Talk:Death Magnetic/Archive 3

Correct me if I'm wrong

But I thought "3x Platinum" meant "three million" But the world wide sales are just under 2 million, and two or three says that the sales were 3X Platinum. There is a mistake on someone's end, because the math doesn't add up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.215.167.106 (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviews (again)...

So, my main computer access is at work, and most of the sites that offer reviews are blocked. We're well over 10 reviews again, so before I go randomly deleting perfectly viable reviews, maybe someone else who can actually see these reviews should sift through 'em and delete....Arch stanton1138 (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the MEtacritic list, in the spirit of WP:WikiProject Albums#Non-professional reviews. I'm afraid that's all I'll be able to manage in the next 24 hours. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Albums#Review sites also lists Metacritic as a viable review site, as it lists quotes from professional reviews not published online.. I believe their Death Magnetic article included as such. Rehevkor ✉ 02:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I know it did, but it doesn't anymore. Also, it didn't say it was suitable for infoboxes -- if you go into the edit history, and read what was written about it, it simply said Metacritic is a good source to find other professional reviews, it goes on to say that it should not be linked in the infobox. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad, it used to. Rehevkor ✉ 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think any review by a heavy metal outlet deserves priority. I feel the review from UGO should go. Maybe eliminating the reviews that simply say "Favorable" from non-metal and/or interesting sources should go? Also, I'm going to remove the second Metal Hammer review since it's basically a duplicate. LuvataciousSkull (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

we got back up to 16 reviews, I just went ahead and removed the bottom 6, and added hidden text stating only 10 reviews in info box...Arch stanton1138 (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the bad reviews, like the one from pitchfork?

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/145305-metallica-death-magnetic

Paranoidhuman (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The review from DiscussMusic.net has been removed 3 times, and without just cause. It's a solid review, much more solid than some of the ones kept, especially the ones that don't bother to have links. The DiscussMusic.net review is more notable than those without links, and would do much more to inform the listener than something that gives absolutely no information. It would be greatly appreciated if it would just be left alone, and let the viewers of Wikipedia actually be informed.TheSkozz (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

can you provide proof that it is notable? i note that your attempt at adding an article for the website itself was deleted for being non-notable. Onesecondglance (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Proof that it's notable? Even Stevie Wonder could say that it's notable. It's easy. Simply click on the link, read, realize. Can you kindly provide proof how it isn't notable? I asked that several times for the DiscussMusic.net article as well, and it is always avoided.TheSkozz (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

notability is defined by more than just you saying so. go and read the notability guidelines - they will help you understand why both this edit and your repeated attempts to create an article for the source site are being deleted. Onesecondglance (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest getting a mind of your own, instead of always saying the same exact thing as your carbon copies. I've clearly read that stuff, as it's been shoved down my throat nonstop. I'm in compliance, so maybe you should learn the guidelines better yourselves. The review is full of information, and held in high regard by others. That's even clear to see on the link itself. Notable? Yes, yes it is. I'd suggest you brushed up on your definitions, and find something better to do than take away information from people who deserve to see it.TheSkozz (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

you're dancing very close to violating the three revert rule, no personal attacks, and not assuming good faith. if you are directly connected to the site in question, as implied by your passion regarding it, this raises a conflict of interest problem. if your site is notable, cite some evidence - i.e. independent sources - and prove it. otherwise you will find that your links will be removed. your site may well be amazing, and i hope it is, but until proven notable it ain't. Onesecondglance (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For one, this is Wikipedia. Isn't the whole point that we're not supposed to assume anything? I'm being nice here, and I stand with good faith. The same cannot be said with all of the discriminating individuals against me, such as yourself. But I'm working on fixing that, don't worry. Again, please explain how my review isn't notable, and the others are. Mine covers more than most others, provides more detail, etc. It's a LOT more notable than others. And to remove it is just a travesty. It's like innocent until proven guilty. Until it can be proven NOT notable, which it NEVER has been, leave me, and the review alone. Let it stand.TheSkozz (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You got it exactly wrong. Unless it can be shown that your review is notable it has no place in an encyclopaedia. And since you haven't given reliable sources mentioning your review forum so far, your editing is very disruptive both here and at Shogun (album). Stop it! --Amalthea^Talk 19:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

