Talk:No Line on the Horizon/Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Release date

Does anyone have a release date? Thanks CRBR 16:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering they only announced they started recording 3 months ago, I doubt a release date will be heard within the next 3 months; more likely within the next 6. Definitely not now, either way. AllynJ 17:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not To Correct You or anything, but I believe they recorded some things back when they were in the studio with Green Day and when they recorded the "Window In The Skies]] because @U2 said they would be in their for about three weeks. Plus, they probably wanted to record some to eliminate to that song. Also remember the "BEACH CLIPS". Well, all of this is my opinion thought. You may be right. They may of only done the two songs in Abbey Road Studios. All Well. CRBR 18:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the official U2 site the release date was 03 March 2009, not 27 February 09. I think this should be corrected. invenio tc 00:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The album was first released on 27 February in Ireland and several other countres. Release dates on 2 March (rest of Europe) and 3 March (International) followed. 3 March may have been the International release date, but it was preceded by all of Europe, and Australia beforehand. Convention states that the first release date is the one that is used, which in this case is 27 February. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

News from U2.COM: MORE FROM MOROCCO

This is from @U2.com, if you want to add any of this, PLEASE due so. Just site your sorces!

U2.com has posted the second in what appears to be a series of articles based on U2's recording sessions in Morocco in late May and early June. The article is for subscribers only, but here are a few highlights and quotes.

• Edge on why they went to Morocco: "The Festival of Sacred Music was a big lure for us and for Brian who has been very interested in Arabic music for years. We felt we might meet some interesting musicians while here – and we certainly have."
• Eno on the uniqueness of Arabic music: "...in a typical pop song you will have 'A B A B A B C A B B' or something like that but in Arabic music you might have 'A B C F B G F' or something like that. Basically it just goes off, and what we've been doing here these past few days is enjoying things like that more and more, moving away from the simply cyclic way of writing things."
• Eno on the influence of Arabic music on U2's sessions: "It is not a question of sounds so much but of different structural decisions about how things are made."
• Edge is said to be "tuning a mandolin."
• Bono is said to be reading Minds at War, "an anthology of First World War poetry."

Instant Karma wonder???

Is Instant Karma going to be released at some point? Thanks! CRBR 23:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I like where this article is going!

This article is going very well. Hopefully, we can improve it even more. Just Mercy was confirmed by Bono and if you don't believe him, I hope when it is on the next album, you all are proved wrong. CRBR 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguably the article shouldn't be here and has already been deleted. Wikipedia is not news service. See WP:CHILL. It's just a collection of gossip and speculation that don’t really say anything notable. The album doesn’t even have a name and there is nothing confirmed apart from the fact that U2 have been in a studio. That long list of quotes should be removed, it's not what an encyclopedia is about. That list is better put into a magazine.

Re Mercy, it's not that it is not "wrong", it is simply not verified - that is the basis for inclusion in wikipedia. A fan's alleged comment on a fan site is not verification. When it's verified, put it in. There’s no album yet verified!!! --Merbabu 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I expect had I been aware of the prior AfD and had listed it the outcome of this article may have been different; indeed, it could have even been speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4 were it not under a slightly different title and so didn't show in the deletion log. To be honest, I wouldn't be opposed to deleting all but the "available information" section - the rest is completely unencyclopedic and the majority is speculation with sources that fail WP:RS. AllynJ 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK Lets just start over

I guess you all are right, so lets just start from the beginning. All of the confirmed information and even quotes, I suppose. Even if it is a small article, we can build on from there, with all information that can possibly come from here to the release of the album. Lets just start from the beginning. You can start it off and I can help along the way. Forget The Rumors, lets just focus on what has been told to us. Contact Me if you got any concerns! CRBR 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, much of what was here was just rumours. The whole subject is not notable. Nothing has happened - they've just been in the studio. I don't think they have even mentioned the word 'album'. There is not even an album name. And it's been previously deleted - it was the SAME info. You can't just make an article by stringing together a whole lot of quotes. Wikipedia is not a news service or pop mag, it's a serious encyclopedia about things that are notable, and not just interesting. I don't think I will nominate it's deletion, but I'd certainly support it. Merbabu 22:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct, but I'll still make it only confirmed information anyway, to keep this here. Like Theodore Roosevelt said, "The best executive is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it." I do have a feeling something will come, so lets just stick to confirmed information. CRBR 22:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Did the Edge say this

Did The Edge ever say this quote on the next album:

//The Edge was recently quoted as comparing the developing songs as "a mix of Madonna meets Mastodon (band). Music you can dance to while banging your head". PLEASE let me know on my talkpage. CRBR 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

2007: best for me

I was reading a article on U2 exit over agan and it said when Bono was at the Sarajevo festival, Bono said, "I would like to think that we're doing our best work now. We're about to make a new album for next year, and it's the most important thing." I really doubt that Bono would be off his word about anything like that. Sure maybe something like a Tour, but nothing like that. I believe the end of 2007 is the best estimate. CRBR 17:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bono has said every U2 album is U2's best ever before it's release. Sometime's he is right, other times not. --Merbabu 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with that (EX: Pop), but I believe this one will be special. It maybe not the HTDAAM, but I believe that it will have a unique type of sound. We will find very out soon! CRBR 22:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Should we...

Should we change the beginning part and put that information in the Available Information section? CRBR 22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Twelfth Studio Album???

