Talk:I Disappear

June 2006

Removed the "Theme" section of this page, as the theme of a song is highly subjective to a person's opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.183.183 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Genre

Wouldn't really call Metallica "hard rock" but hey, who am I to say they're metal . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.207.74 (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, i didn't see them called hard rock, but what gets me, is that wiki is calling them a heavy metal band, but on the Wikipedia page for Metallica, they have them listed as thrash metal, and they don't call them that on this page........ I'd change it, but i don't want to get yelled at by anyone...... so..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.118.223.189 (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

They were Thrash before the black album, then became heavy metal up until Death Magnetic.--Kamikaze14 (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Metallica have considered themselves Hard Rock since 1984... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:B901:3901:99D0:B5AE:5008:3553 (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

B side

what is the b side to this? It needs putting on the page as this heavily influences people's decisions on whether to buy it (I only bought the 'The Unnamed Feeling' Ep because of the B Sides). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.60.208 (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Film references

I've seen Die Hard, and I don't think Lars' sequence is referencing a scene from said film. I'm more certain that Lars' sequence is a reference to Demolition Man. - 220.239.221.245 (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No. It is specifically mentioned in the bonus feature on the M:I2 DVD that Die Hard was the inspiration. And Demolition Man doesn't even have a scene similar, where a man jumps out of a building as it explodes. So I returned the article to the proper reference.oknazevad (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Instrumental as b-side?

Hi,

I've bought the single some days ago and it contains no instrumental-version of I Disappear, not even as a hidden track. So I removed the instrumental-version from the tracklist. Here's the correct traklist.
Kirk james t (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why yours doesn't. My CD copy certainly does, and it's original. I'm going to undo your edit based on that, but this may require some more research to see if there's differing editions from different countries, etc. oknazevad (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, funny. I've got the limited-edition (with a black CD), and it's original, too. Where have you bought it? Not in Germany, am I right? Maybe there are really two versions of the single. Furthermore many people on amazon.de (german page) criticize that the single contains only one track. But on amazon.co.uk the track list shows two tracks, the normal version and the instrumental one. Damn, now I want the english one ;)
Kirk james t (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Mine is the German one; I bought it through Amazon around 2001, and it bears the 2000 copyright date. So apparently there are multiple editions. I think the track listing here should include the instrumental, but a note indicating that some editions don't include it should be put below the track listing. It would be great if we could figure out exactly which editions include the instrumental and which don't. oknazevad (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Mine is also the German one from 2000, released through "Hollywood Records", but it's the "limited edition" with a black coloured CD. In addition an imprint says that it is printed and manufactured in Germany.
Kirk james t (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Mine is also black colored, with a red bird silhouette behind the band's name. The text along the bottom, and also on the case insert, includes what appears to be catalog numbers for Edel Records, the German distributor (namely 0113875HWR and LC 10024). that may be what we need to track down the differing editions. I will say, I am truly curious now. oknazevad (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've got also a red bird silhouette behind the Metallica-logo, but the text on the case insert is different: 0110225HWR (instead of 0113875HWR), the LC-number is the same. Maybe that's why I've got only one track and you've got two.
Kirk james t (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so we've established the two editions, now we need to establish when and where each was released. I don't think my copy is a UK edition, as the article currently says; it also bears the text "Distributed by Edel Records" on the sleeve. They are a German company, though they apparently distribute throughout Europe. So I'm wondering if it's just a case where the earliest pressings had the instrumental and newer pressings don't. I can't find any definitive info on Metallica's website, but it's partly Flash-based, and I'm on an iPhone at the moment, which of course doesn't support flash. I'll do a bit more research. oknazevad (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, after some more digging, I found this: [1], and it appears that both versions are German. Why they did two differed editions I don't know, but I'm going to edit the article to clarify this. oknazevad (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

band nationality and typical genre

Urgal (talk · contribs) has added the band's nationality and (presumably) typical genre to the lede of this article, saying "metallica is an american [sic] heavy metal band, therefore it is a correct edit, stop pointlessly reverting things please". I do not make pointless edits. The verifiability policy says "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." On top of that, I don't see what relevence the information adds to the lede, a summary of the article's body. I've reverted the user IAW WP:BRD and directed them here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

re-added it, source is mentioned in the revision historyUrgal (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The lede's purpose is to summarize the information in the body of the article. The pertinent manual of style says,

According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article.

Based on the sources that discuss "I Disappear" (as cited in the article), the band's nationality and typical genre aren't relevant. Opening this article with that information lends importance to that data, implying that it has bearing on the subject at hand when the sources don't bear that out. Does that make sense? Secondly, the reliable sources guideline says that Encyclopædia Britannica Online is less than preferred because it, too, is a tertiary source like Wikipedia. Thirdly, please familiarize yourself with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle which says, in a nutshell, "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus." I'm removing your additions again IAW the verifiability policy and what I've laid out here, and I encourage your discourse here before repeating yourself. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 05:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