what he said. come on, stop with the personal attacks and provide some actual encyclopedic content. Onesecondglance (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, stop your discrimination, and the bias. If mine is to be removed, then many others, especially the others on the Shogun page should be as well. But no, only I'm chosen. I've explained how they're notable, and none of you can explain how not. So until then, stop your personal attacks on me, and let the REAL facts stand. If they can't remain, don't claim this to be an online encyclopedia.TheSkozz (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not personally attack other members. Please note that your site is most definitely not notable, and it does not belong here. WP:V or WP:OR (Forgot which) states that the burden of evidence is on the editor who edits. That means we do not have to prove you wrong, you must prove yourself right. Wikipedia does not work as an encyclopedia where many people are allowed to place false claims and non-notable content, and keep it there until someone else "proves" its not worth it. No, I'd suggest you read WP:RS, and the notability guidelines as well. Your review passes neither of those. --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm personally being attacked, not the other way around. I've proven the notability, and the lack of it has yet to be proven. I'm placing true information, yet false claims are chosen over it. I've already read that stuff, you robots. Quit trying to shove it down my throat even more, and learn to follow your own guidelines. There you go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdOOWIeVKDk And that. :)TheSkozz (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the burden of evidence lies on the contributor, not on the people trying to prove the contributor wrong. You cannot say 'well, you haven't proven it wrong, so therefore its right,' that's not how Wikipedia works, albeit these editors have proven you wrong through guidelines, which you've ignored. They've stated their compromise, but you're continuing to debate that it's unfair, to no avail. I've reviewed this entire debate twice over. You were the only one pointing personal attacks, while the others were defining the conflict of interest, which is not a violation. Your first violation was "I'd suggest you get a mind of your own." Up until that point, this debate did not violate. Also, I'd suggest you re-examine your intents here. You are telling people that they are biased against you, and that they are personally attacking you. You have no right to make these accusations -- Look at yourself. You're ignoring any guidelines that are posted against you, you are leaning against WP:CON and towards WP:OWN. You're obviously biased towards your own website, but I'm sorry. It can not be posted until you prove notability with reliable sources. I will not comment further unless this gets out of hand, or you provide the evidence needed to insinuate your site's notability. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, couple things...a)it's your own review, what credentials do you have that make you a credible and NOTABLE music reviewer?....and b) the website is a forum/blog style site, which automatically makes it inadmissable for Wikipedia....just because you think its notable, and give your own reasons that you think make it notable, does not mean that it is notable eonugh for Wikipedia, sorry...let's go ahead and end this discussionArch stanton1138 (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ehrm, seems someone who obviously dislike this album has changed all the ratings in the review window. Just thought I might bring this to your attention.. Broadbandmink (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

and folks have been deleting the Pitchfork review - presumably because it's not very complimentary. regardless, it's mentioned in the article and it's notable, so it should stay in the infobox. thanks! Onesecondglance (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look in the second archive, the Pitchfork review has already been discussed, and the prevailing thought is that the review is off base. I don't have a problem linking to a bad review, It just appears that that review is terribly unproffesional, just an outlet for the reviewer to bash Metallica the band, not the album....Arch stanton1138 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

pitchfork is not a professional site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.4.1.182 (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Clipping/Distortion issues

Ok, I'm going to compile a list of sources here (I'm including the ones from Archive 2 as well, for accessibility)

---

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/blog-death-magnetic-sounds-better-in-guitar-hero-173961 - This article (written by Chris Vinnicombe of Musicradar.com) summarizes the recent developments regarding the audio issues.

http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/09/does-metallicas.html - Follow up to Chris Vinnicombe's article.

http://uk.music.ign.com/articles/910/910469p1.html - Another article on the sound issues.

http://mastering-media.blogspot.com/2008/09/metallica-death-magnetic-stop-loudness.html - Mastering Engineer Ian Shepherd comments on Death Magnetic and the "loudness war".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/sep/17/metallica.guitar.hero.loudness.war - An article from the official website of UK based newspaper, "The Guardian".

