Talk:Bullet in a Bible

Similarities to Warning

Anyone else notice the package art for BIAB is incredibly similar to that of Warning, and should that be mentioned?

How so? Underwater 14:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I don't think it needs to be mentioned...it doesn't really have that much of an impact on the group does it?

The same symbol is used. (the dude getting hit by lightning) i think it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenday21 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Other features

The article doesn't seem to mention extras included on BIAB.

thats because there were barely any.

There was at least one; the photo reel with the instrumental version of Boulevard of Broken Dreams. Should that be included? --Thatguykalem (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL

No man can eat 50 eggs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.178.106 (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It was also funny that Tr'e tried to snort sprinkeles--71.183.217.40 (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)greenday21

Criticisms of the event

why was this part of the article removed? Does anybody know? I know it doesnt relate to the dvd release itself, but is surely still relevant? Bigwiver (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

On the green day page, it is critiscised for what they did in the dvd.--71.183.217.40 (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)greenday21

Omitted Songs

I seem to remember that there was a list of songs omitted from the album and the DVD. Anybody know where that list went? I think that it should still be in the article. What do you guys think? --Thatguykalem (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

When I Come Around?

When I Come Around was not played at any of the two shows, and there was no source for it, so i removed it. --Chickenguy12 (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding omitted songs to track listing

Why does someone keep adding the omitted songs to the track list? i think it's better to have a section for them instead of adding them to the track list and just putting (not shown) next to them, somebody please stop changing it. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree. It's silly. It's a track listing for a live album, not a concert setlist.--90.212.181.118 (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can reliably source the original set list, then it cannot be included. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There are audience recordings of them on YouTube, ect. There's concert reviews, so i re-added them, and please do not remove them again. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

YouTube videos do not prove anything. They are not considered reliable sources. Find a review by Rolling Stone, NME, MTV etc and you may be getting somewhere, as it is, the set list remains unreferenced. As for the greendayvideos website, then it is just laughable if you think that is considered a reliable source. It is a fan site, and is in no way suitable for referincing the material. Seriously, what is so hard to understand about sourcing the material properly? Nouse4aname (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

YouTube videos don't prove anything? So if there's videographic proof that something happened, it doesn't mean it did? I guess we can go delete all the instances of articles having sections for music videos since there's no proof they actually exist. 24.255.38.190 (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Omitted songs do not belong in a tracklist because they are not part of the album. This is not a setlist of Green Day's performance, it is a tracklist of the album. It's typical for a live album not to include every single song an artist performed at the concert(s) where the album was recorded, since a CD has only ~80 minutes of playing time. This is hardly noteworthy. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that they don't belong in a track listing, but they should at least get a mention under a separate section. I remember a time when another section was edited in and I was like, "Hey, that's a nice addition". 24.255.38.190 (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

@Nouse4aname Personally, I think how you are speaking to Chickenguy13 is rather rude. You do not need to act like he is "stupid". Saying that he is "laughable" if he thinks greendayvideos.com is a "reliable" source is very rude. He is trying is best to reference it and saying things like that to him is going to do nothing but "chase" him off of the article and start an argument. How would you like it if you were not as experienced with Wikipedia and tried your best to reference something and someone said you were "laughable", would not that hurt your feelings? I understand what you mean by YouTube not being a reliable source, because anybody could just make a video and upload it and it could be inaccurate, but it is incorrect to say that videos "do not prove anything". And in some instances, Rolling Stone or whatever other places you mentioned as a "reliable" source, they are not always correct. I have seen Rolling Stone write some things that are incorrect. I am not saying that what you named is not "reliable", but acting like you will not belive something unless Rolling Stone or whatever writes it is, in my opinion, not a good idea. And by the way, on the Bullet in a Bible DVD, the setlist is visible at one point, and "Jaded", "Knowledge", "She" and "Homecoming" are on it. That is a reliable source, and should be considered one. --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

@24.255.38.190 I thought that was a good edition too, but editors kept removing it. The omitted songs should not go in the track listing, but I do think that there should be a seperate section for them or at least a mention somewhere in this article. --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is 8 months old, it's long over. The problem with "omitted songs" is that the information is (A) hard to reliably source, and (B) not very relevant. As I said back in January, most live albums don't include all of the songs performed at the concerts they were recorded at because the average CD only holds between 60 and 80 minutes of music. This is especially the case here, where the album is culled from 2 concerts (and it's not guaranteed that the setlist was identical at both concerts). If there were reliably-sourced content about what songs they left out and why (ie. something about the process of creating the album and editing the 2 concerts down to 1 CD), then that'd be something. But I doubt such sources exist; I haven't seen anything about how they went about creating this album other than the dates & locations of the concerts. There's usually more to the story of creating a live album than the soundboard guy simply hitting record: There's how they decided on the setlist, how they captured the sound of the crowd on record (there are several ways this is usually done), how they mixed and edited it, etc. And since this album also includes a DVD, there could be info on how they filmed it (how many cameras, what kind of filming technology, what angles it was shot from, how they lit it), the visual aspects of the concert (what was the stage show like? Was there a video component? Did they dress a certain way? etc.), and of course creating the actual DVD (editing, menus, packaging). These are all the kind of behind-the-scenes, making-of details that, if reliably sourced, would be very welcome. However, simply tacking on a list of "omitted songs" doesn't add much in the way of informational value. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

@IllaZilla Sorry, I was not playing attention to the dates. Now I feel stupid. --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bullet in a Bible. 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/20090416074923/http://music.ign.com/articles/669/669375p1.html to http://music.ign.com/articles/669/669375p1.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)