Talk:The Resistance (album)

Release date issues

Lately there seems to be a lot of edits surrounding the release date. According to WP:ALBUMS#Release, only the earliest know release date is to be posted in the infobox. To avoid further editing conflicts, perhaps either a comment should be placed in the infobox or a release history section should be created. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the release date and added an invisible message afterwards in the infobox. As for that release history table, that is a good idea. I will get to working on that soon. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Where even is the source for the Australian release date (12 Sep)? It just appeared from nowhere. Andre666 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, when I was on the search engine for release dates, I didn't find any information concerning the release date, either. Hopefully a reliable source providing the information confirming it will pop up soon. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 21:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Albums are released on different days depending on the region. Typically, albums are released in the US on Tuesdays, in the UK on Mondays and in Australia on the preceding Saturday. September 12 fits this generalization for an Australian release date, though I agree a source should be provided. I am confident that a source will become available in the coming months. Would you feel more comfortable leaving it off the page until a source can be found? Fezmar9 (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I would be more comfortable leaving off the Australian release date that isn't backed up. When Muse was talking about the release date for The Resistance, they were most likely only talking about the release date for the UK, their home territory. Also, if you look at the release dates of Twilight of the Thunder God, you will see that its UK release date was September 22, 2008 while the US release date was September 30, which wasn't the Tuesday after the Monday UK release date; instead, it was the Tuesday of the week following the UK's release date. Thanks for supplying that information of the typical release date fomula, however. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was already aware of the release date format, but yes, I believe it should be removed without a source. Will change it now. Andre666 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That is going to be appreciated. Thank you. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 21:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Earliest date vs. 14 September

The release date should (and will, if I have anything to say about it [which I will]) be listed as that which is true in the band's home country; in this case, 14 September 2009. Just because Benelux received the album on the 11th, that means squat; this format has always been used and is widely accepted, and should be. Stop changing it. Andre666 (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take up your issue with WikiProject Albums, who believe that in an album article the infobox should list "only the earliest known date that the album was released." Fezmar9 (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that rule is what I based that certain edit off of. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 21:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fanboys

Can the malaysian malay muse fanboys please stay the fuck away from the muse pages if you don't have any references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.2.102 (talk • contribs)

That would be appreciated; however, why is it important to point out that they're potentially Malaysian? Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 18:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

malaysian english is very easy to tell. i'm a malaysian and i can't stand all these mentally ill fanboys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.135.212.208 (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

