Talk:Disturbed discography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured list Disturbed discography is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 11, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
March 31, 2009 Featured list candidate Promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 12, 2009.
Current status: Featured list
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Discographies (Rated FL-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Chicago (Rated FL-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Metal (Rated FL-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Rock music (Rated FL-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Forsaken b-side?[edit]

The song Forsaken, originally written by Jonathan Davis, vocals performed by David Draiman, does NOT belong in a Disturbed Discography. Much original research, AND facts suggest this.

1. Look on Amazon, it says "2. Forsaken - David Draiman of Disturbed"

2. On iTunes, it says "Song: Forsaken, Artist: David Draiman"

3. Jonathan himself stated that he had already recorded the songs, but they couldn't be released so he scrapped the vocals track on the files, had different vocalists perform the songs, and insert their own vocals over the already-played music, meaning Disturbed did not play the music, David Draiman provided the vocals, the rest of the band wasn't involved at all.

4. Compare the track of Jonathan performing the vocals, and David performing the vocals - exact same music, different vocals, suggesting the music wasn't re-recorded.

Now, to the issue of the third Indestructible single. Nobody provided a reference, I Googled it, found nothing. I went on the official website, and found nothing. Official MySpace, nothing. Either someone provides a reference, or this track will not be listed under singles. dude527 (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

RIAA certifications[edit]

There seems to be a little bit of edit warring going on over what the certifications are. It looks like there was a source stating that Indestructible had sold 500,000 copies. I will not dispute whether or not they did in fact sell that many copies or not, but just selling half a million copies does not certify an album gold. There are more steps involved in official certification, and more information can be found at RIAA certification. The RIAA has an official website with a searchable database where you can look up certification information, and is currently the source provided. It states (as of July 17, 2008): The Sickness certified 3x platinum, Believe is 1x platinum, Ten Thousand Fists is also 1x platinum and Indestructible has yet to certify. Additionally, the single "Down With the Sickness" has certified gold. I hope this clears up any confusion and ends any warring. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Indestructible has officially been certified Gold now. dude527 (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Indestructible certified Gold Don't know if I need a reference but here that is. dude527 (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we should add this source until the RIAA site reflects the same information. This site does appear to be a good source. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. But my computer is being slow as moleasis, (however you spell it) so I can't right now, it literally takes 5 minutes between pages. dude527 (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how frequently the database is updated, but if maybe a few weeks go by and the RIAA does not indicate that Indestructible is certified gold, it should be removed. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The RIAA site hardy updates at all. I have checked various bands regularly for the past year and no changes. I know that doesn't make it true that they hardly update it, but I'm pretty sure they don't do it often. Disturbed92893 (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The database has been updated, Indestructible is now there. Removing citation now. dude527 (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It's probably not that the RIAA is slow, it's that the album has not actually certified. As we have seen here, Indestructible was announced to be gold and within a week or two was posted in the database. A band has to get the record label to pay the RIAA to do research on record sales, then reach a verdict and declare an album gold or whatever. Most indie labels don't really buy into this, some bands don't care, other bands wait until they know for sure they can certify platinum (if you'll notice in the database, some bands certify gold and platinum on the same day). The RIAA database is THE source for certification information in the US. If it does not say something has certified, it hasn't. (Additionally: technically, not even 500,000 people own Indestructible right now. Certification is based upon number of albums distributed by the label - not actual number sold in stores.) Fezmar9 (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

SoundScan for albums[edit]

If anyone has a subscription to SoundScan that it would be a contribution to add the amount to copies sold in the U.S. Just a suggestion. Disturbed92893 (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Indestructible - gold in six weeks[edit]

This belongs in the header as it is intended to summarize the artist's release history. An album certifying gold in six weeks is very significant and has to do with the artist's release history. Why delete it? Fezmar9 (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd change the wording, not delete it. Sounds like a POV - "only" six weeks - makes it sound as if its faster than other gold albums, or that the author is trying to accentuate that this gold certification is somehow quicker or more significant than others. A simple "It was certified Gold on [date]" or "It was certified Gold six weeks later" is fine. - eo (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
What warrants it being notable here, if it's in the album's article? This is about the general discography, and it shouldn't mention total sales of only one specific album. I propose making an album sales chart, or just taking that information out, as it is out-of-place, and is a detail that's not needed in general discography, and should certainly not go in the page summary. The Guy complain edits 20:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
eo makes a good point, it does sound like a POV. I would delete it, as adding only it to this article, is a POV conflict, seeming as though the article is trying to make it seem more significant than the others. The Guy complain edits 20:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Six weeks is faster than other albums. Especially when everyone today illegally downloads music. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:OR, you seem to be using your own judgment. Please, make it fair and make mention of the dates that all of the albums went Platinum/Gold, or take the information out. Otherwise it's a POV violation. The Guy complain edits 20:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Six weeks is fast so to speak, but remember certifications are a) based on shipments, not sales and b) record labels have to apply for gold and platinum certifications to the RIAA before they are awarded. There are a zillion albums that ship platinum on their release week... doesn't mean that all million copies sold. I also didn't look closely enough to see that no other albums' certs were mentioned here. Just make it as even and fair as possible. - eo (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the information on the grounds that it is a POV violation. Please do not re-add it unless you can balance it out, relaying information about all the other albums' sales and certifications, too. If you revert it, I will revert it back, please don't. The Guy complain edits 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The Sickness - Released on March 7, 2000 - Gold on August 30, 2000 - 25 weeks
  • Believe - Released on September 17 2002 - Gold on November 4, 2002 - 7 weeks
  • Ten Thousand Fists - Released on September 20, 2005 - Gold on January 6, 2006 - 15 weeks
  • Indestructible - Released on June 3 2008 - Gold on July 17, 2008 - 6 weeks