The U2 discography already lists the band as having released twelve studio albums. So wouldn't the new one be their 13th? Joelster (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Note: I presume this has something to do with the Orignal Soundtracks 1 album?

Whether it's 12 or 13th or whatever, could be debated forever - Rattle and Hum and Wide Awake in America beg whther they are studio albums, and as you say - what is Passengers. That's why I just go with the flow - who cares? THere are better things to debate. Personally, I don't think we should even have this article unless a name and definite release date have been provided. --Merbabu (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki currently counts Rattle and Hum as a studio album in the list at the bottom of the article, but not Original Soundtracks. Yet both are studio albums in the discography article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.166.166.183 (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Real References

I've done a little bit of clean-up over the last day or so; there was an incredible amount of information duplicated two or three times within the article. I cleaned up some of the references too, which I am particularily appalled about. I think close to half of them - if not more - are from @U2.com. Come on guys, that's a fansite. We can't use it. Check out WP:REF and WP:FANSITE. In each one of it's articles (with the exception of a staff editorial), @U2 lists the source for the information. Go to those listed websites and use them as your source, not @U2. Constantly using the "new album" section on the fansite is just plain laziness. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, atu2 consider themselves to be news media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.166.166.183 (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

@U2.com uses actual news sources (Belfast Telegraph, The Mirror, the Sunday Times, etc.)--it's not random speculation. It's actually more reliable than U2.com, the official site. (And beg pardon if I've messed something up here, I'm a new user.) Light My Way (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

http://forum.interference.com/f196/u2-in-october-2008-in-the-studio-189293-15.html has a link to Q magazine, mentioning a few song names, including "Breathe", which I added to the list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.165.109 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed misleading reference

Have removed the following pseudo-reference:

|title=Bono reveals U2 album details |date=2008-08-15 |first=Kath |last=McCabe |work=The Daily Telegraph |accessdate=2008-08-18}}

as it purports to be a newspaper article but in fact just goes to the u2 website (http://www.u2.com/news/index.php?mode=full&news_id=2249). --Technopat (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone change the title please

I am new to editing pages on Wikipedia. I have put on the confirmed title, No Line On The Horizon, and I have put on the confirmed date. However, I do not know how to change the actual title, could someone do that for me please and tell me how to do it for the future. Thanks.

Multiple versions now available for pre-order on amazon.com

Perhaps someone can update the wiki to reflect the different versions of the album that are available for pre-order (ranging in price from $9.99 to ~$95) http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=u2+no+line+on+the+horizon&x=0&y=0 JoeAjoe (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cedars of Lebanon

This was confirmed by users on Interference.com who have received the subscriber edition of Q Magazine. According to them, Q Magazine's full article of confirmed song titles includes this song. However, there is no way to confirm this with a link yet until Q posts the information on their website. Do we wait until there is an online way to confirm this? I noticed one user already had it up without the confirmation, most likely for the same reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Amendment (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A citation of the magazine article should be enough, and a url can always be added later once it is confirmed by something other than a fansite/forum. Do you have the subscriber edition? If so, would you be able to add it in with the neatest format? MelicansMatkin (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Tracks

I would like to point out that the tracks "For Your Love" and "Tripoli" should not be removed from Tracks as both are mentioned in recent reports and have been properly sourced; in the case of Tripoli, Bono mentions it in a Q magazine extract on U2.com in the most recent update as of this message. For whoever keeps removing these tracks, please refrain from doing so. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they should stay for now, while the U2.com "highlights" of the Q magazine don't explicitly say that they are on the album, it is implied. Also, the source being 4 days old is hardly out of date as another editor suggested. Also, is there any need to have 2 references for each track? Can we chose one and go with that? --Merbabu (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

One source for each track would probably be fine; I added multiple citations to some of the tracks simply for added verifiability, but when the sources are Q, Mojo, and U2.com, those multiple sources are probably not necessary. The most recent reliable sources that contain the updated track titles (eg. "Sexy Boots" becoming "Get Your Boots On") should suffice. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't actually get too hung up about it - the article's going to be unrecognisable in a few months anyway. --Merbabu (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly true, and I probably shouldn't get so anal about it; I just think it needs to be sourced so that the listed tracks don't appear to be OR. MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it needs to be sourced - each one I say - that's not "too anal", it's good work! I was just commenting on whether two refs are needed, but then suggested questioning the number of references required is not necessary!. --Merbabu (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you there. Looks like I crossed some wires in my tiredness. I'll remove the more "ancient" of the sources where there are multiple for each track when I wake up tomorrow. MelicansMatkin (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's CEDARS OF LEBANON, not THE CEDARS OF LEBANON. Also, it's GET ON YOUR BOOTS, and not GET YOUR BOOTS ON. The latter is more satisfying, but, according to the latest sources, it's the former, unfortunately. Jasonkilee (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the source listed for the latter, the very recent Q preview: Among other instantly striking tracks are Get Your Boots On... Also, the vast majority of the sources I've read have called it "The Cedars of Lebanon". Is there really any need to edit war over whether there is a "the" in the title or not? Within a month and a half the full tracklisting will likely be revealed by U2.com or the record label. It's really inconsequential at this point. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Get Your Boots On

I noticed that someone has created an article for Get your boots on, and linked it into No Line on the Horizon. I considered merging it with this article for now, though I wasn't sure if that would be the best course of action. I'm not sure that much of the information in the article is verifiable (it states that it will be the first single - which is likely true, but nonetheless complete speculation). Any thoughts? MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the article’s creation is a premature, but putting my pragmatic hat on, there’s probably not much point in seeking to delete it. It’s likely to be quickly recreated, and within a few months we should be able to create a proper article – provided as seems likely it is indeed the first single. Maybe just concentrate on keeping it clear of any significantly unreferenced material. --Merbabu (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

New info on actual songs...

