Talk:Shadow of the Day

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Linkin Park (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linkin Park, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Linkin ParkWikipedia:WikiProject Linkin ParkTemplate:WikiProject Linkin ParkLinkin Park articles

Power Ballad genre

Should we consider this song a Power Ballad song? Well, if not this song, then perhaps in between or the little things give you away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.200 (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think its power ballad.how about you guys?(by:Asseerrt)

The same song

I don't know what song it is or how it goes but it sounds exactly like this song. All I can remeber is that it was either released like beginnning this year. I want to know what song that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.66.185 (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC) It might of been Starlight by Muse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve2497 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Notable

This song article is not notable and should be deleted along with most of the other articles about non-singles on Minutes To Midnight. Tim Y 00:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The song IS a confirmed single, why should it be deleted? Rashempashem 06:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a confirmed single when I made that last message. Tim Y (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Shadow Of The Day.jpg

Image:Shadow Of The Day.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XM

For some reason, this song is recieving heavy airplay on XM radio, but Bleed it Out hasn't been played at all (to my knowledge). Anyone think this is significant? Impostor404 18:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, no. Maybe the XM DJs just prefer SotD over BIO. Hello 21 12 21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Rock

Shouldn't this song also be classified as pop rock considering there's nothing but special effect sounds and electronica for the first verse and first chorus? Plus there's no guitar til the bridge. I think this song should also be classified as pop rock. What do you guys think? 99.224.130.20 00:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This song isn't really pop rock. It's more of a slower, softer sound than older Linkin Park songs, but I don't think it's any more pop than Bleed It Out or other harder songs. Tim Y (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well i dont think it should be alternative rock either. could we maybe take it out and leave the synth rock? lpfan4eva1990 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.130.20 (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental Rock

Linkin Park has alot of Experimental Rock in the album this song is in. THis song is Experiemntal/Alternative/Rock. It may so be Pop Rock also. SO it is Eperiemntal Rock and maybe Pop rock, but is still Alternative Rock.

are you kidding me? theres nothing "experimental" about this album. NONE whatsoever.--SilverOrion (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Update

Yesterday was 8 October, so the page should be updated. 008'/,treme 13:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you update it instead of being lazy and telling other people to do it. Tim Y (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=w2lG-ir2P34 --Arogi Ho 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other members

It says that the other band members were NOT in the video, can someone confirm this, cos i was watching the video on youtube and i saw a couple of rioters that looked like Brad and Rob, anyone got the video in a better resolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.65.41 (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is means is that there were no other members performing the song. Example: Mike, Dave were not playing guitars/bass.

Charts

Someone vandalized them, cause SOTD isn't #1 on Modern Rock Tracks, and neither #2 on Polish Singles... someone change them back. And I suggest locking up this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RafaeldKsonic (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the song is now 13 on UWC not 20 you need to update it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.240.7 (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New UK release date - 12th Novemeber

October the 8th passed ages ago without a UK release date - i suppose that date was just specualation but the 12th of November date is confirmed now (check the single release date on HMV: link). Plus, whereas before the song was never added to UK radio stations' playlists, it has now.

Winterspell 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia concerning alternate video

Source plz. I'd like to see this alternate ending. Hello 21 12 20:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! i check this update and i found this ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4uOSymEU90 the quality is poor but for sure is another ending and chester die... =(

Lyrics

The lyrics section is not valid nor true, I don't think the section is necessary, the lyrics are based on someone close to you moving on or passing away (just as chester said), nothing to do with suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizedude (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could involve suicide of someone close to you, but not you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.91.236 (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia concerning video

I think I hear the Wilhelm scream in the video. Can anyone confirm it, and if so, is it of enough note to add to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.13.116 (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remixes

Are there any reliable sources for the remixes of this song. I've heard the Blake Jarrell remix, which was featured on the A State of Trance weekly show by Armin van Buuren. That info seems to be notable, but I can't find any non-blog or YouTube references. --seav (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I say... "Rock"?

Well, lets think here for a minute. First of all, we often compare this song to With or Without You, which is classified as Rock. Honestly, there isn't anything Alternative about the sound of this song. It's just straight up Rock music. I know it's weird to think LP making a Rock song, but if one makes an honest judgement, that's what we have here.. a straight up Rock song without an alternative sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.198 (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, it sounds pretty alternative to me. Synth-sampled beats, keyboards, slow build up, introspective lyrics. Plus the fact that most of Linkin Park's stuff is alternative rock on this album. This song definitely has an alternative structure to it. James25402 (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The song was also featured in the 2008 Beijing Olympics."

Can there be some clarification as to how and where it was featured? The sentence is very vague with no citation or explanation. --Fbv65e del — t — c // 17:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too Detailed!

Now I'm one of the people who's up for having a lot of detail on the articles on WP, and I congratulate the writer(s) of this article for adding so much detail.

However, that's also the problem: so much detail.

The article has so much useless trivia on it that it's actually difficult to read. Like I said at the top, I like it when people take the time to put lots of detail in... but they should be able to do this without sacrificing readability.

Hell, I don't even need to quote overly confusing bits from the article - just read it yourself and you'll understand. I didn't even make it to the end.

My suggestion for improvement? Make it more accessible without sacrificing the detail. Like I said, the amount of detail is pretty impressive. Just... find a way to combine the two, readability and details. --Lordnecronus (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources... NO OPINIONS!

Please make sure if you claim something, there needs to be a source. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Because if it doesn't have a source, it may just be an opinion. Please don't just say stuff unless it's got a source.

You can't say "similar to children of men". It's just stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.103.159 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shadow of the Day. 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/20100311072228/http://www.mtv.de:80/charts/Jahrescharts2008 to http://www.mtv.de/charts/Jahrescharts2008

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: 5 June 2024).

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} 11:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shadow of the Day. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]