Talk:U2 360° Tour

No talk of Australia on the tour?

Looks doubtful for the time being, but U2 came to Australia in 2006 for the Vertigo Tour, so I don't see why there is yet to be mention of an Australian leg. From my understanding, the shows performed here in Australia were quite successful. Perhaps more announcements are yet to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.37.6 (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That's possible, but remember that Australasia was skipped during the Elevation Tour too. It may simply be uneconomical for them to tour down there with this kind of set-up; there's no way to really know. As no official announcement has been made there really shouldn't be any mention of it possibly being skipped, though preliminary reports seem to indicate that will be the case. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And if the tour runs over two years, they can always change their mind. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Very true; they did that with some Vertigo Tour concerts, if I recall correctly. Japan and Hawaii I think. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read that Australia would not be included at all (can't remember where that was though). This is different to the JT and Elevation tours where they always meant to come but didn't in the end (although in the case of the JT tour, it did mean that Australia had an almost 3 month tour and Sydney alone got 9 Lovetown shows - a much better set). In 2001, the floating Oz dollar was very low which reduces the financial incentive for big acts, whereas by 2006, it was a lot stronger. The Oz dollar is now closer to 2001 levels and thus big acts are becoming less financially feasible. (having said that, the once again low dollar is a great buffer for our export economy in this world recession - but that's off-topic). Also, we only really have 4 or 5 big cities compared to Europe or US, which means overheads are spread thinly making it less economic still. --Merbabu (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that as the band is planning a tour of South America in 2010 I would say that will link in with an Australasia leg; with the traditional finish in the Far East/Hawaii. Also from an economic point of view the Santiago, Chile to Australia air route is very well established; so from an operational point of view it is very much achievable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.192.200 (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

True. I had a thought that, simply, Australia has not been mentioned at all - nothing has been said at all. So it's not a no and not a definite yes.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25966755-5006024,00.html the preceding link suggests that U2 may be coming to Australia in 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.84.84 (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

U2360°

The only source to call the tour "Kiss the Future" was Billboard. U2's official website mentions "U2360°" as the only name of the tour. If anything, this article should be renamed "U2360°" or "U2360° Tour" and mention somewhere that the tour is "also referred to as the Kiss the Future tour". I know we consider Billboard a reliable source, but I think the band's official website is much more reliable when it comes to subjects related to the band themselves. Unconscious³ (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but it's also worth noting that in an interview (I believe it was on French radio a week or so back), the band revealed that the tour would take its name from a lyric on the album. There is no "U2360°" lyric, but "Kiss the Future" is very similar to a lyric in "Get on Your Boots." I realize it's OR, but there is some speculation in the online community that "U2360°" is simply a placeholder name until Tour details are actually announced. In either case I'd suggest that for now we follow WP:IAR and leave it as it is, since we'll know either way in two days time and there doesn't seem much point to me in having to move the page twice within 48 hours or so. MelicansMatkin (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, leave it as it is and await further developments. Once official announcements and promotional materials appear, it should become clear enough. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Re "U2360", "Kiss the Future Tour" did sound a bit lame and obvious for U2 especially with this new so-called new "experimental reinvention" album.--Merbabu (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

See U2 360° Tour on U2.COM --Eivindgh (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else, I think this article has set a record by having six different names in its three days of existence ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Tour dates

