Talk:Dethalbum II

Albums Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Metal Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music 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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

should the parenthetical sources of the songs really be there? they don't really seem necessary kinda just take up space. just wondering if anyone else thought that.--Riossez (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, myself, have never had a problem with that text being there. I, myself, would prefer them to be kept, but if there is a logical reason brought up as to why they should be deleted, then I don't mind. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 21:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vocals?

ummm what happened to Brendon's singing this time around? it's all screamo and not the deep growl that he did last time. has he said anything about a different style of music and singing this time around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.244.37 (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, he hasn't said anything about the change in style. And Dethklok is not a screamo band. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 01:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm listening to it right now...It's pretty much the same vocal style of the first album. The deep black metal scream/growl/whatever you want to call it. 24.18.234.133 (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no screamo but it's definitely not as deep. 98.226.85.9 (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder to editors here, per WP:TALK, "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject." MrMoustacheMM (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation "Needed"

"The album artwork is a reference to Dethklok's song "Murmaider".[citation needed]"

Seriously? If you can tag "citation needed" onto this, then I should be able to cite your eyes. That's like saying, "The title of Megadeth's song 'Shadow of Deth' is a reference to the band's name." I understand the importance of proper citation, but there has to be a line... or should every sentence not paraphrased from a reference be tagged in every article with "citation needed?" --Sctn2labor (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That suggestion of yours is reasonable. I looked at a larger version of the album cover, and have decided that it is in fact a reference to that song. I will revert my addition of the citation needed template. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 02:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally going to remove this assumption but you beat me to it and I think Scnt2labor here was meaning to remove it completely. If that's the case, I agree for it to be removed fully. FireCrystal (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to remove the entire section of it mentioning the album cover's reference to the song "Murmaider"? If so, then I can do that. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the comment was about overuse of "citation needed." You don't need to cite an external reference for what is patently obvious. Removing the sentence about the album artwork referencing Murmaider was not the intent, just the citation tag. --Sctn2labor (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's cool. I'll remember this instance and I'll try my beset not to overuse the citation needed tag. I'll revert my edit that took away the cover's information. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 04:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, there should be a citation for that. We don't know that it's a reference to the song, unless a reliable source states as such. I know it's pretty obvious that it IS a ref to that song, but Wikipedia requires information to be cited/verifiable. It's a violation of WP:OR. I'd support re-adding the citation tag. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It IS verifiable. With everyone's eyes. There's nothing else of any relevance that it could be a reference to, especially not with something relevant to the band and music for it to be a reference to. Does every single sentence need a citation? You're going to end up with more superscript numbers in articles than actual content. But I guess the line "Recently, some lyrics have taken on religious themes, such as "Never Walk Alone... A Call to Arms", which supposedly is about Mustaine's relationship to God, and "Shadow of Deth", with spoken lyrics taken directly from Psalm 23 of the King James Bible." in the Megadeth article needs to be sourced to an online Bible. Verifiability and all that. Pointless.--Sctn2labor (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says that original research is not acceptable. "Everyone's eyes" is original research. Unless a reliable source states that the cover is based on the song, it's not encyclopedic to add it to the article. This is how Wikipedia works. (Off topic: regarding the Megadeth thing, there would have to be a citation from a reliable source stating that their lyrics had become religious, and that the lyrics were taken from the bible. You couldn't source the bible itself, you would have to source a reliable third-party.) I highly suggest you read through the two WP links provided and become more familiar with Wikipedia policy. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where people who interpret Wikipedia's rules so strictly that they'll damage good articles. You know as well as I that the original research is to stop people making assumptive claims that are as likely to be false as they are true. Find me one person who doubts that its a reference to the song and you can justify that tag, if not please allow it to be removed. WROKKR (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't understand how encyclopedias work, but they don't report unsourced data. The rules are very clear: no unsourced information. It's not how I "interpret" them, it's just that clear. How about this: since it's apparently so obvious, I would say it doesn't even need to be mentioned, and should be removed entirely. People can make up their own minds about the cover, and if we get (for example) an interview with Brendan Small saying "the cover is of course The Water God", then by all means put it back up. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're dumb. :) But I think I fixed it; "The album artwork is most likely a reference to the track "Murmaider II: The Water God" which appears on the album." Better? Alright then.

Album title

Looking at the album cover, Dethklok's second album seems to be titled Dethalbum II, not The Dethalbum II. I won't move it in case others dispute this, but the title on the cover is pretty clear. Digitelle (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point there. However, since sources do clain the title to be "The Dethalbum II", I don't think the page should be moved just yet. Maybe when/if other sources dub it as "Dethalbum II", then it would be worthy to move this page. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 18:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I own the deluxe edition, and it says "Metalocalypse: Dethalbum II". There is no "The" in front of Dethalbum. Hence the article should in fact be moved to Dethalbum II. Dmiles21 (talk)

I moved it. That was a reasonable request. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 02:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deluxe CD Cover

Someone should put it up.http://cabronomicon.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Dethalbum-II-DE-500x453.jpgis the biggest size I could find —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinushka501 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so soon. Also, any bigger and it would have been too big as there is a limit for image sizes. A 1000x1000px image would get a resize tag and if a smaller one (within the 200px-400px range) is not found, then it gets deleted. An image of that size goes against the fair use policy. FireCrystal (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LP

So despite the current lead mentioning a release date of today for the LP, no one seems to have this LP for sale. In fact, the only mention of it I can find is on the British Amazon, and it has a release date of Jan 4, 2010. [1] Can someone else double-check the release date of the LP? I'm at work and too many sites are blocked here. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, metalunderground.com says that it was released on September 29. But that information was released on July 20; thus it may not be up to date. Also, their myspace says that the album is now available. Also, what shops did you visit searching for the LP? Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 01:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Relapse, Amazon.com and .ca (and .co.uk), and the Williams Street shop (the most likely place I would expect it to be listed). I also did a couple general Google searches for "Dethalbum II LP" and "Dethalbum II vinyl", and either got references to the release date on this site, references to the first Dethalbum picture disc, and the Amazon.co.uk ref. Basically, I haven't found any references that say the LP was released, just references from before Sep 29, that claimed Sep 29 along with the CD (the CD was definitely released Sep 29, I'm not questioning that). Unless/until someone can find a reference dated post-Sep 29 that says the LP was released on Sep 29, I think we should remove/change the sentence saying the LP was released Sep 29. If Amazon is considered a reliable source (and I don't know if it is or not), maybe we should use that release date instead. Thoughts? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then I wouldn't mind it being removed. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 00:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "to be released" anymore.

Since it is already released, then the article rating should be changed from future to something else. Thanks. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 00:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Verdatum (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Discs in Deluxe Album

The sale listings have it listed as being two discs, but my copy had three discs - two copies of the album and one bonus disc. Has there been any other documented instances of this happening anywhere else, or was this likely an isolated mistake by the record company? Mr.Pat (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an isolated mistake; probably not something that would get reported much anywhere that could be referenced, and thus not appropriate for the article. -Verdatum (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The two reviews linked on the sidebar give a similar critique of the album, (which I found to be quite accurate), to paraphrase, less like a meta-humor album, less humor in general, more indistinguishable from a true metal album. I think if a third reliable source says something similar, this should be mentioned in a new section.

Also, I look forward to seeing the sales figures once the first week is up. -Verdatum (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]