While I read and am genuinely pleased that all of these reviews on the new album are giving nothing but praise, a few reviews that manage to squirm through such as the current Kerrang! and Rolling Stone review, are Spanish reviews. Now I dont know how these magazines work since I don't live in a country where they're released or if the international issues are just translated and the review work is still the same person all-in-all, but can spanish reviews really be counted on an English Wikipedia page? Carbo45 (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that. Now that you noticed, I think I am going to weed out the Spanish ones; they should be saved for the Spanish wikipedia. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 17:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Consider replacing The Fly's review score of 3.5 stars to 'favorable', as the review awards 5/5 to the latter part of the album, and 3.5/5 for 'the rest'. A total score of 3.5 is therefore wholly misrepresentative of the review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.222.94 (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll get right on it. Thanks for pointing that out. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 22:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about ironing out some of the reviews at hand out here. Some of them are just "favourable" and I think some spots should possibly be saved for the bigger names in reviewing business such as Allmusic and Kerrang. Wiki only allows 10 reviews at max. Plus that review that Guardian made wasn't really a review, it was more of an article. A new review from Spin gave this a 3.5/5 by the way. Just putting this out there. Carbo45 (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a possibility, but I wouldn't do anything just yet when it comes to deleting reviews. I did read that Guardian Unlimited review, and if it does get to the point where more notable magazines or webzines should be there, then I would choose to eliminate the Guardian Unlimited entry. Thus, I will say that we should cross that bride when we arrive there. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 00:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The reviews should also be formatted correctly with references, per WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews. This includes magazines which should use the (Cite journal) or (Citation) templates. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Question out of curiosity again since I don't want to go and delete something without being too sure (still not all the way sure with Wiki stuff), but I just noticed that a review by The Observer was put in the column. Now I know that the article was posted on Guardian, but on The Guardian review (which I updated for the "real" review), its also signed as "The Observer" underneath, only another writer, and the reviewer gave a score. So what do we do with the two reviews? They really seem to clash with each other. Carbo45 (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One or the other should be used. Same owners, etc. No need to have both. I would probably put in The Guardian, Observer is only a weekly newspaper. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking out The Observer. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 20:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I posted a sputnikmusic review, and I want to know why it was deleted. I made sure it didn't go over the 10 reviews max, because i decided that it's better to reference a review one can read on the internet. Sputnikmusic staff are regarded as professional music reviewers on wikipedia, and I can only assume it was taken down because of some fanboy who didn't like the idea that a critic gave the Resistance a 2.5/5. I think that by adding it, the reviews will be less biased. Itachi1452 (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there has been a lot of replacing reviews, reformatting, and just general traffic happening in that infobox section, albeit some of it not necessary traffic. It may have been a fanboy indeed who deleted it, and if you want to put on the Sputnik review again, then I would fully support it, as long as a pre-placed one is deleted. It would indeed make the review section less biased, since the lowest grade in there is about 80%. Speaking of potential bias, I am concerned about the reception section being somewhat like an advertisement as well. But to sum it up, you can add the Sputnikmusic review back again if you want. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 00:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be me, I deleted it in favor for the Allmusic review since the way I see it, they're far more of a known source for music. It's 10 reviews now. One review had to go out of there. It wasn't a fanboy move, but feel free to put it back up there if you think another review is deemable to be removed. I guess a review with a less positive reception isn't too bad at all. Should have thought of that actually. Sorry. EDIT: Oh yeah as for the Reception, I'm taking out the reverse lyric thing. Seems more of a trivia, and I doubt it's "skyrocketted" any way, changing the reception. Carbo45 (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think only posting the most positive reviews of the album, in your reception section, is representative of the actual reception to the article. Most reviews I have read have been pretty average. That the album is anti-climactical in fact. Are you telling me that you have chosen these reviews, because of the strength and reputation of the magazine, or just the fact that they give it a good review? As in, NME gave it 6/10. Pitchfork gave it 3/10. The latter is probably the most distinguished music web site in the world. You know, this isn't a fan page............ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Pitchfork? More distinguishable than Allmusic? Yeah right. I'm not adding them cause of score, I'm adding them because of notability. If you want to know what mags/sites that I added, here you go. Allmusic (removed, dunno why), Q Magazine (when it first came up), Uncut and Drowned In Sound (changed after the track-by-track review). Does that make you any happier? Good. Also, the reception IS generally favorable. If you find 4/5's or 7/10's "mixed/average", then I dont know how you find numerical statistics. It's generally positive with a few average or bad reviews. That's not mixed, mixed is a big variety of love or hate. Carbo45 (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Pitchfork is very distinguishable. Though they do have an indie bias, and I tend not to take them seriously because they hate all the bands I like. Itachi1452 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"That would be me, I deleted it in favor for the Allmusic review since the way I see it, they're far more of a known source for music. It's 10 reviews now. One review had to go out of there. It wasn't a fanboy move, but feel free to put it back up there if you think another review is deemable to be removed. I guess a review with a less positive reception isn't too bad at all. Should have thought of that actually. Sorry. EDIT: Oh yeah as for the Reception, I'm taking out the reverse lyric thing. Seems more of a trivia, and I doubt it's "skyrocketted" any way, changing the reception"