U2.com only lists the dates up to September 24 at Giants Stadium. Since there is no reliable or verifiable source to back up the claims of the Washington, Atlanta, Houston, Tampa, Dallas, etc. shows, I've removed them. I know U2.com mentions that the band will play those cities, but they don't specify when or where. Unconscious³ ([[User talk:Unconscious³|talk]]) 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I recon this is a official announcement: Announcing the U2 360° Tour @ U2.COM Hencer, reinstalling all stated locations. --Eivindgh (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant. It doesn't specify when or where any of the shows after the Giants Stadium date will be played. Nothing about FedEx Field, Reliant Stadium, Rose Bowl or any of the other venues mentioned in the list of dates that was previously in the article. Unconscious³ (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems that some US/Can locations were taken out during the day... I have a screendump of the page showing conserts until Oct. 28. Let's leave them in for now. --Eivindgh (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The trouble there is that the link as been updated, meaning that the information was removed and cannot be sourced. I recall seeing a list stating other cities that the band are scheduled to play though; why not simply use that and state, underneath the table, "the band are also scheduled to play in ..., ..., ..., though no dates or venues have yet been confirmed"[source]? MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If the dates were removed, it might be because they're not 100% certain. I appreciate that they were on the website, but now they're not, and according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability, The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. We cannot cite a source for the Sept 29-onwards dates, as U2.com simply does not list them at the present time, therefore I think they should not be included in the article. If U2.com adds them to their list again, we'll add them back to the article - but until then, we don't have any reliable sources to back those dates up. Unconscious³ (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So why not do as I suggested above? This clearly shows that the band will be playing Atlanta, GA; Charlottesville, VA; Dallas, TX; Houston, TX; Las Vegas, NV; Los Angeles, CA; Norman, OK; Phoenix, AZ; Tampa, FL; Washington, DC and Vancouver, BC; its just the dates and venues have not yet been announced. KIf nobody has any objections, I shall edit it in now. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree to that with no problem. I misread your original comment - sorry about that. :) Unconscious³ (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No problems at all, I do that all the time :) MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Research in Motion sponsership

I found this regarding Research in Motion's sponsership of the tour; I think there's some good stuff in here, but I can't figure out how to incorporate it into the article. It's some good stuff though. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I was already planning on adding something about the Apple split and RIM partnership ... I've added that now ... as for this, I can't quite tell if this 'Alan' is a WP:RS or not. However, if the U2/RIM partnership does produce something tangible in the mobile music experience space, then there will surely be mainstream news reports about that when it happens. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know Alan Cross is a reliable source; he works for the Canadian radio station The Edge, which his blog is a part of, and he has had a few exclusives beforehand. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see now the Alan Cross article; learn something new every day. I've added the Bono quote, and I've moved all this into its own section. Modern large-scale tours aren't just an artistic endeavor, but pretty much a full-scale commercial enterprise of their own, so a section for this kind of thing is warranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'm glad that you were able to get the information into the article because I couldn't for the life of me figure out how best to incorporate it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hahah, wow

Amazing. Two DYK about U2 on the front-page in 24 hours. That must be a record! Well, kudos to everyone for putting together a great article, and to Wasted Time R for nominating. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

360 Stage

Yes used a 360 stage on their 1979 Tormato tour. AMCKen (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)AMCKen

According to this site, they were playing indoor arenas. A number of artists have played indoor arenas in the round, including the Top of the World Tour and the Soul2Soul II Tour just to name a couple. Even if you have an end stage in an indoor arena, very often the seating is all the way around. It's having a 360 stage and all-around seating in a large outdoor stadium that's different, and claimed to be new, with this U2 tour. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, for all the spin, it is a much more economical set up. It will cost much less than Vertigo or Popmart (both with large screens, visual shows etc) to put on. It's all about money. A little cynical of them I suppose. For what it's worth they did 'in the round' before in 1987 in Croke Park, Dublin; money for old rope. Indeed, I think the U2 shows in May 2005 was a somewhat 360 set up. --213.94.192.200 (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

May 2005... I think that was still while touring the arenas, correct? This is the first time a 360°-stage has been used for a Stadium tour, not arenas. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello MelicansMatkin, regarding comments from 213.94.192.200 the concert in 1987 in Croke Park was in a stadium.--93.107.24.72 (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that was one concert. Again, this is the first time the concept has been used for a full tour. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pulled from article, this from User:82.170.232.178: "The concept of building the stage in the center of a stadium with the audience surrounding it has been done before by Metallica as can be seen on their 1998 video Cunning Stunts. This video is a registration of a concert in the tour supporting their 1997 album Load."

