Talk:Turbo (Judas Priest album)

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

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal 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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Incongruity

This article says the Turbo tour tanked. The main Priest article, however, says it was a very successful tour. Can someone find out for sure which it is? I wouldn't know where to look. Howa0082 03:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It states that the live album of the tour tanked not the tour itself. Harryngo 09:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for that. I thought it was a great album. I think the whole section is op-ed and not supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.46.50 (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that it was poorly received by the fan base is purely subjective, editorial, and essentially just what people who imagine they were the cool kids want to imagine they thought, at the time, retro-hipsterism if you will. The tour was a hit, the concert tickets sold well, I was part of that fan base, and the parts of it I crossed paths with loved it, a full house in the arena, that's as good an anecdote as any, a lot of things look embarrassing or silly in retrospect. You could just as well say the whole band is some sort of inside joke about ridiculous eighties metal, but it wasn't, not then. No more than the satanic panics or lawsuits against Judas Priest for the suicides were, they may seem hilarious and idiotic now, but they didn't seem that way to the people involved in them back then. The reception section should just be cut out, it's opinion, not encyclopedic material. A review is subjective and that's what it is. Indiana Don (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:JudasPriest LockedIn Single 1986.jpg

Image:JudasPriest LockedIn Single 1986.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 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 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erechtheus, why did you redirect Turbo Lover to this page? Why can't that page have its own article? You're a poop head! --Benjamin Allen Lessig (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Turbo (Judas Priest album)/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 →

Start:

Y A reasonably complete infobox
Y A lead section giving an overview of the album
Y A track listing
Y Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient)
Y Categorisation at least by artist and year

C:

Y All the start class criteria
Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art
N At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section)
Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Y A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians.

B:

N All the C class criteria
Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
N A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
N No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources.
Y No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS

Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Turbo (Judas Priest album). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919112600/http://members.firstinter.net/markster/TURBO.html to http://members.firstinter.net/markster/TURBO.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) 14:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of editorializing in this article

Here is an example: "Sales tapered off and the subsequent live album from the otherwise successful Fuel for Life tour did not sell as well, only going Gold after a string of Platinum certified albums." Stating that sales "tapered off" is not only not notable but a tautology. All album sales taper off, otherwise Turbo would still be a Top 20 album on Billboard in 2022. Secondly, having a gold live album is not an example of being unsuccessful. They had a string of platinum albums that were studio records. Judas Priest having a gold certified live album, contemporaneously, i.e. not as a result of five years of catalog sales does not constitute calling it a failure.

I've noticed a tendency on music Wikipedia articles to use music criticism after the fact to justify revising history. The Turbo period was a very successful time for the band and trying to make out like they tanked isn't true. It doesn't matter if they wore sequins or not. 2601:2C6:4381:4D20:E585:CCE1:F21:6064 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Release date?

The lead and infobox cite the RIAA website saying March 21, but discogs and metallum both have April 14 or April 15 as the release date. https://www.discogs.com/release/1128549-Judas-Priest-Turbo https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Judas_Priest/Turbo/443 What gives? Obviously we have to go by the real documented release date in case the RIAA site has a typo on it. Has anyone seen any other definitive material? When you ask google it also says April and all other sites I'm clicking on as well LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]