You mean, you replaced it, as it was a negative review. And you changed it to a more positive review. You realise that's censortship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not censorship. I deleted the review because there had to be room for one more review and I just took one out of the pile. Allmusic is far more of a reputable source than Sputnikmusic and deserve the spot. How's it oh-so-important that there isn't one bad review? If you're so proud of that addition, then just delete another review up there, and if it makes you happy, there's one review up there already that's given it an even lower score than Sputnikmusic. Wikipedia doesnt allow more than 10 reveiws per album. Take a chill pill, goddamn. I couldn't give the slightest fuck over if anyone rated the album 0/10. If you're so sensitive over having things changed, you shouldn't even be around Wiki as this is a content database changed by the users. Carbo45 (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There just needs to be a balance between the most reputable sources for reviews, and an accurate depiction of the broad opinion of the album (not going either overly postive nor negative; WP:UNDUE). Usually this can be sorted with consensus. So perhaps we ask on the talk page before removing and adding things in the future? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 18:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for balance, trust me. But calling me a fanboy feels like pushing one step too far. Also, that I should be "ashamed for my actions" (on another forum) by adding an Allmusic review, like it's the biggest sin towards the world apparently, especially considering how reputable they are.Carbo45 (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

All Music Guide has more "staff" writers than Sputnikmusic. Have you seen some of the All Music Guide reviews? They're not all that good. Itachi1452 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your actions were fine, and Allmusic's more than fine. Too many people come to this site with an ego, content on proving they're right. If you want 'the best' reviews, go find them and read them yourself, fine, don't bother adding them here, this is not how it works here. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good to know then. I suggest stopping with the addition of more reviews from now on though, looks good as it is. Maybe a semi protection for that matter? Carbo45 (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah they'll only protect it for vandalism or edit warring, not just high traffic and manipulation of what's there. Not realyl a big matter, come back in a week and the place will probably be dead (with me cleaning up after them lol). k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I state that I've been on a Muse fan board recently, where they were openly discussing the fact that they had been editing the "reception" and "reviews" section, on the basis that they felt that it didn't reflect how good the album actually was.

As in, in the mind of a muse fan.

This is an encyclopedia. Not a fan board. This should represent how the album has been perceived worldwide. Not how it's perceived by muse fans. "Carbo", was on this message board saying he had been removing data from the wikipedia page.

How do I know, as he was discussing in detail the Sputnik music incident, that he admits was him, above.

In response to Kiac telling us "how things work here - go elsewhere". I disagree totally with you. This isn't a page to just show the best of Muse, and to please people who like them. You should be trying to approach the issue with balanced opinion.

And the only way of doing this is posting only "major" reviews on the album, be it good or bad. Post all the good ones, and all the bad ones.

At the minute, you just seem to be making room for the good ones, and deleting the bad ones. I assure you, you are not working by the rules, and far from being able to get this page "protected" you may find yourself being kicked off for vandalism yourself.

The reception section consists of a vague "mostly positive reviews", which is simply not true - it's mixed at best, and a glowing quote for Zane Lowe, their best friend.

How can that be an encylopedic reception section. I add in a couple of quotes from the NME, and Pitchfork, and you delete them!

Again, this is not a fan site. And I think you'll find that you will be the one reported. Not the other way around.

If an quote is referenced, relevant, and sourceable, and on topic, and from a major title, you have no right whatsoever to delete it. It's viewed as censoring the article.

So when I'm going on muse boards, and reading threads about fans "controlling it", you know, make up your own mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.68 (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Why the fuck are we still discussing the goddamn reviews? There's some more negative reviews right now weighing out the neutrality and they were THERE when I said that, what is there to disagree? Drop the goddamn subject for fucks sake. You guys seem to like pasting me out as some fanboy just cause I happened to delete one, just one oh-so-important review that gave it an average score opposed to positive stuff in favor for a more reputable source. Fine, I did a mistake, stop pinning shit on me goddammit. Am I a god or human? I don't contribute much to this place anymore. I did nothing to this article to make it "more biased". Nothing. If anything, fix that biased reception section instead of telling me what I already know, and start reading properly what I'm saying. I never changed the article to make it look more biased, and I would really appreciate it if you stop pasting me as the representative of Muse fandom just cause I'm on Wiki having added three reviews before the slots filled and one afterwards. Carbo45 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments related to the reception section moved and replied to below. U-Mos (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Track Listing

Having obtained an early copy of the album, I can confirm that the back cover of the CD lists the two-part songs in the (+Collateral Damage) format. Consider changing it to match the official format.

