, I've removed the 2004 link from the infobox. I hope there aren't any objections here! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Super Fly (soundtrack)/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 →

All the start class criteria

Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Y Categorisation at least by artist and year
Y A casual reader should learn something about the album. Cavie78 (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article requirements:
Y Start: reasonably complete infobox; lead section with overview of album; track listing; reference to at least primary personnel by name; Categorization by at least artist and year.

C: all of start and (1) cover art in infobox; (2) at least one additional section of prose; (3) track lengths & song authors in tracklist; (4) a personnel section including all musicians.
B: all of C and (1) most technical details in infobox; (2) technical personnel in personnel section; (3) no obvious issues with sourcing; (4) no obvious issues with readability, though it may not conform completely to style guidelines; (5) no glaring omissions of information (see some suggestions at WP:ALBUM) or extraneous information, like trivia.
Higher Classes are not assigned by WikiProject Album. Please review "the perfect article" and, if already B class, consider seeking additional feedback from Wikipedia:Good articles or Wikipedia:Featured articles.

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment for additional information on article class. To request a reassessment from the Album project, when concerns are addressed, please see "requesting an assessment".

Substituted at 05:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Superfly (soundtrack). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/m/mayfield_curtis/superfly.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091201203037/http://www.tower.com/superfly-curtis-mayfield-cd/wapi/106074643 to http://www.tower.com/superfly-curtis-mayfield-cd/wapi/106074643
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204031148/http://www.timepieces.nl/Top100's/2001VH1MusicRadio.html to http://www.timepieces.nl/Top100's/2001VH1MusicRadio.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superfly (soundtrack) → Super Fly (soundtrack) – There does seem to be some ambiguity over the title; but this is the name used in a large majority of our sources; and is the name we use for the film this is the soundtrack to. It seems obvious that it should also be the name of this article - I don't think it's supportable to have the film at one name and its soundtrack at the other; unless the sources were overwhelming, which they aren't. TSP (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. — Za wl 12:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Walor who made the move to this location and may have views.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TSP (talk • contribs) 16:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support does seem to make sense to show some WP:CONSISTENCY, especially given album artwork. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support move as obviously noncontroversial. ONR (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.