Talk:The Resistance (album)

Albums Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the muse.mu-mediaplayer the lengths of tracks differ from the wiki-lengths. Reason to change?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]