From Rolling Stone: [1] --Merbabu (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that this report makes what to put for "Stand Up" a difficult choice. The Rolling Stone article lists it as "Stand Up Comedy", but the Q article equivalent and U2.com article from 31 December label it as "Stand Up". Likewise, the Q article labels one track "Get Your Boots On", while this Rolling Stone article calls it "Get on Your Boots". Any thoughts on how to edit these? MelicansMatkin (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

How about:

• "Stand Up"<ref>Q article</ref> / "Stand Up Comedy" <ref>Rolling Stone article</ref>

--JD554 (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Perfct, thanks for the suggestion. MelicansMatkin (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivial?

I was browsing through the article and noticed this statement: On 16 August, 2008, a fan recorded four songs playing in Bono's beach house in Eze, France.[14] These were subsequently uploaded to YouTube and U2 fan-site Interference, but have been removed at the request of Universal Music from the former - the songs are still being shared through private messages and e-mails as well as other U2 fan-sites.[citation needed]

Though the recording of the beach clips, and subsequent uploading and removal of them to YouTube is undoubtedly relevant, I'm not sure that the segments regarding Interference, or that the songs are still being shared, are. Specificially, the part which says the songs are still being shared through private messages and e-mails as well as other U2 fan-sites. This strikes me as being rather trivial for inclusion, and it isn't exactly something that can be backed up with a reliable source. I'm leaning towards removing this part, but I wanted to bring it to other peoples attention first. Do you think it should be removed from the article? MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, since there's no source. --ProgressiveAeternus ^(talk) 21:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, removed. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

album cover ripped off

This warrants a mention in the article: http://www.nme.com/news/u2/42195 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.222.72 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It would, but only if the cover were "ripped off". The photograph is by Hiroshi Sugimoto, and as the creater and owner of said photograph, is perfectly at liberty to sell it as many times and for whatever reasons he pleases. Taylor Deupree has no legal ownership over the photograph, and so he can't claim that U2 are ripping him off. The responsibility in informing U2 of the photograph's prior usage lies solely with Sugimoto. I really don't see this as being a noteworthy issue. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of negative Reviews

A number of people are removing reviews from this page mainly because they are negative. They are using reasons that any informed reviewer knows are simply spurious. This album is a big release with a great deal of secrecy. They are not willy-nilly sending out albums everywhere, but instead are inviting reviews to listen to the album, usually at distributors offices. Just because one reviewer has clearly identified the circumstances where none of the others has does not make it somehow "not a real review". Its pretty obvious that nearly all the reviews have come from listening sessions like this. Stop removing reviews just because they do not agree with your opinion pls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.203.73 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you need more background on the review in question before criticizing people - the review in question was written weeks ago after a preview listening sessions that dozens of other publications were invited to. As such, this is not even a proper review. They simply took their preview from a month ago, recycled it, attached a star rating, and called it a final review. This will be irrelevant in two weeks when more well-known publications/reviewers give the album a formal review. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply continuing to remove the one negative review shows your bias here... The other "unrated" or "unstarred" reviews that you have not see fit to edit out are from exactly the same types of sessions, yet as they are favourable you do not have a problem with them. If those other reviews had been similarly removed that would be fine, however you are using a reason to remove one review, but then leaving other reviews with the same properties. There is nothing "not real" about the review in question - the reviewer listened to the album and did a track by track analysis of what he thought - and then gave it a rating. It should be up to the reader to decide how much weight to put on the views put forth, not for it to be edited out because a small few do not like those views. When and where it happened he revealed clearly to his readership - something that is vary rarely done and should be applauded - not used as a reason for removing it... the only thing in question is the fact that a small number of people do not seem to want to hear views that are opposed to their own.

For one thing, sign your posts. Secondly - and I will emphasize this as much as I have to - this one negative "review" that is being removed is just a "preview" from a month ago. It was released at the same time as the other pre-release previews in late January. Every publication since then, except for the one in question, is actually releasing a separate, in-depth review of the album after having the opportunity to actually listen to the album more than once. This is why it is being removed. Take the time to actually consider that. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Y2kcrazyjoker4. This "review" was a rehashing of a preview done several weeks prior and, therefore, not a valid review of the album. A proper review would go beyond a mere listening session. The author even submits a disclaimer before his article explaining this very thing. Shkee23 (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath here... Both parties need to show a bit more respect to one another... yelling in edit summaries is as un-wiki as not signing posts, just as is both of you assuming that the other knows nothing.

After reading these comments, the edit summaries, the article in question and the other articles that have been unedited I would like to make the following observations.

1. One article (the article in question) states the circumstances under which the album was listened to. It clearly says it was from a preview listening. The other articles make no mention of when where and how they were listened to. It is only an assumption that the other untouched articles were from something other than listening parties.

2. You cannot assume that because an article was published more recently than another that it is somehow more or less authoritative than the other. You also cannot assume the publication date is an indication of when it was written. The other articles may well have been "a rehashing of a preview done several weeks prior" - the date stated on the web page really means little or nothing.