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/09/18/fans-complain-after-death-magnetic-sounds-better-on-guitar-hero-than-cd/#more-7581 - Rolling Stone article discussing the sound issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.30.169 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.cnet.com.au/mp3players/mp3players/0,239036128,339292065,00.htm - Article written by Ty Pendlebury of Cnet.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.31.22 (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122228767729272339.html - Ethan Smith of The Wall Street Journal comments on the sound issues.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/soundboard/2008/09/metallica-album.html - Article by Randy Lewis of the LA Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.132.136 (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/sharpdarts/080925/ - The Chicago Reader reports on the sound issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.132.136 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I actually didn't look at this compilation until after adding a few of those sources myself. For now, this section should now have its fair share of reliable sources from all the relevant camps (technology, music, gaming). – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 21:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

it's worth mentioning that most of those links actually all come back to Ian Shepherd's comments. but i definitely think this section is justified now there's multiple notable sources regarding it. Onesecondglance (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a good demonstration of the differences between the Guitar Hero 3 and CD versions. Please stop undoing this in the article! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRyIACDCc1I&fmt=18 Sirblew (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Guitar Hero III Audio

I wanted to add that it should be worth noting that the audio is different in the Guitar Hero III version. LuvataciousSkull (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been? Thedarxide (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just made a clumsy edit

...regarding the fact that the whole album can be listened for free on the official website. I know this is 2008, but I still think this is a surprising and notable move coming from Metallica. However my edit definitely needs a bit of cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.28.87.67 (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If it can be referenced, a reference establishing its notability, then it can be added. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the reference to the website, but as for notability, I'm actually surprised that none of the reviews link to it or invite people to hear for themselves. Anyway, maybe a link somewhere else in the article would suffice, but I think it's useful information for people coming here to get info on the new album. I know Wikipedia is not this and that, but the article will need heavy editing anyway to get rid of all the pre-release rumors. Maybe the info could stay till then...85.28.87.67 (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Metal.

Do not change the genre to Heavy Metal. Since Thrash Metal is a sub genre of Heavy metal, Any source that would indicate that it is Heavy Metal is a generalization. And especially don't put Heavy Metal in front of Thrash Metal. It is primarily Thrash Metal and i could find hundreds of sources that agree with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgardner1123 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The parent genre goes ahead of its sub. Especially in a case like this where the album has only has sporadic spurts of thrash metal style. Wikipedia is all about accuracy... not hopeful starry-eyed fanboy pov. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back to both thrash metal and heavy metal because their previous 3 albums were just regular heavy metal and even many sources quote that this album shows much more of their thrash roots, going back to it. but still some elements of the album sound like load, re-load, st anger. so please whoever it is that keeps changing it back and fourth stop it because this album still is thrash metal, whether u like it or not. there were even up to 5 sources for it originally if u look at the history, so theres no excuse to take it away. Okram 09 (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The same s#$t about St. Anger. The sources say that's Heavy Metal album, but it's generalization. St. Anger is Groove Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.164.52 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why Wikipedia is built on references from reliable sources and not on the incorrect personal pov of individual editors who want to add false information (like groove metal) into articles. This article is about a heavy metal album... that's just the obvious. But there may be contention among editors who feel that the sporadic thrash elements of the album justify thrash being added to the box. So references have been added to support thrash being listed along with heavy metal so that, hopefully, it will cut down on the edit warring. It's a heavy metal album. It has thrash metal elements. So it is listed, and supported, as heavy metal, thrash metal. It just doesn't get any easier than that. And... that being said... the article is still being bombed by the "musically impaired" who keep deleting one or the other. That's just typical Wikipedia. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Heavy metal" would be preferrable since people feel the need to insist on including "thrash metal" with citations in the infobox. You really should avoid doing that; it's ugly and draws unnecessary disproportionate attention to the matter. People seem to have to prove that this is a thrash album, but there's no denying this is a metal album. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be heavy metal first and then thrash metal or speed metal as second. Its a heavy metal album with speed metal style in some tracks. 217.40.9.149 (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You want to keep it simple. Stick with one genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple is fine. But not at the sake of accuracy. Its a heavy metal album. But 2 or 3 songs have thrash sections in them. And 1 song is a full on thrash song. So having both is accurate. But you are right in that it is primarily a heavy metal album. 216.21.150.44 (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thrash is a subgenre of heavy metal, so it's metal either way you slice it. That's why you could be general and just say "heavy metal". Hell, you could just say "rock". WesleyDodds (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Though what some people do not understand is that when an album is stated as just "heavy metal", it implies that it is original heavy metal, which the album is not, and only has some elements of it because black album, load and re-load were original heavy metal. then once people write wat i just wrote evrybody spits back by saying 'it says heavy metal because its "metal", doesnt mean its "traditional heavy metal" although the whole point about genres and subgenres in wikipedia is to be SPECIFIC, and thats all im trying to help with. all the time people go through so much to make a bands genre specific, then why do all of a sudden people not care about it, and just like to just put it as heavy metal? fair enough with bands like cradle of filth, their genre is debated. metallicas genre IS NOT. and this album IS thrash metal, though still has elements of traditional heavy metal because basically metallicas new sound is all of their albums to now added up mixed into one sound. and rob trujillo even stated in an interview that this album is "the missing link between and justice for all and the black album". Okram 09 (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. "Heavy metal" refers to the genre as a whole, including its subgenres. same thing with punk, alternative rock, or rock music as a whole for that matter. This is a common misperception about music genres. Also, now we have like five citations in the infobox. Whatever is decided on to include, we should not include inline citations in the infobox. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