Yes, and the Exogenesis symphony is labelled with numbers, not Roman numerals. Whoever keeps changing it, needs to stop it. The track listing currently is correct, so leave it. Le.Kwyjibo (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was just putting down what was always there, so that's my fault. My apologies. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 00:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In the muse.mu-mediaplayer the lengths of tracks differ from the wiki-lengths. Reason to change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.50.251 (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but I'm leaning towards not so. It would probably be more like the song lengths on the actual CD, even if they are the same. That would be my two cents. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 22:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You've used "state magazine" as one of your 10 reviews. State magazine = the student magazine of the university of toronto!? My god. Are you trying to keep average reviews out that much!? Can I ask why you have ignored worldwide (poor reviews) like the nme and pitchfork, and yet used studentmagazines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add that review there. We get that you don't like that section. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 22:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaking: important or not?

There has been constant editing of this article concerning the leakage of this album. I've always known information like that as non-notable, but Muse themselves have commented on the leak, and there is a source to confirm that. Is the link still unimportant? I would initially say that it still isn't important enough for wikipedia, but I want other opinions before I remove it. Thanks in advance. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 02:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Baring exceptional circumstances, leaks are not notable. There are no news items about Muse or management responding to the leak to even meet the bare minimum of satisfying the above policy. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the source provided for the leaking, it sounds similar to the leak of No Line on the Horizon in that the album was accidentally provided legally to the public before the official release date. Providing that some better sources become available in the near future, this could potentially be notable. It's best to wait and see. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Review formatting

The currently accepted format for listing reviews is to provide citations instead of embedded links. The reasons for this listed at WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews make perfect sense and are neither "wrong" nor "crap." Fezmar9 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? That's something that I can easily agree with, to be honest. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 00:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are agreeing with here. Are you saying that you agree with the way the guideline is set up, or are you agreeing with the user that said it was crap? Fezmar9 (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the new way that it is set up. I find it convenient. Sorry for the confusion. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 03:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Look

Rolling Stone hates Muse the same way they hated Queen that's why Muse is huge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

... and you feel Wikipedia is the best place to state your opinion on this? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The (in my opinion) insignificant opinion of Rolling Stone magazine does not influence why any musician/actor is popular. This isn't a forum either. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 21:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just saying you should put Rolling Stone's review cause they're just as important as NME or Pitchfork I mean geez, can't you people get a clue?

Apparently, we didn't get the clue this time. With posting stuff like that, nobody can be blamed for not assuming that you want the Rolling Stone review on the page. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 01:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in Reception section

Basically, this section needs balancing out. Only one negative comment is given no more than a passing mention, wheras there should really be a paragraph on the criticisms that have been levelled at the album, as seen in the two low-scoring reviews in the infobox. U-Mos (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Was working on it at one point but never had time to finish it (was in school at that point). I agree, the reception section is far too biased at this point. Apparently some people like to edit things out from it. Carbo45 (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I state that I have tried to "balance" out the "reception" section 3 times today, and 3 times it has been deleted for no apparent reason.

All I did was add some of the feedback from Pitchfork and the NME. It seems that the reception section is only for "positive reviews".

The entire section is completely biased (only has links to 2 reviews, both totally positive), and is being censored. I may put a request into wikipedia to have this page partially protected, as it's obviously being controlled very closesly - most likely for commercial reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.68 (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the reception section in this area. I imagine your edits were reverted because they removed a substantial amount of information as well as adding some. So I've re-added what you deleted and kept in what you added. Please discuss if you feel reviews are not "mostly positive" or some info should be removed here. U-Mos (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I added in PopMatters' review of the album, one of the more "negative" ones, plus adding the MetaCritic score to give a general overview. It's starting to shape up now again, at last. Carbo45 (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The reception section and its potential bias has been a real concern of mine as well. I'm glad that it is being improved. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 21:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of that Twitter crap. There's 15 solid, reliable, professional reviews linked to by Metacritic, and we still use a Twitter post by a radio broadcaster as our leading professional review? hah. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Track listing(s) ?