3. All the articles were written by people who listened to the album. That does not seem to be in question.

4. I find it very difficult to understand an argument that says a review is 'not valid' because it was written earlier than another. The article seems to be the genuine view and review by someone who listened to the album. The track by track descriptions are far more comprehensive in fact than the other reviews. It really is drawing a long bow to say that someone who has listened comprehensively enough to an album to write a review like that is somehow not presenting a valid review.

5. There are fewer "more well-known publications" than Time Out. Time Out is without doubt an authoritative source on all types of entertainment in many parts of the world. Ask any entertainment professional in London and New York just (to name two of the biggest entertainment captials of the world) and I think you will find that they agree.

6. It is always problematic when a controversy like this erupts around an article that is the only negative review that has been put on the page. Dispassionately I think that whilst you might be offended by the out-of-line blatant attacks about bias in some comments above, it certainly allows the perception that the review was removed because it was negative.

7. The parties involved can undo each others work as much as you want. At the end of the day the most zealous will win. That's pretty sad for wikipedia at the end of the day. What we need is to present a balanced coverage of items, with good and bad coverage and as "unsigned said" let the readers make up their own mind.

I hope that the reviewer does get to spend more time with the album and update what he has written as you have suggested. However for right now it is a review, by a person who clearly listened closely enough to the album to make very detailed comments about the content. As such I can't see that is not 'valid' and I believe that the review should be included as much for balance, and due to the authority of Time Out.

Phoenixsnark (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Phoenixsnark, the author of the article listened to the album and made a judgment based on that listen, that's a review. When another review comes along from a more noteworthy source, it can always be replaced. --JD554 (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that the same user has taken down this review again. This is unfortuante as the reasoning given continues to be that this was a review from a listening party. Can I refer this user to this article on the link Sydney Morning Herald which clearly states:

It is not clear if the leak to illegal download sites was a result of this error, however, it is the likely explanation as U2 has kept the album under wraps and reportedly sent no preview copies to the press, instead organising private hearings.

Therefore none of the reviews that have been included are from anything other than these listening parties. By this reasoning either ALL these reviews should be taken down or the review in question should be put up.

The arguement given for this review not to appear is invalid. At least four seperate people have edited this review in. For one or two people to keep removing it is unreasonable. Phoenixsnark (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a moot issue now as WP:ALBUM allows a maximum of 10 reviews, and these ten spots have been filled. However, the negative Time Out review is mentioned and sourced in the Reception section, so it still has an inclusion in the article even though it is not in the infobox. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The album leaked

@U2 Forum - IT LEAKED
Should we add this information to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vittau (talk • contribs) 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAK says it's generally not notable - but maybe in this case is different because of the measures Universal took to try to prevent a leak, even though the leak was on the Universal Music site - irony at its finest! Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Heads are no doubt rolling as we speak. But woah - what a leak. Magnificent indeed. Will be sleeping late tonight. :-) Nice work on this article by the way. --Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's very much leaked....see this; just checked a private music torrent site, and it's #1 for downloads at the moment. Daniel (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

BBC Music review

I would describe the review as mixed because it makes negative comments about the album as well as positive comments. If it only had positive comments, then I would describe it as favourable, and, if it only said very positive comments then I would describe it as very favourable. But with comments such as "Only in Unknown Caller's dreadful 'Force quit and move to trash' lines does the hi-tech metaphor card get overplayed" and "it sounds odd when U2 sound like followers rather than leaders", I wouldn't describe it as fully favourable. --JD554 (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are the only negative comments in the entire review, and the first one isn't even that negative, as it says "only in this instance did they do something wrong". I'm not sure how you can call it mixed, especially considering the closing remarks are positive. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

another album (besides nloth) to be released in 2009?

i posted a section on the page without signing in about the possibility that U2 might release another album in late 2009. but it was removed. i had a cited source from an interview with bono himself. granted, i didn't know where it fit perfectly in the NLOTH article, maybe it was better for the U2 page... whatever. i'm going to put it back, but if anyone thinks it fits better on the U2 page, please move it there and link it to the NLOTH page or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Readymade01 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It has had only one very small mention in only one intervew about the possibility thus far. I think it is far too early to mention anything about the possibility of another album this year because there is absolutely no way to verify it. As recently as last September No Line on the Horizon was scheduled to be released in November, but that obviously didn't work out. Please see WP:CRYSTAL. One very brief mention in an article about the possibility of a release is not substantial enough to warrant inclusion in an article. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Album Cover

U2.com has a picture without the equal sign (or whatever it is), but this picture (http://www.mercuryrecords.co.uk/u2/myspace/artwork.jpg), taken from their myspace, clearly shows the original album cover with the gray lines / equal sign. Currently the article shows the U2.com version, which is wrong in my opinion. 76.24.180.216 (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So the image hosted by the band's website is the wrong one? Riiight.

Thing is, we don't know which is correct yet. Both have been shown by U2.com, the record labels, and retailers such as Amazon and HMV. It could be that the cover alternates depending on what version of the album it is, in which case neither are wrong. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone who got a CD copy of the album at u2tour.de says the equals sign is only a part of the jewel case and that the unobstructed picture is part of the CD booklet. I'm not really sure what the canonical album cover is in such a case. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could list the cover with the equal sign as an "alternate cover". --170.66.1.233 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The equals sign is stuck to the jewel case, or a slip off cover on the deluxe version with a pearly finish. --122.49.157.103 (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GA?