omg are you joking me? do i have to spell it out for you a million times before you can understand? i said that i am aware that when albums are stated heavy metal, it can just mean metal in general as a whole. why all of a sudden just label this as metal as a whole wen with evry other band being argued about their subgenres? READ EVERYTHING I WROTE FIRST CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU SAY HOW "WRONG" I AM. Okram 09 (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to your line "Though what some people do not understand is that when an album is stated as just "heavy metal", it implies that it is original heavy metal, which the album is not". I was emphasizing that the viewpoint that the phrase "heavy metal" only refers to a "traditional metal" is wrong. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thrash/Heavy Metal

Here on Wikipedia we use reliable valid sources to determine a song's genre, not point of view from some wannabe metallica critic. Until you can find a source to indicate it is Heavy Metal, it stays at Thrash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgardner1123 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Too bad that the album is several songs, and some are more thrash than others. C'mon, The Unforgiven III definitely isn't thrash metal... --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! ! 11:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither is "The End of the Line" or "All Nightmare Long" or "Cyanide" or "The Judas Kiss". And even the songs that broach thrash are not consistent. The rest of the songs are like heavy metal songs with thrash breaks surrounding the guitar solo sections. This album is first and foremost a heavy metal album. But it certainly has enough thrash metal parts to warrant inclusion of thrash metal in the infobox. Wesley Dodds' proposal has a ton of merit in that just showing heavy metal is perfectly valid. Like he said... just having "Rock" in the infobox is 100% accurate since heavy metal is just style of rock music anyways and not really a "genre" on its own. But I concur with the way the edit history/consensus is pushing that thrash metal needs to be included along with the more prominent heavy metal... just in the hope that it keeps the edit wars down to a minimum and helps cut off all the bad weeds that have been worming their way into the article. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't everybody just change it to rock as the genre and quit complaining over the sub-genre? You could include anywhere in the page that it qualifies for other sub-genres as well as just rock. But rock would be the actual genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.233.12 (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it doesnt specify the genre. every band on wikipedia is researched through thoroughly just so there can be a settled subgenre to label them as. Now all of a sudden it doesnt matter with metallica? This is a metal band just like other metal bands. Okram 09 (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow no! if it's a thrash metal album and you put heavy metal with it, you might as well just put heavy metal with every thrash metal album there is. listen to master of puppets and youll see this is not that less thrashy. you find the same characteristics and just because their past albums dissapoint, you are taking down this one too. unforgiven is just something they do, don't bring the album down because of that one song. the day that never comes is a ballad like fade to black or sanitarium or one or whatever, it's just as thrashy as any of those, as it has the light opening and the heavy ending. the rest of the songs are totally thrash. They aren't suicidal tendencies, machine head, arch enemy level of thrash, but it's still up there. there really is no need to have both of them but I suppose if that is what the great wikipedia gods would like, than I am no one to oppose it. 69.39.106.36 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Enough constant edits

To settle this whole thing, i think we should keep it as both heavy metal AND thrash metal since there are several sources for each of these genres being part of death magnetic. currently as im typing this the page is already as i hoped, both thrash and heavy metal are listed there, though i think that like on the cradle of filth page for example, that the genre on this page should not be allowed to edit, because its going under constant changes ALL THE TIME. Okram 09 (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

by the way, this idea of just makng it called 'rock' is so pointless, just because heavy metal is looked at as a subgenre of rock. if so, then why dont we also change the genre of Cannibal Corpse and Rotting Christ to just 'rock'? its the exact same situation, because just like metallica, they are metal bands. its not right to label them as just rock. you might as well say that wikipedia should stop using genres entirely, and just list every artist as just 'music'. the whole point of genres and subgenres in wikipedia is to be specific. Okram 09 (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