The Metallica Poor Touring Me (used to have an article, got deleted in one of the great tour article purges at AfD) seems to have been mostly in arenas, per this page and this page. Such a claim needs a stronger cite than was given. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The article states that "Only tiered football stadiums can be used with this scheme; flat fields and baseball stadiums are not possible venues". However, U2 360 concert tour date in Toronto will be played in a baseball stadium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.108.73.50 (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Skydome is a multi-purpose facility that can be configured for football as well as baseball, and thus presumably is okay for use for this stage and show. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Kinds of football

To be honest, I never understood why "Only tiered football stadiums (whether soccer or American football) can be used ..." was North American-centric, but I'm fine with "(whether football or gridiron football)" as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have the funny feeling that it was because of the use of the word "soccer" instead of "football". I'm glad that my edit appears to have been a compromise between the two however. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Now User:JD554 keeps reverting this, and we are left with "Only tiered stadiums can be used with this scheme; flat fields and baseball stadiums are not possible venues", which is illogical since baseball stadiums are tiered, just not the right shape for this show. I really don't understand why mentioning football stadiums is causing so much distress here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the part about football stadiums because it seemed to be causing grief - little did I know that I would cause more :-) - and it isn't really necessary to specifically say they are football stadiums. The part about baseball stadiums not being suitable immediately follows in the same sentence, but it could be made clearer by adding a "however" after the comma. Would that be acceptable? --JD554 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have belatedly realized that our Football article is a general one that covers all kinds of football (wasn't always this way), and thus no parenthetical about soccer vs gridiron etc is necessary. I think it's important to explicitly mention football stadiums, because McGuiness does in the source. So I've restored football into the description, no parenthetic, no geographical bias, hoping to leave everyone happy. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Restricted view?

What about sitting in the line of one of the supporting pillers? It won't be too 360 then?!--93.107.5.135 (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The supporting pillars are only there for set-up purposes. Once the show starts, they retract and the whole assembly just levitates in mid-air. As Bono says in the article, "We have some magic." Wasted Time R (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

While that sounds great if you look at the virtual tour of the stage at: http://360.u2.com/ the band get blocked at the four corner points. It will be good if you are right. --93.107.5.135 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm delighted I paid €130 and it was a very restricted view - however I feel no matter where one is seated or standing there is a 'claw' arm or a footbridge in the way. This should be highlighted in the article.--213.94.192.200 (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Source? First-hand accounts given on the talk page can't be used. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Four supporting pillars are a lot less obstruction than stacks of speakers on the side and a video screen array behind the band.

Njbob (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New article

This article has some neat stuff regarding the stage design that could be added. Specifically when the first designs were made, the sheer size of it, the sound system, and the logistics (particularly the purchasing of carbon offsets to reduce the enironmental impact). MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good spot, I've added a lot from the RS story to the article. Now if I can only get tickets ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Some more information, this time regarding the speed tickets were sold. Since I'm not a Hot Press subscriber I'll just pass along the @U2 link. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a free link at Hot Press. I've added this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What U2 mean to Dublin

A U2 home concert is the equivalent of Ireland winning the Grand Slam five times in the one season at home. It is like having three All Ireland Finals back to back. These aren't just Irish concerts, they are truly international events with fans travelling from Brazil to Canada, Australia to Japan -- this is Croke Park and the city of Dublin on show to the world. Just thought I'd leave it here for someone to put to good use. --candle•wicke 02:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Two edit disputes

User:154.20.15.132 is torqued off about the use of DMY formatting in the article's dates, but this is clearly called for by MOS:DATE#Strong national ties to a topic: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently." U2 is strongly tied to Ireland, thus the use of the day before month form.