I suppose that one of the perks about building an article like this is that as the news becomes available, content additions are well sourced and relevant to the article. Once the album has been released and a Reception section has been built, would anyone object to a GA nomination? MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominated. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

@U2 references

I'm concerned with the number of uses of what is currently reference #7, this page on @U2.com. I'm concerned because once No Line on the Horizon is released and new rumours begin swirling again about the next album, the content will just be blanked and replaced. This means that several pieces of information in the article will no longer be sourced. In addition, no matter how reliable @U2 may seem, using it as a source still violates WP:FANSITE. This is a concern that I've voiced since before the first deletion. I've managed to cut down what was quite a substantial number of uses of this reference to just two, but I'm having trouble finding sources for the last two. Can anyone help me find the sources so that the @U2 reference can be removed with more verifiable (and permanent) sources? MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

One left. MelicansMatkin (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving of content

I'm wondering if some ofthe content under "Recording and Production" would be better suited under "Track listing". The section I'm thinking of specifically is this:

Many tracks had their names changed during the recording sessions. "French Disco", "Chromium Chords" and "For Your Love" were retitled as "Magnificent", "Fez – Being Born", and "Stand Up" respectively.[20][13] As late as December 2008, when U2 were in Olympic Studios in London, England to put the finishing touches on the album, tracks were still being retitled with "Stand Up" and "Crazy Tonight" becoming "Stand Up Comedy" and "I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight"; this led to several pre-release reviews erroneously referring to the tracks by their former names, as well as discussing three tracks which were eventually cut: "Every Breaking Wave", "Tripoli" and "Winter".[13][19][21] "Every Breaking Wave" was cut as its inclusion would have made the album too long.[22] Despite being cut from the album, "Winter" makes an appearance on the accompanying Anton Corbijn film, Linear.[23] "Fez – Being Born" was originally planned to open the album, but the band decided that the higher-energy "No Line on the Horizon" was a better choice.[20] "White as Snow" was included at the end of the sessions to balance out the rockier tunes.[22]

Any thoughts on this? MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and moved the content, as well as giving it a minor reordering. If you disagree with my edit, please feel free to revert and discuss. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I can see what you're coming from, but I think Track listing shouldn't really have any prose unless it's very relevant to the listed track order, running times (e.g., those items differ on different releases), or it's describing hidden/bonus tracks. I think the prose you moved is better suited for Recording and production because it discusses the band's hectic, last minute decision-making in the studio during their recording sessions, and this section has already gone over in detail what the band did in the studio for this record. I think it's better to keep all that information together, rather than drill down and try and separate it too much. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that makes a lot of sense so I'll move it back. At least doing this seems to have helped put the information in a slightly more clear manner. On a side note, I'm finding that in the lead-up to this album there's been a lot more information regarding the writing process than there has been beforehand. It's utterly fascinating, and this article has a much more in-depth history of the process than any other U2 album article as a result. MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Chart Positions

Does anyone know and can add chart positions? KThnxBye --19:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.123.231 (talk)

A charts section has been added (and hidden) in the article. The earliest chart results will not be available until Thursday, and there is no point in having a blank table until then, which is why it has been hidden for now. Rest assured, as soon as the chart positions become available they will be added. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This album is already platinum in Portugal. Sorry for the source being in Portuguese, but I couldn't find any in English. [2] SOAD KoRn (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Which reviews to use?

There have been a lot of people adding reviews to the infobox lately, and going over the 10 review limit set by WP:ALBUM in the process. Likewise, some other people have been removing established reviews and substituting them with sources of lesser notability. So in an attempt to avoid unnecessary edit warring it begs the question; which reviews should we use?
Rolling Stone, Q, NME, and Mojo should I think all stay, for obvious reasons. I also think that sources such as Spin and The Times should stay as they are notable and don't make it seem as if only positive reviews are being given. I'm also partial to keeping the BBC Music review in place too. The Allmusic review is available now, and as it is a fairly notable source I think that if it is to be added it should replace Entertainment.ie or The Observer.
There are other reviews, mostly unnotable, that have been added - and removed - recently too, these including Consequence of Sound, Time, Time Out, and Pitchfork Media.
What do you all think? Which reviews should be kept and which reviews should be replaced? MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this is U2. The band is Irish. So why is it plagued with British sources and no Irish? What is the reason for this? I ma asking nicely. --86.40.223.74 (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is rte --86.40.223.74 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And why the bloody british times when the irish one will do fine? [3] --86.40.223.74 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

RTE has been added in place of The Observer. The "bloody British Times" is likely there because somebody put it there before the Irish Times. Nationalism really shouldn't be an issue here, especially as the most notable publications are the ones that are included, hence why Rolling Stone, BBC, Mojo, etc. are there. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The irish times is one of the earliest reviews u2 allowed. if you look at the bottom it was originally published on the 13th february when none of these big magazines were allowed to. --86.40.223.74 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about it being the earliest to be reviews, I said it was added to the article beforehand. It's not about adding more sources from a specific country, it's about finding the best and most reputable and notable sources to use. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• are yousaying theyl tellmore to the bloody british papers than their on ones?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.223.74 (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what I say before you actually respond to it. The simple fact is that a publication such as Rolling Stone or BBC Music is read far more widely and far more notable than Entertainment or Independent.ie. I've already said that nationalism is not an issue here. It's about which reviews are the most notable, not where they come from. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Full page protection has been granted as per my request here. This edit warring is pointless; please state why you think which reviews would be used so that we can come to a consensus about this. MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
So, to name all the reviews that have been thrown around for inclusion:

