Jump to content

Talk:Asylum (Disturbed album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dude527 (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 30 August 2010 (→‎Need to improve: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Meaning Behind Asylum

[1]... this info is relevant for the article? --201.207.245.14 (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum track running times?

Where did the information about how long each track is come from? Are you affiliated with the band or the label? I don't see anytihng in the source listing that points to a specific place on the web where this information is available. It is not on the band's official website or on Amazon. If you're going to add info to this article, please cite your source(s)! Beretta89 (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Album release date

The official release date of this album is Tuesday August 31st 2010. This is the official date as stated by the band as can be currently seen at the bands official website http://www.disturbed1.com. This page has a section titled "Release History" which is reserved for other(worldwide) release dates. The main release date should be reserved for the official release date which as stated above is Tuesday August 31st 2010. There have been many edits setting the release date to Monday August 30th 2010 for the reason that it is the first "world wide" release date. That is also not accurate as the album will be released on Friday August 27th 2010 in Australia and Germany. Setting the main release date to anything other than Tuesday August 31st 2010 should be treated as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimv1983 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US release date is not the only important one. Please read Template:Infobox album and WP:V. Do you have a source for the Australian release? BOVINEBOY2008 06:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated that the US release date is the only important one. I said it is the OFFICIAL one. The album was recorded by the band Disturbed and produced by Dan Donegan the guitarist of the band. The band OFFICIALLY stated that the album would be released Tuesday August 31st 2010. If you are going to use the earliest date you should use Friday August 27, 2010, the release date for Australia and Germany. You can see those dates in the "Release History" section with citation along with the UK release date. Also, the only source listed for the Monday August 30th 2010 is a magazine and not official word from the band. Jimv1983 (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jimv, August 31st is the official release date, all others listed at the bands website are not present, and can only be found using third party sources. This isnt the proper date to use because it is American, just because it is official. I have changed the list to include both, with the official date first, the earliest date second.
Another point that is misunderstood here, the 27th isnt the worldwide release date. It is the earliest. The worldwide date is the one in which a majority of all countries release it, and we have absolutely no source stating any date as the 27th, 31st, or otherwise. John Holmes II (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay John. How about this? From the documentation of this template, "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section." BOVINEBOY2008 19:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now the date is showing August 27th 2010. All the date other than August 31st aren't even from creditable sources. Metal Hammer magazine is hardly a credible source. Magazines get information wrong all the time. The only actual credible source is the actual band and their managers/producers/record label. Jimv1983 (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We consider magazines to be reliable, I'm sorry you don't. We also use third-party sources, not primary as you are suggesting. Please review WP:RS and WP:3PARTY. BOVINEBOY2008 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a magazine(or other non official source) gives a date that is not verified by the artist and no official date has been released I can see using that date, although I think a more appropriate date would be something like "TBA", "TBA 2010" or "Summer 2010". In the case with this album the band has released an official date. That date takes precedence over all others not because any location is more important than another but because it is OFFICIAL. While a magazine might be a reliable source in some cases it does not take precedence over the bands official release date. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Jimv1983 (talk · contribs) appears to be altering Template:Infobox album/doc in order to align it with his point of view in this discussion ([2] [3]). I find this inappropriate. Jimv1983, please do not drag your dispute onto other pages or alter the template documentation to attempt to win your argument here. Bovineboy2008 and John Holmes II are correct: the release date should be the earliest verifiable date that the album is made available to the public, regardless of whether it is only available in specific countries on that date, and later in other countries (even if the band's home country is one of the later dates). We do not use placeholder text like "TBA"; that is totally unprofessional and unencyclopedic. Nor do we use seasons in place of dates, as Wikipedia has a worldwide audience and seasons are not uniform across the globe (for example, it is currently August which is summer here in the United States but winter in Australia; therefore "Summer 2010" will have an almost 6-month difference in meaning for readers of 2 English-speaking countries). If no release date for this album can yet be reliably verified, simply leave the field blank until it is. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did update the Template:Infobox album/doc because it makes more sense to list the official date as the main release date. I agree with IllaZilla (talk · contribs) that dates like "TBA" or "Summer 2010" are not good to use but I have seen those used on other pages and figured it might be better than nothing until the official date is known. --Jimv1983 (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should not change the template documentation without first establishing a consensus to do so at Template talk:Infobox album. The infobox is used in hundreds of thousands of articles; changing the field instructions will have a project-wide impact. Longstanding consensus is to use the earliest verifiable release date, which does not always necessarily correspond to the release date given on an artist's website. It doesn't get more "official" than being able to walk into a store and buy it. Internationally-released albums (as well as films and video games) frequently have different release dates in different countries. The artist may advertise one release date on their website as it reflects their home country or the majority of their audience. However the record label (or distributor, as there are often different distribution labels used in different countries) may release it on an earlier date in some countries. The earlier date should be used, because the album is, in fact, officially available for purchase in those countries on that date. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←The recording artist has the final word of "official" release date, they created the music and hold copyrights to it, any other date is a deviation from the bands official statement. Any non-official release dates should be put in the "Release History" section. This my not be the established rule but this is Wikipedia, those rules can and in this case should be changed. Sorry for not going through the appropriate steps to change the template. I have never edited a template and was not aware there was a strict protocol to do so. Also, I completely disagree that a magazine such as Metal Hammer is a "verifiable" source. Sorry for the trouble but when I come to the page of the new album of my favorite band and I see information that I know is inaccurate I feel the need to change it. --Jimv1983 (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to mention that approximate dates such as "Summer 2010" are used all the time here. When this page was first created it listed a release date of "Fall 2010". --Jimv1983 (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Metal Forge, 2, 3? BOVINEBOY2008 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://neveragain.disturbed1.com/ --Jimv1983 (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The recording artist has the final word of "official" release date — Actually they don't in most cases, the record label does. As I said, labels routinely set different release dates in different countries (same goes for films, games, etc. etc... almost any popular media you care to name will have a list of different release dates in different countries). There have been many, many cases where an album's official (aka artist- and even label-declared) release date here in the States was a day or two behind its release in some other countries, just as there have been cases where an international artist's albums came out earlier in the States than they did in the artist's home country. That's why we go with the earliest verifiable date; that's the date that the item itself was released for public consumption. In this case there are clearly some reliable sources verifying that the album is coming out earlier in some countries than it is in the States. This isn't unusual. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Living After Midnight