What is gained by posting the exact same track listing three times? It makes sense with something like Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness where the vinyl listing is in a completely different order, but here it's the exact same on all three formats. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, posting the fact that the vinyl has 4 sides should be enough. The DVD Audio track times are different, but I don't think this is anything important. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Track listing: (+ ) vs. /

So what's the standard for the track name formatting? The album artwork, and even the official site says (+track name), so why aren't the tracks being formatted like this? If we're not going by the CD's formatting, other cases spring to mind (Snow ((Hey Oh)), for example) should be formatted (in)correctly. Just a thought, seeing as this is how the band clearly wanted the titles. Le.Kwyjibo (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's questionable. My iTunes download of the album (downloaded on 2009-09-15) has its track listing formatted using slashes (e.g. United States of Eurasia / Collateral Damage (Excerpt from Nocturne in E-Flat, Op. 9 No. 2)), for example. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 19:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good for iTunes. The actual CD itself uses (+ ). CD > iTunes. -- I need a name (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have added a NPOV tag to the Reception section, per concerns discussed in this talk page. I have removed the Zane Lowe's Twitter source as a self-published source that does not meet reliable source criteria, as well as the Japanese reviewer sourced to Blogspot, since we have other reliable sources we can use. I have added a review from Rolling Stone magazine to highlight some negative criticism of the album. However, I still believe the section can be significantly improved. Most of the positive reviews are not from major news sources, when there are plenty to be found - see The Resistance on Metacritic. Ali ^(t)_(c) 16:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed the major neutrality issues in the reception section, so I removed the NPOV tag. Ali ^(t)_(c) 17:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Track Listing

User:Kiac has undid a revision by User:Kstrike155 (see diff), removing the use of the {{tracklist}} template. WP:ALBUM does not have a specific policy in using the tracklist template, only stating that it may be a better choice "in more complicated situations." I wanted to try to gain consensus as to whether or not we should use the {{tracklist}} template. My opinion is that we should use the template - it's more organized and aesthetic. Ali ^(t)_(c) 07:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this a "complicated situation"? It's as basic as a track listing comes, there is no featured artists, no different writers or producers - it's a stock standard, plain and simple track listing. There is no need for a template, it overcomplicates what is a simple list. It was added and removed by others multiple times weeks ago, this is the reason I simply just reverted it, consensus seemed to sway the way of the guidelines. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for the template; +1. Andre666 (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Soaked Demo

Should "Soaked" be added. The demo leaked, sounds great, and Adam Lambert is using it on his new album. --FlySWATER (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would "Soaked" be added to an album on which it was not released? Andre666 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe as a demo or potential b side? It shouldn't be added to the official track listing because its not an official track. Its a song that didn't make the final cut for the album. --FlySWATER (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that it was going to be released on the album ever, and it would be contradictory to say so as the band have said they only wrote 11 songs for the album. If it turns up as a B-side, it will be included on the single's article; there seems to be no direct link with the album, sorry. Andre666 (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Undisclosed Desires as a single

In the Chart Preformance section, only Uprising is listed as a single when Undisclosed Desires has also been released as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamamaniac (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Genre Listing

The top genre for this album is listed as prog rock, followed by alt. rock. It seems to me that plurality of reviewers seem to think this album is alternative rock and not quite as progressive as previous albums. I propose switching those two labels so alternative rock is the top genre. I would have switched it but whenever someone abruptly changes anything about the genres it sets off a firestorm. Obamamaniac (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be alphabetical. Though I would not be surprised if an IP added it on top because they thought it necessary. kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Pop Rock should definitely be added to the list of genres, not at the beginning but it should be in there as it is a turning point album for Muse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.184.217.36 (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Studio Bellini

It would be appreciated if everyone stop using the name Studio Bellini as Matt Bellamy only used the name jokingly and has not named his home studio. For now, until any confirmation as to what the studio's name is, the simple use of Lake Como, Italy will suffice. Florez411 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Book: 1984

