OK Computer is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	OK Computer is part of the Radiohead studio albums series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 16, 2017.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 27, 2007 Peer review Reviewed June 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed June 2, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept August 19, 2011 Peer review Reviewed October 10, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted July 8, 2024 Good topic candidate Promoted A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 16, 2024. Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Alternative music Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Progressive Rock High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

it looks like some edit war has happened over whether or not the template for tracklists should be used in this article, why remove it in the first place? Most popular album pages on the site use the template, what makes this one special? The complexity of the tracklist isn't special, most popular single and EP pages use it. Why remove it at all? --Frying1mans (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On this article's promotion to FA in 2012, it had the basic format (MOS:STYLERET). As well, a basic format like this is mentioned at WP:ALBUMSTYLE#Style and Template:Track listing. So there really ought not be much desperation to add it. Tkbrett (✉) 23:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make the track listing section match the track listing template. It would match the vast majority of other albums' articles on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Inkwiwtba (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett has already listed the reasons not to, and, as a few editors have shown by regularly reverting you here and elsewhere, others don't think the template should be used. Nor should it be used at a swathe of other album articles – because of the simplicity of the track listing and/or because, over the years, there are a few editors who have come to the project and made it their aim to change the standard numbered list to the template version. See also WT:ALBUM#Track listing template. JG66 (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I didn't realize this was such a debated topic. I'll read the talk pages more before making edits. Inkwiwtba (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tunakanski: I put (FR - abbreviation for France) there to indicate it was a France-only single Elephantranges (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some days now I have been unable to load this page beyond "Yorke felt that scepticism of emotion was characteristic of Generation X and that it had informed the band's approach to the album." in the Composition section. The page freezes, and after a while a message pops up saying the page is unresponsive. I wait until I am able to scroll down, and note that it stops at "Yorke felt...". I am unable to edit it, or access any links - it is totally frozen. I can access in Firefox and Edge on my desktop, and in Chrome on my phone. It's just Chrome on my desktop that causes a problem. Anyone else having this problem? SilkTork (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using Chrome on a MacBook here and no problems... Popcornfud (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using a five year old (perhaps older?) HP EliteDesk 800 G1 SFF. I suspect it's more to do with my browser, though, than the machine. Perhaps an extension I have. I'll disable them all, see what happens. SilkTork (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Google Docs extension, and it's fine now. SilkTork (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the "background" section (more specifically, the part of this section that says, "The singer, Thom Yorke, said "Lucky" shaped the nascent sound and mood of their upcoming record: "'Lucky' was indicative of what we wanted to do. It was like the first mark on the wall") does not need the definite article, and it sugarcoats the sentence in a way that would belong more on the Simple English Wikipedia. I have been repeatedly reverted by User:Popcornfud and have attempted to explain myself to them (on their talk page here), but I have ultimately decided to take the discussion here since I want to see what other editors have to say, rather than contributing to an edit war or other disruptive editing.

So what do you all think? Does the definite article merit inclusion, or should it be removed outright? Discuss below. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any convincing reason for why this particular construction ("the singer Thom Yorke") should feel weird to anyone. I suspect that, in speech, someone would not say "Do you know singer Thom Yorke?" but "Do you know the singer Thom Yorke?"

It's completely standard English — that's why I advocate for it. It's removing the title that is non-standard, a kind of journalese known as a false title.

I also don't understand why this particular sentence is causing such anguish when we seem to be fine with other sentences — such as the lead sentence, which mentions "the English rock band Radiohead", not "English rock band Radiohead".

Additionally, as noted at false title, false titles appear to be less common in British English, which this article is written in. Popcornfud (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem I have is that it starts the sentence off, unlike "the English rock band Radiohead," which feels more natural arriving in the middle of a sentence. For what it's worth, I think "The group's singer" and/or "The band's singer," as redundant as you might find these constructions, are better ways to start off the sentence than "The singer," which once again, feels somewhat clunky. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't share that feeling, sorry... To me it's a completely ordinary sentence.

Do you find the following made-up example sentences also clunky with the definite article starting them? If not, why not?

• The dog, Rex, was a golden retriever.
• The sister, Jessica, arrived by car.
• The restaurant, the Golden Duck, is the newest to open on the street.

Popcornfud (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this, the more I think you are correct. I do appreciate you providing those sentences as comparisons, since I think it helped me figure out the problem with my rewording of the sentence. Never mind my original comment, I see that User:Tkbrett agrees with you below, I think I can safely say that this matter is moot. Sorry for using your time on this. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and congrats on being only the sixth or seventh Wikipedia editor to change their mind following a debate. And also thanks for your perspective, which I can use to make the arguments at WP:FALSETITLE stronger. Popcornfud (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I initially reverted Popcornfud, but I now think my reasoning was incorrect. False titles do seem to be more of a journalistic thing, not an encyclopedic thing. Garner's Modern American Usage has a nice little essay on the subject. (p. 791). I also see it brought up in a peer review of the "White Album" and at the talk page for album article style advice. Tkbrett (✉) 14:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there not a tracklist template on this album? Theobegley2013 (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was some disagreement/debate about this a while ago, scroll up on this talk page. Popcornfud (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Theobegley2013 (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this article at various points and noticed that the genres parameter isn't entirely definitive, at least not now. When I first learned of OK Computer five years ago, it had art, alt and prog rock in the parameter. Another point has prog removed. As of this comment post-Britpop is added. I'm concerned this parameter won't remain finalized despite the article's FA status for over a decade, and it feels like a fly that needs to be swatted. Are there any arguments that any of the mentioned four genres are well-sourced and justified? If anything, art and alt rock alone would still be best. Carlinal (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genres are such a pain in the ass. My vote is to keep this to the primary genre it's described as by the majority of reliable sources, in this case alternative rock. We can keep adding (and finding sources for) countless others, like prog rock, art rock, Britpop, post-Britpop but that leads to rapidly diminishing returns. Keep stuff simple in lists and infoboxes and save the fine detail for the prose. Popcornfud (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely by a majority of sources. This album has been labeled several other types, including electronica, and while IMO it's as much of an art rock album as Kid A and In Rainbows, there aren't as many sources classifying OK Computer as that compared to alt rock. I also added an invisible comment to help "lock" the parameter from looser edits. Feel free to adjust the comment but it definitely should be there. Carlinal (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda forgot to ask this, but what does it mean if prog isn't added in the parameter, yet the album's article is listed as highly important to WikiProject Progressive Rock? Would it refer to the album's influence on subsequent works or did the project confirm that OK Computer is prog? Carlinal (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. No idea. Popcornfud (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]