User:154.20.15.132 is also upset about the use of "[[East Rutherford, New Jersey|New York area]]" and the like to denote U.S. stadiums outside of major cities. This was an attempt by me to stop previous edit battles between formulations that just said East Rutherford or just said New York. Based on the shape of U2's fan base, many readers (perhaps a majority) of this article are outside the U.S. and may well have no idea where East Rutherford, Foxboro, Landover, Arlington, Pasadena, etc. are. I was trying to get across the market where U2 was playing, not just the piece of land that the stadium happens to be in. But if other editors don't like this, then I believe at a minimum we have to give both the town and state for the actual locations, not just the town. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#United States, there are only about 25 major U.S. cities that can be identified by city name alone. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with your approach on both. Tvoz/talk 23:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree; I don't think, given the MOS standard, there is any need for a serious discussion regarding the date format. Simply chalk it up to inexperience and, should it continue, label it as disruptive editing against the established consensus and follow with the necessary warnings if necessary ({{subst:uw-mos1}} or {{subst:uw-date}} perhaps). Regarding the locations, I'd say just go with whatever U2.com lists them as. Personally, I think it's an acceptable compromise for now though a discussion involving all the relevant editors to the article may help establish which solution is best. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The tour website uses "New York, NY" and "Boston, MA" and so forth. But those are technically inaccurate and practice has already show that editors come in and change those to the actual stadium locations. That's why I thought the "New York area" etc. solution would be satisfactory to both camps. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, tour merchandise, including posters and tour t-shirts, all say East Rutherford, not New York. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Space Station

Source for the link-up with the ISS here. Can't figure out where the best place to work it in is. Anyone have any ideas? MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging concert dates & box office income

I'd like to merge these two tables. Box office could be two coloumns to the right in the table. What do you think? Are1981 (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Gothenburg doubts due to Croke Park protests

Next U2 gig in doubt after Croke Park protests

• Irish Independent
• Irish Examiner
• Evening Herald

Protests

• The Irish Times
• RTÉ (news)
• RTÉ (entertainment)

More info on Croke Park shows

• Hot Press (stage times for 24th July)
• Hot Press (review)
• RTÉ (review)
• Irish Independent (review)
• The Irish Times (opening night review)
• The Irish Times (closing night review)

Even if Gothenburg eventually goes ahead perhaps these developments can be worked in somehow saying that doubts were raised. Anyway I'm leaving the sources here for those who work on this. --candle•wicke 15:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's referring to the residents attempting to slow or block the dismantling of the stage, right? I'm not sure how it could be worked in, but in real-world terms it shouldn't affect Gothenburg at all. There are three stages being used throughout the tour; one the band are playing in the current city, one that is being constructed in the next venue, and one that is being transported to the venue after that. The Gothenburg stage should already be being constructed, so the protests shouldn't have any affect on it. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I see it's getting some international coverage now. BBC News CBC The Guardian Taiwan NewsPA Anyway, I guess it's just a matter of waiting. --candle•wicke 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Twitter pics

Found a Rolling Stone article that nicely sums up The Edge's postings on Twitter here, but I'm unsure what section it would be best integrated into. Any ideas? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Split tour dates into new article

I think that we should split the "tour dates" section into a new, list-type article like List of U2 360° Tour concert dates or List of U2 360° Tour concerts. Right now the section is pretty big and its going to get probably two or three times longer as the tour progresses. A separate article for that would be helpful, with a {{main}} or {{see also}} template in the Itinerary section. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

