Talk:Ride the Lightning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Featured articleRide the Lightning is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 27, 2018.
Article milestones
January 29, 2016Good article nomineeListed
March 26, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 15, 2016Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Some feedback[edit]

  • What was the B-side to the "Creeping Death" single?
Doesn't it already says?
  • There doesn't appear to be anything on the impact the album had on other bands or the band's subsequent history.
Noted, I'll add that on my to-do list.


  • There's nothing in the lead about the music! Not even the word "thrash".
Added, but will add more.
  • I'd go into talking about the music before getting into the details of the recording.
  • I'd drop the recording costs.

Background and recording[edit]

  • The first paragraph crams a lot of information into one place and it feels like it jumps from topic to topic rather abruptly.
I'll further expand the background and divide it into more paragraphs.
  • remixed by engineer Eddie Kramer, which Metallica declined: do we know why?
Because they didn't want to?
  • Hammett took the album's name from a passage in Stephen King's novel The Stand : do we have more context?
  • which was noted for its one-dimensional sound: I'm sure there are people who disagree with that assessment—might want to rework or drop this (I'd drop it).
I agree, will modify it.
  • In 1984, the French record label Bernett Records misprinted the color of the album cover in green, rather than blue, and 400 copies with the green cover were pressed. Because of their rarity, this misprint caused these green albums to become collectors' items.: This seems to jump out of nowhere, coming after a discussion of Hetfield's lyrics. Perhaps consolidate release details in one paragraph?
I'll move that in the reception section, when I collect more information on sales.

Music and lyrics[edit]

  • The song encourages the "eye for an eye" approach: Does it really? I always interpreted it the opposite: a criticism that such an approach will lead to nuclear armageddon.
  • "For Whom the Bell Tolls" was released as a promo single: then it should be added to the infobox.
That was a promotional recording, not a single in the classic fashion.
  • "Fade to Black" is a power ballad: is it really? Superficially it has the slow, emotional verses against power-chordy "choruses", but ...
A number of writers call it, namely Popoff and Pillsbury.
  • the song begins with an acoustic guitar introduction and becomes progressively heavier and faster, ending with multi layered guitar solos: well, not really. It has an acoustic intro with electric soloing over it that, then it goes back and forth between moody, acoustic verses and high-power electric choruses, then suddenly goes into a dramatic, thrashy section about 3:55, then finishes with all the soloing, not all of which is layered.
  • "Fade to Black" was released as a promo single: again, should be in the infobox
Same as "For Whom the Bell Tolls".
  • The song is based on a fast picked galloping riff: this is a Garden path sentence—the reader will expect something like "The song is based on a short story by such-and-such an author" and will likely have to re-read the sentence to parse its sense properly.
Changed to built.
  • wide-appealing lyrics: "Escape" has "wide-appealing lyrics"?
  • There's no description of "Escape"'s music or lyrics.
  • Exodus recorded and released as a demo: I'm not familiar with the "release" of demos ...? Does this mean it was a bonus track released years later or something?
Corrected, it was only demoed.


  • Ride the Lightning received positive reviews from music critics. AllMusic's Steve Huey saw the album as: I don't think it's a good idea to start "reception" with a review written likely 20 years or more after the album's release.
  • This section should make it clearer which reviews were contemporary and which retrospective, and arrange them better, probably in separate paragraphs. It should also have much more contemporary stuff.


  • At a gig in Portland, Oregon, Metallica covered "The Money Will Roll Right In" by Fang, with Armored Saint onstage.: why is this mentioned? There's no context—surely it wasn't the only cover they performed.
  • Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The 2009 photo seems out of place in a section about their '80s touring. Could we either have a period photo or remove it? --2600:1008:B018:BA2:1011:465E:A4B0:89B6 (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ride the Lightning/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll have this done soon JAGUAR  16:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