• Allmusic [4]
  • Top 5 MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Top 10
• BBC Music [5]
  • Top 5 MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Top 10 Merbabu (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Blender [6]
  • Top 5
  • Top 10 Merbabu (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Consequence of Sound [7] MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Top 5
  • Top 10
• The Daily Telegraph
  • Top 5
  • Top 10
• Entertainment.ie
  • Top 5
  • Top 10
• Entertainment Weekly [8]
  • Top 5
  • Top 10 MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Mojo [9]
  • Top 5 Merbabu (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC) MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Top 10
• NME [10]
  • Top 5 Merbabu (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Top 10 MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• The Observer
  • Top 5
  • Top 10
• Pitchfork Media [11]
  • Top 5
  • Top 10
• Rolling Stone [12]
  • Top 5 Merbabu (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC) MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Top 10
• RTE [13]
  • Top 5
  • Top 10 Merbabu (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC) MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Q [14]
  • Top 5 Merbabu (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Top 10
• Spin [15]
  • Top 5
  • Top 10 Merbabu (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC) MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• TIME [16]
  • Top 5 Merbabu (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC) MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Top 10 Merbabu (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• The Times [17]
  • Top 5
  • Top 10
• Time Out Sydney [18]
  • If this is Bernard Zuel's review in the Sydney Morning Herald then this is notable.Top 10 Merbabu (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Top 5
  • Top 10
• Uncut [19]
  • Top 5
  • Top 10

WP:ALBUM allows for a maximum of 10 reviews; however that list has close to 20. So we obviously need to narrow it down to the 10 more reputable and notable sources.
I also want to make it clear that, contrary to some people's assumptions, I am not being biased in favour of U2; in fact, I added several negative reviews to Reception (and trust me when I say that had Robert Christgau - who typically gives the band's albums negative reviews - reviewed this album, I would have made a case for its inclusion. The reason I have reverted the Pitchfork Media article so often is because a) the majority of it discusses the band's career rather than the album, and b) there has been a lot of controversy regrding it's rating system in the past. Feel free to discuss. Let's try to have a reasoned and reasonable discussion that leads to a consensus on which 10 reviews to use. MelicansMatkin (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've added my sig and given either a most important 5 and most important 10. I suggest others do the same. Pitchfork is fairly big, right? And, is the TIme out Sydney review Bernarad Zuel in the SYdney Morning Herald? Given that he is well-renowned, it's SYdney's most respected paper, and U2 played to 180,000 in 2006, did 5 x 15,000 shows here in 84 (yes, 1984), and did 9 x 15,000 shows here in 1989, we kinda like U2. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't, it's by an Andrew Street in the Sydney edition of Time Out. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think Pitchfork should certainly be included. This whole 10 review thing is a bit absurd, but I believe Pitchfork to be more significant than CoS or RTÉ (I've never seen either of these sources on any other pages...) Bannus (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Likewise I've never heard of Pitchfork, but that isn't really my issue. I'm simply concerned about the quality of the source, for reasons that I've listed above. Many of the IPs seem to simply want to include negative reviews, which I'm not adverse to in any way. There has to be a balance between positive and negative. So in that case I suggest TIME instead of Pitchfork, as it is even more notable and takes an unfavourable outlook on the album.. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please use this

[20] They don't lie to irish newspapers especially when they publish their album in the country before anyone else has it! Ha! Nobodt else has it yet! Ha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.223.74 (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous...

I commend Melicans’ excellent leadership (again) on his efforts to broker an agreement – and I’ve given my suggestions above.

However, it’s absolutely ridiculous that the first album in 5 years from the world’s biggest band is released today and the article (on one of the world’s biggest web sites) is locked. No matter how it actually got to this point, the situation is ridiculous. So, I have a radical idea. Why not just *temporarily* open the flood gates now to the reviews – ie, put aside the 10 review rule and allow any review that’s from a major publication. Ie, what’s important? Ensuring that we keep to the 10-review rule, or keeping this article open for editing during all the hype of this week (first week’s don’t happen again)? I suggest the latter is more important – ie, suggest we ignore the 10-review guideline just to get this article open again. We can come back and cull the 10-review list later. --Merbabu (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion - why don't you keep the top 10 in the infobox per WP:ALBUM and create a separate review section for all the entires. That could then serve as a list from which to update the 10 when things have calmed down and all the reviews are actually in and completed? Mfield (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A review section is an excellent idea. But, it still leaves the infobox open for edit warring (and hence article lock) on release week when we clearly have a lot of momentum and attention focussed on editting the article. capturing that momentum now, is more important at the moment than a 10 review guideline. It's just a guideline (not a policy) that can be addressed later - it should not get in the way of first week participation which is far more important. --Merbabu (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me know - I can unprotect and you guys let it run past 10 reviews or semi protect it so that established editors can still work on it but the drive by switching (often POV based) of reviews will still be prevented. I agree that full protection should not last too long on such an obviously popular and current subject. Mfield (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps floodgates is the wrong word. I would not want to see 100 reviews here from personal blog sites, etc. But 20 reviews including reviews from major international or *big* city papers (Toronto, NYC, Sydney, etc) would be OK for now. I'm not saying turning a blind eye to this part of WP:ALBUM is risk free, but I certainly think we should do it. --Merbabu (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the guiding principle of the encylopedia being editable trumps WP:ALBUM at this kind of juncture. As things stabilize down the road the wheat can be separated from the trash and the notable reviews stay for the long haul. I am going to reverse the protection in favor of keeping a close eye on it for excessive abuse. Mfield (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Hope we can all use that leeway responsibly. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