hmmm. I am not sure. The list isn't that long which seems to be the main reason. If the tour had more dates then I'd be more in favour of it. It's nice if possible to have a single consolidated page. Consider that a separate dates list is more likely to be deleted. I am not necessarily recommending against it, just giving an opininon. --Merbabu (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be left to it's original design. It's lest complex. If you're worried about space, edit the article down. It has tones of unnecessary and repetitive information in it. 75.21.92.78 (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Why has no other tour article had this happen? Probably because it's not necessary - in many cases, not necessary to have the dates, or the list of dates alone don't justify their own article. If the dates are taking up too much space in the article, why not have them hidden by default and allow a "show" link to make them appear? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree; a "Show-Hide" link is probably the best way to go. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Suede67 (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold and gone collapsible, as well as separating it into two charts. If the latter looks too ugly, we can always recombine into one. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks just fine. Lets see what others have to say. Suede67 (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think collapsing the tour dates is fine. But I'd also argue for collapsing the boxscore info, which is even more detailed (and redundant, in a way) than the tour dates. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye; doesn't look like it's even been updated since the end of the first leg. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No need at all to make an additional page to accommodate it: it isn't even that long and shouldn't even need to be collapsed. Officially Mr X (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked and MOS:COLLAPSE states that collapse mechanisms are bad in terms of accessibility and "should not be used in the article body" (they can be in infoboxes and navboxes), so Officially Mr X is correct to undo them. And he's also right that these aren't that long now, although they may become so by the end of the tour. Personally, I'm agnostic on tour dates lists; I don't create them for tour articles I start, but I don't take them out if others add them. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As i said above, I'm also ambivalent about tour dates, but i don't support collapsible or scrollable structures. Sorry. --Merbabu (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of tour dates, it seems there may be a small reversion war brewing up over the last few weeks over the format the dates table is in. So I may as well ask here; do people prefer it in this format or this format? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to give us two different article versions, not two diffs, but assuming I'm looking at the right alternatives, I don't like the one that's broken up by supporting act. That's a relatively minor consideration that gets too much prominence in that scheme. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean since they show the two different chart layouts, but I agree with you that the current format is preferable. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Those links show two different WP diffs. I think it's easier to look at this article version compared to this article version. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ohh, I see what you mean now. Whoops. Well then, out of those two versions I guess =P. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is the box office info?

Someone took out the boxscores?!?!??! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.137.171 (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Fisher interview

Hey guys. I'm new to this whole Wikipedia thing, but could this interview with Mark Fisher (the tour architect) be somehow integrated into the article? He mentions that "part of the tour will finish in Australia and part of the tour will finish in South America". Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8200703.stm Cheers, Sunburned Streets (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Second North America Tour

Does anyone know when will they announce their 2nd North American Tour Dates? I missed their show in Toronto...and I hope to catch them next time they are near by...like Montreal, Ottawa or Hamilton. Thankx.Mercenary2k (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No official word yet, though rumours are starting to come around. The best place to look for tour news would be U2.com. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Second European leg

http://www.u2.com/tour/index/ The 2010 European leg is confirmed. "Following the success of the 2009 tour, U2 have confirmed that their acclaimed 360° Tour will continue in 2010. European fans who missed out in 2009 will have a new opportunity to experience the U2 360° Tour extravaganza with stops confirmed in Germany, Denmark, Finland, Russia, Austria, Greece, Turkey, France, Brussels, Spain and Portugal. Having just introduced the U2 Mobile Album, 'No Line On The Horizon', the band's 12th studio album, the 2010 tour will once again be sponsored by BlackBerry."RayOfLight (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd add the dates myself, but I'm not too sure how to do it all as I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. Perhaps a more experienced editor could help? Sunburned Streets (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't too familiar with the table system myself, but I've managed to figure it out and have added the 12 new 2010 dates. I did remove the unconfirmed North America 2010 and Middle East dates though, as there is not anything to support their inclusion at this time. The infobox has been updated accordingly too. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Tour images