International sales/achievements lacking citations

There seems to be an awful lot of edits from IPs adding sales figures and gold/platinum achievements without ever quoting a valid source (or even using a proper edit summary) There is no verification for any of this data. I propose that there must be a verifiable reliable source added with any/all of this information. It makes it appear as though the worldwide sales are going gang-busters and this album is going to be a top seller for the year. But none of it can be trusted unless there is a proper citation to back it up. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Unforgiven III

Ok.....where in the world are the Canadians and the Australians getting the Unforgiven III as a single?....there's no citations on the singles section at all...Arch stanton1138 (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing Canada and Australia, that's where in the world they're getting it. It charted in Australia, so there's a citation now, i'm not sure if it's an official single though. kiac (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"the first album to include an instrumental track since ..."

"To Live Is to Die" is an instrumental track. "To Live Is to Die" is on ...And Justice for All. …And Justice for All came after Master of Puppets. No Metallica album after …And Justice for All had an instrumental track. Ergo: "Death Magnetic [...] the first to include an instrumental track since …And Justice for All" is true, no matter who wrote the lyrics of "To Live Is to Die".
Call it WP:OR, but true it is. --Amalthea^Talk 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion other than hope that the IP sockpuppets find a consensus and go with it. An instrumental with lyrics??? I've always thought of the track as an instrumental. Nut Wikipedia isn't about editor opinions... it's about verifiable facts. The song doesn't really have lyrics... it has words And they are not sung... they are spoken. So where are the verifiable laws of music that state that an instrumental can still be an instrumental... even if it has a spoken word section??? To properly go with how Wikipedia is supposed to be... the line about "first instrumental since their last instrumental on X album" should just be turfed until it can be verified that an instrumental can/can't have spoken words. The current edit war over this petty piece of text is nearing uber-stupid. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I can find reliable sources calling it an instrumental song (the LA Times in a Pay-Per-View article apparently), but there seems to be huge dispute. I agree, this should be removed altogether, there probably can't be consensus about either way, and it's just such an incredibly minor point. Out with it. --Amalthea^Talk 18:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I am not entering this correctly- at any rate an instrumental is a song containing NO lyrics (see websters)...that said I agree that this is a silly argument but remain convinced that it is of note - this marks the first true instrumental since Cliff Burton's death; "To live is to die" contained words credited to Cliff. Suicide and Redemption is the first true instrumental since Burton's death...I've edited the article with what I feel is a good compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.172.154 (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider them to be lyrics. For example, On the Run (Pink Floyd song) is considered an instrumental even if there is the voice of the woman announcing flight and the voice of the man saying "Live for today, gone tomorrow. That's me". And would you also consider (Anesthesia) Pulling Teeth not to be an instrumental because of the words spoken at the beginning (sound like "Face all, take one" to me, even if I'm quite sure I'm wrong because that doesn't seem to make sense)? -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  19:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it says "Bass solo, take one". 17:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent point; though I would counter that in the case of Pink Floyd the "vocals" are samples, and in Anesthesia the voice comes before the song starts (like an artifact from the recording process). Finally, in neither case are lyrics credited in the album sleeve. Again, I understand that this seems to be nit picking; I just feel it's important to note that the band chose to include lyrics credited to their recently dead band mate in what would have otherwise been a instrumental. I think the way it's written now looks great and is, again, a good compromise. Someone else please share their thoughts on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.24.78 (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would personally classify this as an instrumental. Apparently, the Grammy awards would as well. In 2002 Godsmack was nominated for the category of "Best Rock Instrumental Performance" for their song "Vampires". This song like "To Live is to Die", contains spoken words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.90.2 (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... "Bass solo, take one". But I digress. Are spoken words lyrics. And where is the verifiable source that says they are/aren't. In either which way... the text should just be removed to say their first instrumental since the 1980s. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Just changed it, lets quit the exercise in ridiculousness....Arch stanton1138 (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I support this wording, it nicely focuses on the important part. As it is right now in the lead it takes up too much room, and distracts from the topic. --Amalthea^Talk 20:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this matter? It's either you have a citation stating this or not, you cannot cite songs as a reliable source. I think the information should be removed altogether. --The Guy _complain ^edits 18:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

is this notable?