←I agree that allowing the article to be edited is more important than locking it for "review wars" at this point, this is where WP:IAR comes in. When things have settled down we should try to work out the best 10 to reflect the regions that we have reviews for and, keeping with Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view, also try to get a balance between positive and average reviews (I'm not sure but I don't think I've seen any out and out bad reviews). A list of the reivews, where they're from and whether they are positive or average would be useful for this at some point. --JD554 (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully we can come to an agreement before then, so this edit warring doesn't start up again. I'll add links to all the reviews above to help the discussion. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And many thanks for helping out so much, Mfield :) MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, hopefully more constructive content and reviews will be forthcoming as a result of being less shackled by the limitation. History is always going to be helpful in sorting out which reviews have been proven to be the most relevant in encyclopedic terms anyway, as long as any that are included pass the reliable source benchmark then there is no harm done. Mfield (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if editability for all is necessarily the best thing. A high profile release by a band as divisive is U2 is going to bring on lots of vandalism, and it will require some effort to upkeep the article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am keeping it on watch, if it is attracting excessive IP vandalism it can easily be semi protected, but high profile articles are our front line for attracting and then retaining new editors and full protection defeats the very ability to edit that is WP's unique selling point. We don't want people trying to edit, being frustrated and leaving for good. Mfield (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Since this article has for the most part, become a mature one, maybe our efforts would be better served on, say... the poor Achtung Baby article? =) Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Things certainly seemed to have quietened down for now; if nobody has any objections, if at this time tomorrow nobody has included any further input above, I'll narrow the list down to a definitive top 10. If people can't be bothered to discuss the issue here as the inline note recommends, then they really shouldn't have anything to complain about. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down to ten as per the signature edits proposed by Merbabu above. Eight were consensus, and the other two were selected randomly. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents - it's good to trim them down, and to stay within 10, but it's far more important to not edit war and have the article locked over it. keep up the good work. --Merbabu (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to note, for the record, that in consideration of all the anonymous editors who wanted to the inclusion of Pitchfork Media but couldn't be bothered to discuss it on the talk page, while I have not included it in the infobox, their view has been added to Reception, complete with ranking and a quote. Hopefully that will be the end of the issue. MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Balance

Just a note that I've substituted one of three 5-star reviews for a 2-star review from a credible source; though I don't see the purpose in substituting one 3-star review for another 3-star review as some other editors have. The infobox now contains:

• Two 5/5 ratings
• One 4/5 rating
• One 3.5/5 rating
• One 7/10 rating
• Two 3/5 ratings
• One 2/4 rating
• One "favourable"
• One "unfavourable"

I'd say that's a pretty good balance between positve and negative reviews, all of them from notable sources. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Toronto Star is not typically included among the list of marquee music criticism sites. You might try Robert Christgau, Pitchfork Media, or the very Blender review you decided unilaterally to remove because of your subjective assessment that it was 'too' positive, all of which make frequent appearances in the list of the reviews on album pages on Wikipedia. Now, don't misconstrue this as a fan trying to get you to post the positive review. It's simply a fact--and, in fact, Pitchfork skewered the album. I think your ends would be better served by including any of these reputable, identifiable review sites' assessment than they are by including a link to, of all places, the Toronto Star.

And mind you we can't just decide that an album has been reviewed too positively and try to make it 'objective' by including negative reviews from the far reaches of the Internet. Objectivity is reporting things as they are, not twisting or spinning them such that there's not a critical consensus one way or the other. Until you can find a suitable, mainstream music-criticism-centered publication, I will restore the list to what it was originally. Tenchi2 (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2009 (PST)

Trust me, I was quite happy with the list the way it was before. But there were quite a few people commenting on the edit summaries that there were too many positive reviews being included, which is why I substituted the Blender review for the Toronto Star. Robert Christgau has not yet reviewed the album as far as I am aware. But I see your point; I'll restore the Blender review now. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you beat me to it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, my logic here is that, for instance, on Metacritic, the album's rating right now is 72/100. Here, we have 7 generally positive reviews (above 60/100, or 3/5, or the intangible "unfavorable"), and 3 negative assessments. I think that falls in line with what the critical reaction has been. Beyond that, though, I think that RTÉ, which gave it a 3/5 (or 60/100) ought to be replaced with Pitchfork, which is a fixture on almost all album pages here. Pitchfork, for the record, gave it a 4.2/10. I think this would by and large solve the problem of the reception section having too positive a tilt. Tenchi2 (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2009 (PST)

My main concern with the Pitchfork review is that the majority of it discusses the band's career, with little substance actually devoted to the album at hand. I believe that was the original reason why it was not included, looking at prior discussions and edit summaries (though I admit I was the most vocal proponent against it's inclusion). MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Composition and content section