Release date information taken from wiki, gold information taken from RIAA database. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but publishing your own opinions is against the rules. It's valid to type that it was certified Gold on July 17, but when you say something similar to 'a mere 6 weeks,' that instantly throws the balance off, unless it's been well-researched and published by several reliable sources. The Guy complain edits 21:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
What if it was phrased, "Indestructible was certified gold by the RIAA six weeks after its release - the fastest gold certification awarded to any Disturbed album to date." I don't understand why this needs a reliable source when it comes down to examining numbers. Do the numbers themselves not hold enough truth to prove the statement valid? Fezmar9 (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:V - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Instantly, that phrase collides with what you said; it's not a mere number examination -- Every statement needs to be professionally published. Whether it's true or not is not important. What matters if it's verifiable. The Guy complain edits 21:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, that statement you just wanted to add, would still disbalance the article -- It's trying to add unneeded emphasis on an unpublished fact, which is a violation of 2 rules. The Guy complain edits 21:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between the statement that I am trying to add, and "The band has released three consecutive #1 debuting albums, a feat that has only been accomplished by six other bands, including Van Halen, U2, Metallica, Dave Matthews Band, Staind and Pearl Jam."? Both statements are an analysis of numbers, both statements include the word "only" to emphasize significance, and both are related to Disturbed's discography. However, my original statement had a source, and this one does not. I am not trying to sound hostile, I just really want to understand this. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The original statement has a source in the album's article (not sure why it was taken down here), that said only six other bands have accomplished this. It's direct wording from the source on the album's article (which I will add back here after I type this). What you are trying to do is take words from your source, and put them in a different context, adding an unpublished fact. The Guy complain edits 21:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The source for my original statement said "in just six weeks" where my statement said "in only six weeks" what did I add? Fezmar9 (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I just took another look at your source, and you're right. However, notice as I said above, let me quote it. "Well-researched and published by several reliable sources," notice the keyword "several." It's still quite unbalanced. I propose you create a new section titled "album sales and certifications," or something to that effect, where you can simply state the numbers and dates, and allow the readers to come to the conclusion themselves that it happened "fast." But also, notice that Ten Thousand Fists was certified Gold AND Platinum on the same day; evidence that certifications happen only when the RIAA gets around to it, which is not consistent, therefore the implication that it happened "fast," is not necessarily accurate, as it only depends on when the RIAA certifies it. The Guy complain edits 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Stricken and DWTS in soundtrack list?[edit]

Should these video game appearances be removed from the list? (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


Can't Video Game appearances be added to the "Other Appearances" category? Why isn't it worth mentioning? --Gtadood (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Because those appearances are generally trivial, and if we were to name all of the games that had a Disturbed song on its soundtrack, we'd have a long trivia list of information that ultimately doesn't expand the reader's understanding, much. The appearance of the songs in the game is noteworthy in the game's article, but not in this one. --The Guy complain edits 07:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I concur. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 10:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Night[edit]

Their song The Night was announced as the next single. Why did you take out the chart positions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalMagnet1987 (talkcontribs) 03:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

something incorrect[edit]

ok. why is system of a down listed in the list of bands with 3 consecutive albums at #1 in the Billboard 200? they have 3 albums at #1 all right (Toxicity, Mezmerize, Hypnotize), but it wasn't consecutive. Steal This Album, which came after Toxicity, didn't reach #1. I suggest they get removed from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalMagnet1987 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

Why does the lead section basically give a run-down of the entire history of Disturbed? A lead is supposed to summarize the information in the article, so it's not supposed to state information that the article doesn't. It's really unnecessarily lengthy, and should arguably be cut. --The Guy complain edits 20:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"If you can update or improve it, please do so." --Cannibaloki 02:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that, really. I had no idea after my year-and-a-half on Wikipedia that I was free to improve any article I wanted at any time, given I had the time. That's the issue. I don't really know this article, and I don't have the time to learn. I just noticed that the lead was longer-than-standard, and I wanted to make sure the editors who knew and regularly edited the article were aware of this. Now, I'll edit if I get the time, but in the meantime, might as well make other users aware of the issue on the talk page, right? That way it could possibly get done sooner, and any opposition toward it can also get sorted out sooner. --The Guy complain edits 02:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
So nobody is up for this? Fine, I'll see what I can do. The Guy (edits) 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Disturbed compilation album[edit]

A 2010 compilation album was released, with This image as the cover, (you can also see it here with the back) but I haven't found references yet.

-тнєѕαℓχ - tคlк - ¢σηтяιвυтισηѕ 23:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)