Talk:In the Court of the Crimson King

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the In the Court of the Crimson King article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

King Crimson

This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Crimson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Crimson 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.King CrimsonWikipedia:WikiProject King CrimsonTemplate:WikiProject King CrimsonKing Crimson articles

Albums

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

Progressive Rock Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock 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.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reissues

Wiki doesn’t need to reflect anything like the amount of information that would be seen in a fanzine or the like, right? So this section could do with some trimming. Boscaswell talk 03:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A crazy coincidence

From 26:55 - 27:02 a short rift/melody is heard on this album and isn't repeated, if you listen to it and then listen to the song 'Lydia' by Biig Piig you'll hear the same (note for note) being repeated throughout her song. It seems like a crazy coincidence to me and worth sharing, and perhaps people with a greater knowledge of music can expand on this - or call me crazy if that's the case, but you can't miss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.89.219 (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illumination?

The Personnel section credits Peter Sinfield with "lyrics, illumination, production" - what is "illumination" in this context? JezGrove (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

French Certification

According to infodisc.fr [1], In the Court of the Crimson King received a Gold(Or) award in 1976. It then received a second Gold(Or) award in 1982. Double Gold is a real French Certification. Just because US or UK has no equivalent doesn't mean it's not a real thing. UK has Silver, but US doesn't. US has Diamond, but UK doesn't. So, In the Court of the Crimson king is a Double Gold-certified French album. However, it may be something similar to The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle (album) under BPI/UK certification. But, some person just keeps blanket-reverting without any discussion. Why is ITCOTCK certified in 1976...and then again in 1982? 197.87.143.146 (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According too WP:BRD, you are edit warring, so please stop. It is you who needs to start discussion before introducing the fact again, not me. As for the fact itself, certification levels in France change from time to time, so recordings may be re-certified using the new thresholds. That's not double gold certification, that's the same gold certification done again. This is not uncommon, both in France and in other places. Now that you know, please revert yourself. Muhandes (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your RS for that? This ? [2]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.143.146 (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Wiki does the following... [3], [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.143.146 (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We can only deal with the article at our hands. I think you are missing the point of WP:BRD. You boldly changed an article after it was stable for a decade. That's fine, you should do that that. I reverted your edit, since I think you are wrong. The next step is discussion. You reintroducing the material without discussion is disruptive edit warring. Please undo your edit. --Muhandes (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been more than a week and you have not responded. I take it that you now understand how WP:BRD works and you forgot to revert your edit, so I am doing it for you. If you want to continue the discussion, do so here. Muhandes (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or, I've had other things to do. But, other double-certified albums on InfoDisc have both certifications counted. So... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.143.146 (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. They need to be fixed too and if you provide more links I'll try to fix them too. You however, are still being disruptive and are editing against WP:BRD. Muhandes (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]