Images of the tour are important to the article, since it (like most U2 tours) is an extremely visual show in addition to the musical content. Furthermore, images do not have to be taken from the front of the stage; the show is designed to appeal to audiences throughout the stadium, and those other perspectives are valuable for the reader to see as well. (Arguably, you can't fully appreciate the claw except from some distance back.) It's also okay to have to click on an image to get a full understanding of what it shows; that's true of almost all WP images, due to the article layout policy requiring thumbnail-size-only images in articles. Images in song articles are also valuable for these same reasons; our song articles tend to be visually dry recitations of release dates and chart statistics and remix track listings. Anything that can liven them up and illustrate points is all to the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:IMAGE - Poor quality images (too dark, blurry, etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, should not be used. Many of the images were too dark or blurry to actually see what the caption of the image was trying to convey. Furthermore, images shouldn't be used merely for decoration. That seems to be the case with most of these. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree a couple of them weren't too good ("Magnificent", "Your Blue Room" for example) and I'm okay with them going out. But to pull both the images of "City of Blinding Lights" (for example)?? Those do a good job of showing the Willie Williams' lighting scheme for them on two different tours, which is a major part of that song's in-concert appeal. What Williams does isn't just "decorative" and neither are the images that show them. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As for your comment "you can't make anything out of this image as a thumbnail", that will be true of almost any nighttime or low-light image on any subject. That doesn't mean they can't be used in WP. Real newspapers and magazines lay out images in much larger size relative to their stories than WP does. WP readers have to know about clicking to see the full-size image, otherwise they're going to think every article in WP is the worst-illustrated text of all time. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that image effectiveness shouldn't be judged on their in-article thumbnail size - if so, we could remove 90% of wikipedia images. That doesn't necessarily mean I agree with keeping these pics - I will wait and watch to see onto which side of the proverbial fence I fall. --Merbabu (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added back in the "With or Without You" image to this article. It's the only one that shows the revolving light on top of the spire, which is a key thematic effect towards the end of the show. Someone who saw this image elsewhere said it showed U2's visual presentation was "painterly". It's that sense of the show in the large that the article needs to convey. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of including some of these images, but not all of them. I think that the photographs of "Ultraviolet", "City of Blinding Lights", and "With or Without You" show a great deal in terms of how the band utilizes the stage for lighting. I'm less sure about "Get on Your Boots", "Crazy Tonight", and "New Year's Day". Although they are certainly good snaps, most of these (with the possible exception of "Crazy Tonight") use fairly straightforward lighting, and I'm not sure it conveys as well as it could. In the case of "Get on Your Boots" the stage is so dark that it is very difficult to see much more than the video screen. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As I saw it, "Get on Your Boots" didn't use straightforward lighting – it was rendered in black and white, mostly black, which is why the stage is dark. That tells you something about how they were interpreting the song. You can look at a couple of the European show audience videos on YouTube to confirm (although they had more residual daylight in the summer than the U.S. shows did in the fall). Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With "Crazy Tonight", they used disco-style lighting, to try to reinforce the club feel of the mix. A better photo would capture that a little clearer as well as show Mullin playing the bongo around the catwalk, but I feel mine is better than nothing until then. For "New Year's Day" I was trying to show Edge playing piano, but this is a case where a close-to-the-stage photo would be more effective. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the WOWY and COBL images should stay in their respective song articles for reasons mentioned above - but should be replaced if a better pic comes along. I think NYD pic is missing the mark though - nice idea and I agree with Wasted Time's thinking, but not that specific pic. In this case we should wait for a pic, rather than have Wasted Time's as a stop gap. As for this article, in my opinion UV pic is OK and WOWY is borderline - again, probably OK for now, but if a better one comes along... Not a comment on WT's photography - he just wasn't in the right place with the right gear. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The gear could have been better (needed a tripod) but I was in the right place. The large majority of the audience sees the show from some distance, and it's designed to look good from some distance, and that's what we should depict (in addition to the cool shots of Bono and Adam mugging up close). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers on the Bono/Adam shot; I got lucky with that one. Maybe the issue is placement? I find that the "WOWY" pic does look a bit awkward immediately underneath the "Ultraviolet" shot. Since the aim of that image seems to be highlighting the discoball on the spire, maybe cropping it and moving it underneath the "TUF" video screen shot would work? Either way, could we stop with adding-removing-adding-removing and just try to sort it all out here? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The long upright shape is actually good from a graphics perspective to use in a long text section – and cropping it sort of destroys the point, which is to show how high the full stage is over the actual music (I moved down a few rows during the encores as non-fans left so I could get this perspective). The NYT review of the show said the stage was part spaceship, part insect, part cathedral; I was trying to capture the last aspect here. And we are trying to sort it out here, but one editor keeps taking unilateral action. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now about the image. Yes, it serves it's purpose quite well in illustrating the size of the full stage, but I do still think that it would work better in the "Stage" section as opposed to "Concert setlists" (though Merbabu's re-alignment works fairly well I think), even if only because that specifically mentions the height. I was planning on adding a "Reception" section soon, taken from a bunch of links I've gathered in my sandbox. I think there's a NYT review in there, so maybe if we keep the image where it is for now and then shift it down once a Reception section is integrated? That way it could fully illustrate the NYT description. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, it can go in any section. And yes, a "Reception" section would be a great addition. U2tours.com's show entries have lots of links to reviews, if you need any more (you probably have the opposite problem). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that The Unfortgettable Fire image could be replaced with an image where you can better see the video screen descending. At the moment it looks more like a slightly bend curtain than a spherical video screen that "folds out". I reckon an image like this would suit much better because it actually shows fully descended video screen reaching as low as the heads of the four lads on the stage. I could later upload my own picture, for example :) ZooKristaps (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the current screen-from-below image because it gives an idea of the screen's inner workings; that's why it's good for the Stage design section that it's located in, as it illustrates the accompanying text. For illustrating "The Unforgettable Fire"'s overall video and lighting effects, it's not so good, that's why I think the one that I've restored to the The Unforgettable Fire (song) article is better for that purpose. The image you pointed to is extremely dramatic because of the sky and deserves to be somewhere (if there are rights to it), although I don't think it captures "The Unforgettable Fire"'s particular visual theme quite as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the purpose of the current "The Unforgettable Fire" pic is to show the video screen descending. The bottom part of the screen is already separated, while at the top the panels are all joined together. I put it in the Stage design section for that reason, since it shows the manner in which the screen descends. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a Reception section; it isn't as long as I thought it would be from the reviews I'd collected, but I'm sure more information will be added over time as information regarding its legacy will also be integrated in there. The "With or Without You" pic can be switched in now; I'm just not sure on whether the caption should be changed so that it reflects the purpose of the image. Though (and again, this is no slight on your photography), would this image from Commons perhaps work better for that purpose? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say my "With or Without You" shows the mood better and the rays of light from the spire clearer. The Spanish one is taken later in the song, when more of the audience is lit and the scene is less dramatic. On the other hand, the new up-close Bono-and-steering-wheel-during-"Ultraviolet" photo may make my longer distance "Ultraviolet" unnecessary. (Best of all would be a photo that captures the laser beams actually extending away from the suit, which neither of them do.) Wasted Time R (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I like your picture because it shows the extent of the lighting on the stage, while mine is focused mainly on the steering wheel. If it's the lasers you're after I did also take this one, but elected not to use it as it looks a bit more blurry and Bono is mostly hidden by the smoke. The shruken effect still isn't particularly clear. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That one doesn't show the steering wheel as well, but overall I like it better – the smoke captures the mood better and the slight blurriness captures the actual usage better – Bono was constantly in motion with, or relative to, the microphone. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