Curious, perhaps someone should mention the fairly obvious link between this album and the Book "1984" by George Orwell. References to the "Thought Police", "Eurasia" and a lot of similar hints in the lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.153.2 (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it just occurred to me, too. As for the sources, I found a mention of this influence on some French webzines (http://www.radioactif.com/nouvelles/nouvelle-muse_influence_par_george-477220-22.html ; amongst others). The Muse Wiki apparently takes note of it, as well. But I cannot find any "serious" newspaper that would raise such a point, I'm afraid. However, the "1984" article on this very Wikipedia lists "The Resistance" under "Adaptations and derived works (no source referenced). Py.coudert (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree: I feel the whole album is a homage to Nineteen Eighty-Four. United States of Eurasia is the song which makes the most obvious reference to it, especially during the Lawrence of Arabia sections. I have found a proper newspaper which makes reference to it: The Guardian in its review. gbrading ταlκ 21:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Seperate article for MK Ultra?

Just an idea, as it is to an extent a notable track. For starters, it was mentioned and hinted at several times before the release of the album and before the album even began production (the title of the song was seen written on Matt Bellamy's hand during photoshoots around the release of H.A.A.R.P. for starters, among other hints), it's generally considered a fan favourite at concerts (like Citizen Erased, which like this was an album track), it's got a unique structure in the context of the other tracks on the album which tend to go verse/chorus/verse whereas this goes into a longer atmospheric bridge with synths and stuff rather than being stuck with one time signature and riff. And finally, it did have a music video in the form of the MTV-sponsored video which was filmed for awareness of human trafficking. I for one think that these can be elaborated on in an article which is centred on this one song, as it's considerably got more background and information available about it than most of the other tracks on the album, meaning that in my eyes it merits its own article.

Of course though, I'll leave it to my fellow editors to come to the conclusion - I'd rather not just make the album for it to be deleted, just pointing out that it is notable in regards to general information about it, in a similar way to Citizen Erased. Thanks for reading this, hope you'll get back on this so I can get started working on the article, if it happens. Just wanted to clear up whether it was viable for a separate article in everyone's eyes firstly. Cross Pollination (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done for posting here, rather than simply making the article which, as you alluded to, would just be deleted. It may well be a notable song, but unless there is significant coverage in independent media, it will not warrant a Wikipedia article. Please see WP:MUS for more info. Andre666 (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Genre update

Have scaled the genre back to just alternative rock based on subsequent comments from User:Lukejordan02, subject to getting some consensus as to genre sourcing. The alternative genre seems self-evident for Muse, however "new prog" wasn't indicated, let alone referenced in the article. However, it seems symphonic rock and space rock is applicable, given that these were mentioned and apparently sourced, particularly with respect to Exogenesis: Symphony which is a much-discussed centrepiece of the album. Is there consensus to restore the symphonic/space rock genres, or is there a sourcing problem to be addressed? Dl2000 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Resistance (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090527113543/http://muse.mu:80/index.php?sec=news-407 to http://muse.mu/index.php?sec=news-407
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110108131925/http://www.viva.tv:80/charts/viva-album-jahrescharts-2010-2010-211/ to http://www.viva.tv/charts/viva-album-jahrescharts-2010-2010-211/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Resistance (album). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ifpi.dk/?q=certificeringer&page=12
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chartstats.com/artistinfo.php?id=137
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216021348/http://www.irma.ie/aucharts.asp to http://www.irma.ie/aucharts.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717073146/http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp to http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp

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) 04:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"Rainy Men" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rainy Men. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Rainy Men until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DemonDays64 (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Release date

While I see there's an old discussion on this page about this topic, I'm not sure how conclusive it is. Are the sources for the 11 September release (As seen in the "Release history" section) still the same that were there in 2009, or are these newer? If they are newer, are they still not confirmed as reliable enough to include the 11th in the infobox and elsewhere as opposed to the currently listed 14th? And if their reliability is uncertain, then why are they included in the article at all? QuietHere (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)