Talk:In Your Honor
 | In Your Honor has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | In Your Honor Tour was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 March 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into In Your Honor. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The Sign[edit]
Moving it to bonus tracks, but noting that it appears on UK version of In Your Honor on the first disc as track 11.
This band/album/etc. is not UK based in any sense, and the official tracklisting is American. Different countries get different tracks anyway, so to say one is official over the other would be absurd when they have different bonus tracks. The only exception is the American tracklisting because it doesn't have any bonus tracks, that which counts as the official regular tracklisting. 131.125.115.15 (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Acoustic[edit]
I think we should have the genres like this: Disc 1: Alternative Rock Disc 2: Acoustic Rock What do you think? Titan50 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Honour/Honor[edit]
I was wondering about the spelling of the album title and eponymous track because the article title and image both say "In Your Honor", but the copy I have here says "In Your Honour" in the cover artwork, track listing and lyrics. Is this because I have the UK edition? --94.3.95.201 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- My UK copy also has "Honour". This should be mentioned. Does anyone have a good source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:In Your Honor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Burningclean (talk · contribs) 21:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- The first sentence of the Background section is kind of off. Maybe something like "After touring in support of One by One, Dave Grohl was uncertain on what to do next with the Foo Fighters. He felt that rushing to do another record would not be creatively rewarding."
- I don't know if there is any rule to this, but I think maybe saying the studio was 'named' Studio 606 would be better than being 'baptized' Studio 606. The word 'baptized' seems slang somehow.
- "The album's whole development took nine months,[6] with three and a half months spent installing the equipments of the studio, and the songs being written across 2004." I would rework this to "Development for In Your Honor took nine months,[6] with three and a half months intalling equipment in the studio, and songs being written throughout 2004."
- "Studio 606 was not even finished as the band moved in, even helping with the final stages of construction." This feels confusing to me. Do you mean that the band helped finish constructing the studio? If so, could you specifiy that please?
Other than those few small details, all is good. The sourcing is fantastic on this. Burningclean [speak] 21:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Buffalo[edit]
The album artwork and CD labels feature a drawing of a buffalo. Does anyone know its origins? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)