More stage info?

Might be some good (previously unrevealed) stuff in this article. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there are some really great details about the stage's construction and the show's production here. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Glastonbury edit war

I don't want to continue this current edit war so I'll open this discussion instead. It is naturally mentioned on U2.com that the band are playing at Glastonbury, but that does not make it a part of the tour. If you look at the actual tour dates you will find that it is not listed; see for yourself. I will also note that, although they are not official sources, neither U2Gigs or U2Tours lists it as a part of the tour. No source that I have seen says it is part of the tour either. The Glastonbury Festival is just an extra concert that they are playing in between tour dates. It is no more a part of U2 360° than Live 8 was part of the Vertigo Tour. Until there is an official announcement from a credible source (U2.com or Live Nation) that explicitly states the Glastonbury Festival date is a part of the U2 360° Tour (ex. the U2.com Tour Index adding the Glastonbury Festival to the tour dates), it is nothing more an assumption and shouldn't be included.

I will note that I am not adverse to mentioning in the Itenarary section that part-way through the third leg they performed at Glastonbury, but since it is not part of the tour I am adament that it should not be included as such. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a close call. There's a difference between benefit concert appearances such as Live Aid or Live 8 concert, London, where an artist typically only plays one to four songs and often appear even if they have no record or tour going on at the moment, and festival appearances, where major acts often play a full set or very close to it, especially if they're the headliner, and usually don't appear unless they are already out on tour. Festival appearances are included in Coldplay's Viva la Vida Tour, in Springsteen's Working on a Dream Tour (including Glastonbury), and so forth. I presume the difference with U2 will be that the claw won't be with them at Glastonbury. And that's probably why the Glastonbury appearance isn't listed on their tour page, so that fans don't think it will be. But if in other respects the appearance is similar in length and content to a U2 show, I would definitely consider including it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Melicans reasoning, it's apparent that it is not considered part of the tour however, a mention in the article is appropriate. If on the other hand,as Wasted says, the relevant sources (ie, U2) end up categorically saying - ie no Bonoisms (Songs of Ascent will never be released) - that it is part of the tour and the setlist is a U2 360 setlist, then maybe it should be reconsidered. --Merbabu (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

More tech stuff

If anybody understands any of this techy stuff, there's probably some good information regarding the way they mix the sound and such that could be incorporated. It's all gibberish to me, so I post this in the hopes that somebody else understands it. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Box Office Data Incorrect

Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly, but my understanding is that the box office table shows every show on the tour as sold out? If so, that's completely and totally inaccurate. I know for a fact the Houston show did not sell out, as I work at the venue in question. I'm sure this was the case for many other shows during the US tour. High ticket prices and a weak economy ensured only a few US shows in major cities sold out completely. If we're going to post inaccurate data, I nominate the box office table for removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.207.229 (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that Billboard has reported inaccurate information in the past (such as the incorrect tour name), and if the box office data is any indicator, perhaps they are not a reliable source of information. I would like to see the box office data as released by the band (verifiable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.207.229 (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:V; we can only go by what the sources tell us. Many of the seats that were sold likely went to business executives who never actually used them. It seems to be a common practice. Just because not everybody who had a ticket actually went to the concert it does not mean that they were not all sold (though I must admit, I would not be adverse to removing the box office table). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but as I mentioned earlier, I work at the venue and was present the night of the show. Tickets in several price levels were still available at the box office during the performance. While its not unusual for promoters to release previously reserved tickets immediately prior to a show, there was never a point when tickets were unavailable to the public. Hence, it didn't sell out. Either the number of tickets available is inaccurate, or the number of tickets sold, but the table information is definitely inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.207.229 (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, WP:V; we have to post information that is verifiable, which is unfortunately not always what is true. Unless there is a reliable source (something like Billboard, Rolling Stone, etc.) which says otherwise, we can only post what the information says. As I said before though, I would not be adverse to that table being removed, so if as you suggested in your intial post you would like to see it taken down, feel free to be bold and make the edit yourself. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to the pop music industry, verifiability is often not truth. I've been to shows that were listed as 'sold out' when there were clearly sections of empty seats. I've read newspaper reviews of shows that said song X was played when in fact it wasn't; the reporter had to leave to make a deadline and incorrectly assumed that a well-known hit was played later. I've even read a newspaper review of a show that said person Y was on stage when in fact he wasn't; when I emailed the reporter, she said she had relied on outdated press kit material and hadn't realized that Y had dropped off the tour earlier due to a personality clash. So it goes. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies and thoughts on the subject. I attempted to remove the content as suggested by MelicansMatkin, but the edit was reverted by another fan. Oh well, I havent the tolerance for an edit war. Maybe the band will release official statistics at the conclusion of the tour.