March 2021

Repeatedly adding the "country" descriptor to the Load album based on one obviously sarcastic review is not NPOV. At best, the genre is in dispute and should be ommitted. Review in question: https://us.napster.com/artist/metallica/album/i-disappear Sources that dispute the assertion: https://www.discogs.com/Metallica-Load/master/8866 "Genre: Rock Style: Alternative Rock, Hard Rock" https://www.stereogum.com/1511282/metallica-albums-from-worst-to-best/photo/ "Though Load was a commercial hit and beloved by mainstream critics, its utilitarian hard rock was considered..." https://metallica.fandom.com/wiki/Load_(album) "Genre Hard Rock, Alternative Metal, Post Grunge" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exubai (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, what we're discussing is Mike McGuirk's review of "I Disappear"; I'm not editing at Load (album). In his praise of this song, McGuirk specifically contrasts it with the country-music stylings of the band's previous album. This is germane and specifically relevant to his review of this song, and should be included. Whether you or anybody else disputes the genre of Load isn't relevant here; McGuirk thinks it's relevant to "I Disappear" and particularly his reception of it, and since the San Francisco Bay Guardian isn't an unreliable source to disregard, it's pertinent to this article's "Critical reception" section.

As asides, (a) the album Load (album) already mentions and cites country-music influences in that album, and (b) be careful, Discogs and Wikia aren't acceptable reliable sources for use on the English Wikipedia.

Lastly, the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle says that If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus. Having specifically pointed this out to you, I'm replacing the McGuirk content and encouraging you to continue this discussion if you need to. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

In discussing the critical reception of the album, the reviewer's assertions (whether simply rhetorical or outright incorrect) don't implicitly merit inclusion, especially when they are contrary to other neutral sources on the album's genre including Wikipedia itself. The fact remains that only a single source refers to Load as primarily a country record and to insist on retaining that misleading information is tantamount to vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exubai (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let me try to explain again. (1) Mike McGuirk describes Load as a country-music album. (2) Then, by comparing "I Disappear" to Load, he's saying that it "proved that the band was not afraid to change things up." (3) We need to describe both (1) and (2) for the reader to understand the significance McGuirk found in "I Disappear".

In discussing the critical reception of the album… We are not discussing critical reception of an album; this is the talk page for a single song. This isn't a matter of 'Wikipedia is saying that Load is one thing or another', that's the purpose of the article at Load (album); we're explaining here what McGuirk thinks about this song, and it's necessary to explain his perspective therefor. You cannot change the meaning behind one source by adding another; this version puts your words into McGuirk's review, which we may not do. Do you understand?

Again, I implore you to continue making use of this talk page instead of edit warring. That's its purpose. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Fine. Let's take it back to the core problem. As it reads now, Mike McGuirk's unusual assertion that Load is a country record is not presented as an unusual assertion, but rather a foregone conclusion. How do you propose we clarify that ambiguity in order to maintain NPOV? I propose: "...following Metallica's album Load, which he referred to as "their now infamous country record"...Exubai (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Mike McGuirk's unusual assertion […] is not presented as an unusual assertion… If editors imply anything about McGuirk's opinion, that's introducing original research. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Highlighting that his opinion contradicts consensus isn't implying anything about his opinion other than that it contradicts consensus. In a scenario where there is a dearth of critical discussion, it is imperative that the critical discussion that is being referenced be placed in appropriate context.Exubai (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added quotes around country music, in line with the other parts of his review that are relevant but not implicitly factual.Exubai (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It feels a little clunky, but it achieves the same purpose; I'm disinclined to change it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

music video description

On 16 September 2021 at 21:56, 73.139.156.87 (talk · contribs) added their description and interpretation of the music video for "I Disappear", and cited a video on YouTube by an unverified uploader. In my edit 290 minutes later, I removed the original research and citation to the unreliable source saying, - original claims cited to unreliable source; + {{use mdy dates}} update;. It was 315 minutes later when Oknazevad (talk · contribs) replaced the IP edits saying A link to the video itself on the record company's official YouTube channel is not an unreliable source. YouTube is a medium, not a publisher, and has no inherent affect on the reliability of the video.

(a) The video was not from a verified YouTube account as required by WP:RSPYT. (b) The IP's prose was still rife with original research, for which an explanation was given. (c) The date for {{use mdy dates}} was regressed without explanation. Do these three points make sense? Can anybody please explain this edit? Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

While the date format issue was just caught up in the revert and will be fixed, I dispute the rest of your issue. It's not an unverified channel, and is an official Warner Music YouTube account. And a plot summary for the video is not original research. oknazevad (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

According to Google's page on the subject, this 1.35-year-old account is not verified as required by WP:RSPYT.

As for the content of the video, it has no plot to summarize, and the IP's description leans too far into editorialization to not run afour of WP:NOR. For that matter, the unverified video has no credits to even identify the individuals as specifically as the IP editor has done. Even if the new prose can be sourced IAW WP:RSPYT, then a rote summary would provide little more than the third party sources already cited. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Singles chronology

I really don't know why the singles chronology gets removed from the infobox every time people try to restore it back as it seems unnecessary to remove it since it was released as a commercial single and charted worldwide. - WhatGuy (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2023 (BST)

If you're referring to edits similar to this one: as the edit summary mentioned, it's because there is no verified prose in the article to support claiming which other singles were published immediately before and after this one. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The article for "No Leaf Clover" has a reference stating it was released in March 2000, "I Disappear" has a reference stating it was released in June of that year, and "St. Anger" has a reference stating that it was released in June 2003. Metallica own website states that this is the order they were released. yawaraey (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that'll definitely suffice. I've gone ahead and expanded the article with that source for WhatGuy. Thanks for the assist! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)