I noticed that All Nightmare Long is in dropped d, not standard like the rest of the album, is this notable since everything says the album is in standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.133.35 (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a source, I'd say go ahead and mention it.evildeathmath 17:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not that notable because theyve done it before, as do many (especially metal) bands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean that the songs tuning is notable, but the article states that the album is all in standard tuning, maybe that should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.159.51 (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

External link suggestion

As an editorial assistant at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting a link to this article about the fan-revised version of Death Magnetic known as Death Magnetic: Better, Shorter, Cut. However, I would like to recommend the piece on its merits, and hope than editor will find the time to examine the piece and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the external links section. It could be a useful reference for gauging the public reaction to Death Magnetic. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! [1]
Mike harkin (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fifth Consecutive

Death Magnetic is not Metallica's fifth consecutive album to debut at number one. They haven't had five consecutive albums debut at number one. The Black Album, Load, and Reload all debuted at number one. Garage Inc. and S&M debuted at number two. St. Anger debuted at number one. Death Magnetic is Metallica's fifth album overall to debut at number one. Wangoed (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the fifth consecutive studio album, Garage, Inc. and S & M are not considered studio albums.

They had many headlines about this, it's their fifth consecutive, and that's why its a record. If it was only their fifth, they would not have set any records at all. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case then I'll change the wording to reflect "studio" albums. Currently the word used is "release." Wangoed (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish to point out that in all statement's of the band's record, not once have I seen DMX mentioned as an artist who previously accomplished the same feat, namely, his first five albums all debuted at number one. The wording is "band" when referring to Metallica, but the implication is that they are the only musical act to accomplish this. I don't know. I can't think of a way to clean it up without seeming like an ass. 208.81.93.99 (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

GA nom

I want to nominate this article for a GA review. Unless anybody objects, I will do it tomorrow night. If I do it before you can object, its always possible to remove the nomination from the page, though, just make sure to contact me. Anyways, I'm creating this thread for discussion as to what can be done to improve this article to GA, and all that. SPEAK AND BE HEARD! --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

good idea Dude... having had a cursory read through i note there are a few problems with tenses being mixed (past, present, future all within the same paragraph) and one or two orphan sentences - e.g. the mention about All Nightmare Long being the WWE theme song needs to be better incorporated into the article, as it currently just sits there, unconnected to the surrounding text. overall though, i'd say with just a little bit of wiki love GA is definitely achievable. Onesecondglance (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah give it a go. Going to need to reference all the single chartings and album sales properly prior to the nomination though. kiac (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a short read through to make sure its adequate. I've done a few GA reviews in my day, and I'd pass this article if I were not a contributor. I'll change some things, and I'll definitely leave out the All Nightmare Long WWE thing, as was a previous consensus. If anyone wants to find references for charts, I'd be grateful. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is rather a mess; there are little citations. Everything has a citation, but I'm afraid no citations are cited multiple times. Every statement that could be challenged should have a citation, whether or not it means citing the same reference for a different part of the article. I do not know how to explain it. As an example: It is cited that Rick Rubin is the producer, but there is no citation about Robert Trujillo; despite it being common knowledge it must have a citation. I do not have the time to cite the page properly. I could put it up for GA, but I'm sure the reviewers would tell you the same thing. With time, I'll apply it to GA, but right now, I'm just gonna work on little pieces. I do not have the time, nor patience to go through and make sure every statement is correctly cited. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've tagged everything that needs to have a citation in the article. They may already have references which state them, but those references need to be cited directly to them. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Unforgiven III page deleted

I made a page for the Unforgiven III, and some dick deleted it. WHY? It contunues the Unforgiven saga, and there are other songs that have pages that aren't singles. Is this what wikipedia is about?

