Talk:For Lies I Sire

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Speedy deletion?

This article has been marked for speedy deletion, something I simply do not understand nor agree with. I don't see the difference between this article or any other article on a future album. It holds a lot of information and I would understand a speedy deletion if all known about the album was its title, but this article includes song titles, musical style and information on a brand new band member, as well as several different references. If I am wrong about this, or if there's any way to change the article into the better, please inform me (and other contributors) here before deleting the article. - Aki (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to establish why it belongs in an encyclopedia. If you enter wp: notability and wp: references in the search box, that might help explain in detail. But basically you need to establish that this subject is notable, by showing it's been covered substantially be mainstream media (newspapers, magazines etc.). I hope that helps! Sorry about the intimidating tags. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/For_Lies_I_Sire. - Aki (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fall With Me

I wonder whether that track is the first track or the second on For Lies I Sire. The official site says it is the second, but there are plenty of other places that say it is the first track. What's your thoughts? BT^C 02:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should follow the official site. - Aki (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, come to think of it. BT^C 01:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is first on the official website news.--Fake42 (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked

Someone deleted the fact that the album has been leaked and is now available, as it lacked notability. I think it does not, I think it's very notable that the album is released, even if it's illegal. It change quite a lot that the music is no longer a secret, but has been listened to by many fans. - Aki (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. If in case it is notable, then add a source next time. I remember going through unsourced statement after unsourced statement (none of which were notable) on other album pages concerning album leakage, and it got irritating after a while. For instance, go through the histories of The Crucible of Man: Something Wicked Part 2 and The Way of All Flesh (album) to know what I'm talking about. BT^C 02:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fall With Me: the 2nd Discussion

I can guarantee that Fall With Me was listed as track one on My Dying Bride's official website at one time. But I've come to the conclusion that Fall With Me is indeed the second track off the album. The mistake on the official site must have been fixed since then. It was in the news section of the website. BT^C 18:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll believe you if you say so - but I do think it was just an error: if I'm being honest, I downloaded a copy of this album from Pirate Bay, and "My Body, A Funeral" was definately the first track (although I realise that pirated stuff can hardly be considered reliable). Still, it seems that most of the evidence on the net is pointing to "Fall With Me" being the second track. Richard BB 10:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't someone just buy the album and check? :P I'll buy it wednesday, so I'll see then.. - Aki (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buying the album has crossed my mind before. However, I don't know if any of the stores in my city would carry it. I would like to get it off the internet sometime, I don't know when. And if a store in my area does have it, then that's cool. Also, its purchase would confirm the track listing, although I'm pretty sure that Fall With Me is track 2. BT^C 20:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic metal

There are anonymous userd editing this page claiming that ths album is gothic metal, and ot keeps being reverted, some of those reversion performed by myself. I had just done what another established editor had previously done when I was reverting those edits. However, the most recent gothic metal related edit by an anonymous user took place at 03:41 on April 18, 2009. I chose not to revert it due to the fact that edits of this nature have regularly taken place on this article and subsequently reverted. Also, let's consider the fact that a lot of the articles for My Dying Bride's albums have gothic metal mentioned as a genre of the album in its infobox. The reason the first person (Richard BB) reverted the gothic metal tag at 01:41 on March 22, 2009 was because it was unsourced. What should become of this predicament? Your thoughts? Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 04:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree MDB is gothic metal, but that doesn't matter. We need a citation.- Aki (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With that said, I think I'll revert the most recent edit of that nature then. It will be continued until there is a source to confirm this. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 18:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with having gothic metal in if a source can be provided - if it's true, then it should be easy to verify. Richard BB 21:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The allmusic review linked on the article appears to describe the band and the album as goth metal: "the goth and doom metal outfit's ninth studio offering since 1990" ... "a sound that pushes the doom metal attack of yesteryear toward the margin where it entwines sensuously -- and inseparably -- with gothic rock" ... "they've effectively created their own subgenre of goth while retaining enough of their earlier M.O. to keep old fans, while no doubt gathering to themselves a legion of new ones -- who have little to no use for doom or goth metal -- in the process." That seems good enough to me. --Bardin (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply a link to that review? Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 04:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already on the article, in the infobox under the subheading professional reviews. --Bardin (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's cool. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 03:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]