I don't think we quite need a section like that just yet. The way you added it, it stopped the Lanois/Eno sessions section in August, and then it started the new section with discussions of December, talking about their hectic finish in which they renamed and reordered the album's songs. I don't think this discussion of all the last minute changes would be best suited for a section called "Composition and content." However, if more information on the subject matter or songs, their instrumentation, or past recording sessions history is revealed in the coming weeks, I think it would make sense to have such a section. Right now, though, I don't think it's justified. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, that certainly makes sense. I was trying to split it in a way that the recording sessions wouldn't be affected badly. But you're right in that there isn't quite enough information to warrant that section yet. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Adam's camera work

I find this hard to believe, but on scanning the article I can't see any information about Adam Clayton having videotaped clips of the recording sessions, which were then put on U2.com. Can anyone help me find reliable sources that mention this so it can be included in the article? MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

While I couldn't find any references to this in any reliable publication, I was able to find one from U2.com; unfortunately it is only viewable to U2.com paid subscribers, but hopefully that will be a good enough citation. MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

I just wanted to note that the following pages redirect here; no doubt many (if not all) of them will later become standalone articles, but I created the redirects to make it easier for later editing purposes.

• No Line on the Horizon (song)
• Magnificent (U2 song)
• Moment of Surrender
• Unknown Caller
• I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight
• Stand Up Comedy (song)
• Fez – Being Born
• Fez - Being Born
• Breathe (U2 song)
• Cedars of Lebanon (song)
• Winter (U2 song)
• Linear (Anton Corbijn film)
• Linear (film)
• Songs of Ascent
  • Every Breaking Wave (currently a double redirect)

I hope that this list helps for future editings. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

just as a general comment, I've seen an excellent well-referenced article on one of these songs. However, (unfortunately in many cases) notability of subject rather than article quality is what determines whether the pedia has an article. Despite the article's quality, it might be hard to assert the subject's notability if questioned - *generally* it's only singles that are considered notable enough. Note, that almost (every?) U2 album track once had an article, but many of these subsequently got re-directed (in in most of these cases the info was of minimal encyclopedic value). If the worst came to the worst, I would recommend the excellent info in the track article by merged into this album article. --Merbabu (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's very true (though in the case of "White as Snow", I think that its inclusion in the Brothers soundtrack will help with its notability); I actually assumed that a lot of fans would do as they have in the past, and create articles for each song. I figured that creating the pages as redirects beforehand and having them on my watchlist would help to keep the number of articles down in the long-run.

Perhaps the biggest difference between, say "White as Snow" and "Like a Song" is that, primarily thanks to the internet, there has been a greater influx of information regarding the creation of each track than before, meaning that a lot more information can be added than just track position and live history (as we've discussed before on the WikiProject page). A lot of useless stubs are therefore avoidable, so we don't end up with too-short articles like "Love Is Blindness", and formerly "Love and Peace or Else" (also note that many singles articles contain even less information =P). I guess we'll have to see just what kind of quality emerges, but these redirects should help in keeping the number of song articles down in the long-run. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup - good points, particularly about the new internet resources. --Merbabu (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Linear

Looking at Linear... Do you think it should be split into a seperate article while keeping a small amount of information about it on this page? It seems to me that it's long enough to be split off (and better sourced than many Hollywood film articles), especially now that it has been split into several sections for readability reasons. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, the section is very good, and I think it is good as is for the moment, but we should review this in the future. Remember, when articles are split off, the smaller article usually gets a lot less attention than it did as part of the main article. --Merbabu (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sales

Are we perhaps being a bit overly anal with the need to have sales figures? I recently checked out a number of GA and FA album articles, and the vast majority of those do not have sales figures tied in with the Charts. Is there really any need to keep the Sales figures in the charts, or should we eliminate that section? I'm personally favouring the latter. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel it's only a matter of time the album goes platinum in most countries and we have a reference for that (fingers crossed). I say keep it. I have a request. Can anyone put up sales and chart performance for India? I can't seem to find any information on it anywhere. Suede67 (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, obviously the Certifications will stay. But the actual Sales figures? I just don't see why they are necessary. Most of the sources just say where the album peaked, but very few that I've seen actually give sales figures. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I too hardly ever come across sales figures, but I'd like to keep whatever figures are available. About them being necessary I think the only information they provide is giving an indication of how much units are needed to shift to certify an album gold/platinum for that country. So, not much.

Okay, I'll just remove the ones that are uncited then. Hopefully an incomplete list won't hinder a promotion to GA or above. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I came across this site http://swisscharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=U2&titel=No+Line+On+The+Horizon&cat=a NLOTH is on #1 this week in more than 4 countries! Can you please update this bit of info on the article? Suede67 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Swisscharts have been used for a couple citations in the table, but they haven't been updated in a few days. Looks like I can add at least two or three countries from that; thanks for letting me know about the update! MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was also xpecting he boxes down below. Anyone? Suede67 (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Magnificent

On this page, it lists "Magnificent" under the "Non-single charts". Given that we now know it will be the next single, should those be removed and placed in the "Magnificent" article instead? MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Cover

This article provides some good information regarding the cover, should we decide to include a section on it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. Lots of articles have sections devoted to the album cover, so why not here?

for instance - Wish You Were Here (album)#Artwork, All That You Can't Leave Behind#Cover art. Suede67 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done; I included the deal, Deupree's claims, and Sugimoto's refute regarding that. Hope it looks okay; what do you think? MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.