TremorChrist19 (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Non singles aren't usually notable... like this one. If there are any non-single songs with articles that are as non-notable as this one feel free to AfD them. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? Who determines whether or not it's notable? It's a single in Aus and Can, it continues a saga of a mini series of songs. I guess this isn't an encyclopedia that anyone can edit if everything is just burned down by imbeciles. TremorChrist19 (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take a long look at WP:IINFO and WP:NPA. (Also WP:MUSIC#Songs, I guess.) Rehevkor ✉ 19:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What a load of bullshit if you ask me. Thanks for nothing. TremorChrist19 (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, have a nice day. Rehevkor ✉ 19:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may, if you believe these would be the criteria for articles about songs, I suggest you clean up half of Wikipedia because any random album article has most of it's songs linked to articles of there own... Singles of not. 83.161.11.89 (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I try to, but Wikipedia is a big place. Rehevkor ✉ 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Woah this rehevkor character thinks hes wiki police, someone hand the man a batton and some tear gas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.37.187 (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am! Maybe. Rehevkor ✉ 01:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be really helpful if somewhere in the policy it explained why it's harmful to have articles that aren't necessarily notable. I understand that it was for space issues originally, but I'm not sure that's relevant now, and it would stop a lot of people (who could be great contributors) from getting this disenchanted with the site if the reasoning for the policy were made _very_ clear. Luminifer (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

All Nightmare Long is the WWE No Mercy theme song

Why the hell haven't we included this yet? Fourtyearswhat (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not notable? I think it was in their, didn't fit in with the prose, badly placed, so someone deleted it. Is the WWE really relevant? I don't think so. kiac (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

thats your opinion. wwe is one of the biggest franchises in the US, and whether you like it or not millions of people find it relevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.133.35 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's nice. We'll still need a reliable third party source to establish the notability of this. Rehevkor ✉ 18:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if the admins here don't find it notable, I guess it's not. They're leading the fascist dictatorship here, remember that. TremorChrist19 (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with the guidelines, why post? Just to personally attack the admins? In this case not even one is involved. Please refrain from posting nasty comments in the future. --The Guy _complain ^edits 19:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am simply stating honesty here. If it's unimportant to you, you can just wipe it out with no one to answer to. It's not an issue of guidelines, but to you it's probably not an issue at all. Good ol' authority. TremorChrist19 (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

actaully the WWE is unarguably highly notable. I'm including it in here. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source to confirm that? If not, it's not notable, NOR verifiable. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it is arguable, because there's arguments above. The WWE has nothing to do with Metallica's album, it's the kind of thing which belongs in a useless list of pointless trivia, which isn't appropriate in the article or wiki. I'm not saying the WWE is not notable in general, i'm saying it's not notable here! There's no way you're finiding an article that provides it notability, there simply wouldn't be one. This article already has enough notable info without including trivial information. kiac (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

IT'S NOT LIKE EVERY METALLICA SONG IS USED AS A WWE THEME! I'd say the WWE is highly notable, and the fact that the admins are being pissants over one piece of information is appalling. "OH NOES, CLUTTER!!!!11!" TremorChrist19 (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What admins? There's no admins here. You need to cool it and read what we're saying, you keep saying that you would say it's "highly notable", you're opinion doesn't mean shit here, it needs to be referenced. If you want to write your opinion, go find a blog and sign up :) kiac (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, the people that regulate edits and dictate what they think is important. I guess you have to be one of those fascists to have your opinion mean shit. By the way smartass, I have a blog. Thanks for the suggestion. TremorChrist19 (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone can "regulate edits" buddy, it's just a matter of sticking to the relevant guidelines which have been agreed upon by members. Oh and blogs aren't reliable sources on WP, so your opinion still doesn't count :P. General observation: You are an angry person, maybe go to the beach and relax a little? kiac (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You moron, I never correlated my blog and editing this site, and if I post news in my blog, I make damn sure it's backed up with sources. Not everyone can revert shit like some people can. By the way, you're also an idiot for assuming everyone lives near a beach. TremorChrist19 (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop this. Right now. If you can't make constructive contributions then don't make contributions at all. Rehevkor ✉ 15:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why make a contribution when one of you will snap it up and revert it, anyway? I'm not fucking stupid. TremorChrist19 (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You're learning. Been wonderful working with you. Goodbye. Rehevkor ✉ 16:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you feel that the theme song for WWE isn't notable enough for this page, I will go and delete any mentions of WWE PPV themes on other bands sites. Let there be consistency. TremorChrist19 (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

