King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime is the fifth studio album by Faith No More, released on March 28, 1995. It was their first album recorded without longtime guitarist Jim Martin. The album spanned a range of genres, and spawned three singles—"Digging the Grave", "Ricochet" and "Evidence". Following Martin's departure, Trey Spruance was brought on to perform on the album, having also been in Mr. Bungle with singer Mike Patton. Production of the album was further marred by the band suffering a car accident, and by the absence of keyboard player Roddy Bottum, who was affected by the deaths of both his father and his friend Kurt Cobain. Spruance was replaced on the supporting tour by the band's former roadie Dean Menta. Critical reception to the album has been mixed, with its varied genres being cited as a detraction by several reviewers.

edit | discuss

King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime

4 articles

"Digging the Grave"

"Ricochet"

"Evidence"

Contributor(s): Grapple X

This is my first music-based GT nomination but it should be comprehensive--the album and each of the singles have their own articles; no other songs are independently notable enough to warrant an article separate from the lead article. All articles have been assessed at GAN. The introductory paragraph is a new requirement since I was last at GTC--if it's too long I can trim it down, gauging the appropriate size was mostly guesswork. Thanks in advance to all having a look at this. --𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 15:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: On "Digging the Grave" and "Evidence", wikilink exclaim.ca. On the album article wikilink Sydney Morning Herald; old.fnm.com. → FNM.com, "www.feastorfamine.com" → also fix this, source 47 has no publication, source 50 has no publication, author. On the Chart positions section of the album, use Template:Album chart. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a number of the other fixes, but I'm working on that conversion to the album chart template and it seems like that's going to mean losing the "weeks in chart" field which I can't see the template supporting; is this really necessary to go through the legwork of converting a table to a series of templates which will end up losing information? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 18:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to have a commercial performance section on the album article, which covers that along with peaks, year-end charts, and certifications. Also no author, publication on source 48. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 48 updated. If it's deemed a necessity for this topic I can add another prose section to the article but as it stands the information is still validly presented. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 09:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never said the information was not valid at all, henceforth I propose the change by adding it to the reception or commercial performance. I just believe if an album spent 5,6 or 8 weeks on an album chart doesn't seem very relevant. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MarioSoulTruthFan, I just wanted to check in if you feel comfortable supporting or if you have unaddressed concerns? Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aza24 I have yet one unaddressed concern. It's the only comment I have not yet struck. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Album and all singles at GA, linked by a navbox and supercategory. There doesn't appear to have been an associated tour, live album, or any other articles that should be here. Looks right to me! Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments there are refs in the lead of the album for info that should be written out and sourced in the body; mention the heavy metal leanings under production and genre shuffle as part of reception. The info can remain in the lead too without the refs if you believe this is suitable, but everything there needs to be in the body. The image of the keyboardist belongs in the recording sub-section and the release history para should be in the section above, retitling to release and reception. You should use the chart templates like MarioSoulTruthFan mentioned and it does show weeks for ones such as Billboard and ARIA, also there's no organizations in brackets for numerous charts that these would add and put one in brackets for the year-end chart too. In all of the articles, you should not change the parameter on different occasions of citing the same publication, plus merge the release and reception sections on "Richochet" and "Evidence" due to their small sizes. I do not take stability issues with the pending request for the latter's article title to be changed since this does not affect the actual content and for the most parts, these articles are well-written and worthy of my congratulations for your hard work! --K. Peake 11:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have moved the material cited in the lead of the main article down to the reception section and reworked it a little (I honestly thought that Rolling Stone quote was already there so thanks for pointing it out). The image you mention moving is something I'd like to keep where it is--I don't mind what the image actually is but keeping something under that heading is to break up what would otherwise be a longer stretch of only text, moving it to a higher heading would clash with the infobox and leave the later headings looking more like blocks of text. I'm happy to switch the image for a different one if you think something else is more relevant there but the placement is deliberate. The commons category has a few shots of the whole band if you think that would be a better option; I just went with Bottum as he's discussed specifically a bit. I would also still respectfully disagree on the idea of switching to chart templates rather than the existing table; this feels like a stylistic preference and I stand by the information being presented how it is. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The heavy metal info was not moved into the body, also the jazz and funk elements marking a departure is not sourced there and you missed the release and reception edits for all of the articles. It is fine not to use chart templates, but you need to add the organizations in brackets and used the chart names since writing Switzerland, Austria, etc. on there own does not provide proper information about these charts. --K. Peake 08:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed some more of the genre discussion as citing it would largely be synthesis, it adds little to nothing anyway so it's an easy cut. Chart names added alongside nations; went with country first, chart second as this should be easier to parse for the lay reader. I missed the "release and reception" edits as it's really just a WP:STYLEVAR issue, which I don't feel is germane to this nomination. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That is fine since the content is still there properly, though you still need to move the release info for the album article because release history sections are tables and this is prose, so it belongs elsewhere. Also, publications are still cited with inconsistency, such as FNM.com being italicised at points. --K. Peake 08:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey Kyle Peake, I just wanted to check in if you feel comfortable supporting or if you have unaddressed concerns? Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  All of the things that I have not crossed out are still yet to be covered. --K. Peake 06:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Combed through refs in the main article to ensure consistent ref formatting but anything else I feel boils down to WP:STYLEVAR and I don't a reason to change from one valid layout to another; this is a candidacy for a topic and should ideally focus on the criteria at WP:WIAGT. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I will let this slide on the refs actually, but you still need to fix the release history part since that section being too small is not my only issue; it is also in prose which is not how history is even laid out. --K. Peake 18:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Director comment - This nomination has been open since September and only one declaration of support. There needs more votes here or this will have to be closed as not promoted. GamerPro64 16:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support meets the criteria. FrB.TG (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good Job! Panini! • 🥪 22:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic - GamerPro64 05:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]