The version of this album I have has Living After Midnight (Judas Priest Cover) from the recent Metal Hammer CD as the final track. Is this a proper bonus track? IF so can someone add it to the page please? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.137.157 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you buy the album, or download the album? Illegal downloads sometimes tack on additional tracks, or just make stuff up altogether. Allmusic does confirm a hidden/untitled bonus 13th track for the standard edition CD, but iTunes and Amazon list the 13th track as "Ishfwilf." Fezmar9 (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I purchased the record because the shipments arrived at the local store and my ex gave me an early copy, the final track is indeed Living After Midnight (Judas Priest Cover). But just 48 hours until it's in stores so I wouldn't bother taking photos or stuff. Kevon100 (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that "Ishfwilf" is just a digital bonus track, since only digital sources list that as the 13th track. If the packaging or liner notes explicitly refer to the song as "Living After Midnight," then you could add this information and cite the physical album using the {{Cite album-notes}} template. If not, then we should wait for another source to verifiy this information. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ishfwilf is infact the U2 song "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" and I didn't get that track so more or less I agree with your proposition and ideas. Kevon100 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, it might be best to wait until another source can be found anyways. When I said "Ishfwilf" could be a digital only bonus track, that was just my own little theory. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just bought the UK standard CD album and it has a 13th song not listed on the cd case or manual - it just says Track 13 when I play it, its length is 5:26 but from the start to 1:35 there is no sound, with the music starting at 1:36. 82.36.166.73 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need to improve

This article is hilariously bad in many ways: Necessity of certain information, accuracy of information, citations of information, lead section is hilariously terrible, formatting, the list goes on. So I figured, as a long-standing editor of previous Disturbed articles, I'll help out a bit and make a checklist of things that should be done to tidy up, and do what I can for the article directly.

  1. Style and lyrical themes: This section jumps right into what "Another Way to Die" is about. It shouldn't do this. It should first give an overview of what Asylum as a whole is supposed to be about. I believe I remember a couple of different places saying Draiman titled the record Asylum because of the duality of the word: The album is about bad things in our world, yet we're supposed to feel safe in the world also. This should be explained prior to explaining any song themes.
  2. Style and lyrical themes: The section can and should be expanded. I can think of several instances where Disturbed discusses Asylum musically, rather than lyrically. We should keep the emphasis on the meanings behind the songs lyrically, but there should also be a fair amount about the musical elements behind the songs. I know the references exist.
  3. Promotion and release: Formatting is horrible. Last few bits read like a list.
  4. Promotion and release: Comprehensiveness of information here is really lacking; the promotional campaign surrounding Asylum can be better fleshed-out than by a simple paragraph. This can be majorly expanded. Again, I've seen the sources myself that could be added here.
  5. Track listing: First off, I recognize there is a dispute over "Ishfwilf" and I want to get this straightened out. Though the song is technically a cover of "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For," I have a German import of Asylum, and Disturbed renamed the track for this album (also of note is that this track is on every edition, not just iTunes; it's a hidden track). Titling it properly in the track listing will not create confusion; it will prevent it. All that needs be done is to clarify that the song is a U2 cover in a different (prior) section, in the track listing, and to link the song during all occurrences. Remember we're going for factual accuracy, not reader convenience. It should rightfully be titled "Ishfwilf."
  6. Reception: Could use massive improvement. I recognize the CD releases in the US tomorrow, so not many reviews are currently available, but what's currently in that article is horrendously written, formatted, and explained. Needs general improvement and more reviews (as they become available).
  7. Lead section: This is a big one; technically the lead section is supposed to be like a "mini-article"; a comprehensive-yet-brief view at all important points that exist in the article. As such, there should be little to nothing in the article that isn't at least mentioned in the lead, and likewise nothing should be in the lead that's not in the article. That said, the lead needs massive expansion and fixes, preferably after other fixes are made.

I have to go now but this list stands as-is for now: These are things that could and should be done to improve. I will do what I can to help, but I figure, to help the article I would post a list so that others can recognize what needs to be done, and do it. I will expand and clarify this list later. Thank you for reading it and contributing to the article. The Guy (edits) 20:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asylum_(Disturbed_album)&oldid=381946307"