k Rehevkor ✉ 17:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems as though you guys didn't listen to me command so I had to include it in myself. And whoever said 'it is arguable' is undisputedly wrong. Anybody can argue against anything, it doesn't make them right. Asking if the WWE is notable is like asking if the NFL is notable. There is a reason why the WWE is mentioned in a variety of band articles. If you don't know that big corporations like the WWE is notable then you have no right to be here. Log off, get informed, and then come back here. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but where's your proof? I didn't ask if they were notable, I know they are notable, I was asking, "what makes them notable in this article?" You have put forth no evidence of notability, and the statement wasn't even cited. It fails to comply with the original research policy, the verifiability policy, and the notability policy, and I will not allow you to re-add it until you, A) cite it, and B) cite its notability in this article. Saying "its popular" is not a reason to include it. Some might simply disagree, therefore it is your opinion, so it fails to comply with the reliable source policy, too. --The Guy _complain ^edits 18:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Where's my proof? Right here - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=all+nightmare+long+no+mercy+wwe

Now again. I'm going to include it in here. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, a Google search being reliable? Bah! That's far from it. The general consensus seems to be not to include it without establishing notability, and you're not in order with this. To me, it seems like you're leaning more towards WP:OWN and away from WP:CON. Do you even read these links we link you to? And if so, do you comprehend them? If you did, you'd understand why we can't add it, its not even absolutely vital to this article, and I'd suggest that you give it up in the spirit of WP:CON. --The Guy _complain ^edits 15:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable third party source to establish the notability of this among all that? You can't just claim a Google search is a source. Proof is one thing, but it still needs to be notable to be mentioned. And I'm not just talking about the notability of WWE, I'm talking about the notability of them using the song. Have any news reliable agencies reported on it? Any of the music magazines? It looks to be all the links in that search are from WWE themselves, forums and blogs. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. HTH HAND Rehevkor ✉ 12:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Just give it up guys, you can throw the links at him all you like, obviously he can't read, either that or his head's too far up some wrestler's but. We NEVER said your stupid wrestling wasn't notable, we said it wasn't notable IN THIS ARTICLE! Read the links and stop pretending you have any idea at all. kiac (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

dude, why do you make it personal towards wrestling fans, you probably like things i think are stupid, but i don't take it personally to insult you. i don't know if this is extremely notable, but maybe in trivia or something along those lines? its not like your gonna find an article that proclaims the notability of the song being used as a themesong for a ppv, it seems like the reason is because people dislike wrestling, not the notability. every other song used for ppvs is noted for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.133.35 (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and i don't go around saying the things i like are notable in things that have nothing to do with them. Trivia should be avoided, an article written up to a standard of this one does not require a silly little list o facts, that's not wikipedia is for. Anyway, this is a stupid discussion on one line of the article. kiac (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is your source - http://www.wwe.com/shows/nomercy/ and another one if that ain't enough - http://www.wwe.com/shows/nomercy/exclusives/nomercytheme SuperSilver901 (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are self-published sources, and therefore fail the verifiability source policy and the reliable source policy. Even if they didn't fail said policies, those sources don't confirm any notability. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering it is WWE's official site (since it does say "official site of World Wrestling Entertainment! " at the top) it doesn't fail verifiability and reliable source at all. Plus I don't care if this makes the article I put it on there so the debate will end SuperSilver901 (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

According to both WP:V WP:RS, a first-party source (or a source who publishes news or information about itself) is not technically "reliable." It says only third-party sources are reliable. Those are first-party, not third-party sources. --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It helps all of us if you actually read the guidelines we link you. Rehevkor ✉ 21:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even talking to you it would help us if you mind your business okay man? Thanks if you do. Now Dude527 what sources are reliable SuperSilver901 (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As Rehevkor said, it helps if you read these: WP:V WP:RS, they tell you what are reliable -- third party sources. --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest you take it to your own talk pages if you don't want the view of others. Rehevkor ✉ 21:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Death Magnetic/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article requirements: Y A relatively complete infobox N Cover art in the infobox Y A lead section giving an overview of the album Y At least one section of informative prose other than lead N A track listing (for "start" class), containing track lengths & composers (for "B" class) N A list of personnel (specific band members (for "start" class), guest musicians and technical (for "B" class) Y Categorisation at least by artist and year

Last edited at 01:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 20:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)