  • "the album moved half a million by November 1987" - sold half a million?
  • "Rasmussen, who had not heard of Metallica before, accepted to work on the album" - might sound better as Rasmussen, who had not heard of Metallica before, agreed to work on the album
  • "Metallica was apparently going to sign with Bronze Records" - 'apparently' is a weasel word, while I'm actually neutral on this matter, I would recommend removing it as any GA reviewer would mention it
Can I use "seemingly"?
  • "three weeks before they got in Copenhagen" - arrived in or got to
Corrected, went with the second variant.
  • "Elektra released the single "Creeping Death" in a sleeve depicting bridge and a skull" - depicting a bridge?
  • "Metallica finished 1985 with a December 29 show at the Sacramento Memorial Auditorium" - try Metallica finished 1985 with a show at the Sacramento Memorial Auditorium on December 29
  • "except "Creeping Death" by Hetfield and Kirk Hammett" - might be worth elaborated this to except "Creeping Death", which was co-written by Hetfield and Kirk Hammett
  • No dead links

This an excellent article. Truly, I could find almost nothing wrong with it and is already looking like pure GA material. I made a few prose suggestions above, so once they're all out of the way this should be good to go. Good article JAGUAR  17:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Jaguar, it was pleasure working with you.--Retrohead (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing them! This looks great now, so I'll be promoting. Good work with this Good article JAGUAR  14:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

RE: The Call of Ktulhu[edit]

Retrohead's version (which he/she's actually willing to engage in edit-warring and personal attacks over):

The song begins with D minor chord progression in the intro...

My version:

The track begins with D minor chord progression in the intro...

--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You offered no valid explanation why you want to make the change. Your belief that "The Call of Ktulu" is not a "song" but a "track" because it has no lyrics is nonsense. First of all, you've mistaken the song's title (it's "Ktulu", not "Ktulhu" as you wrote in the section's title), and secondly, you misspelled "piece" and wrote it as "peice", which makes me think that copyediting is not your strong side.--Retrohead (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Care to use this page for its intended purpose and defend your use of the word "song" to refer to an instrumental peice, or shall we just go back to my version?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Google's definition for track is "a recording of one song or piece of music" and nowhere it says anything about whether it has lyrics or not. If you have a printed dictionary, feel free to share. Back to my previous response–your claim is gibberish.--Retrohead (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I thought it was clear that the question here is not whether "The Call of Ktulhu" should be referred to as a track (as it clearly should be), but whether or not it should be referred to as a song, i.e. a short piece of music with words that are sung, a short metrical composition intended or adapted for singing, a single (and often standalone) work of music intended to be sung.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The "track or song" debate has come up before, and each side provided dictionary definitions showing why their side was right. While I prefer "track" or "recording," "song" can be used to describe a musical piece without lyrics. It really doesn't matter.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

As you say, "song" certainly can be used to describe a musical piece without lyrics (in, say, an informal discussion). But let's consider whether it should be used to describe this track in an encyclopedia (that hopes to someday be taken seriously by serious people). When editing, I personally like to have Wikipedia come out on the right side of every choice, important and unimportant alike, and I agree that "track" or "recording" are preferable.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Changed back to track. I think it's not very important issue, but since more than one think it should be track, I reverted it.--Retrohead (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

For Whom the Bell Tolls[edit]

Current version:

The lyrics were based on Ernest Hemingway's novel of the same name, which explores the horror and dishonor of modern warfare.

Suggested version

The lyrics were inspired by Ernest Hemingway's 1940 novel of the same name, which explores the horror and dishonor of modern warfare.

Thoughts?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

More than a week without objection. Making the change now.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't go that way pal. If someone wants to make a "controversial" change to the article, he has to be sure that someone else besides him agrees with that change. I don't think that the year when the book was released matters or changes the context of the sentence. It could've been released 1147 and still the sentence would have the same meaning.--Retrohead (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
No reason why this minor change which clearly is more accurate should be controversial. I thought it was pretty impressive that he waited a week instead of just boldly making the obviously helpful change. I do agree with Retrohead that the addition of the year of publication is irrelevant and doesnt need to be included. But the song is not "based on" the book but "inspired by" it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't oppose to whether he wanted to read "based on" or "inspired by", I'm fine with that. I don't think listing the year is necessary. In fact, it is a trivial information and not correlated to the album.--Retrohead (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
In 2016 a reader of an article about a 1984 album cannot be guaranteed to know what "modern" means in the above sentence. That is, unless you're presuming some knowledge of Hemimgway on their behalf. I'm unwilling to make that presumption. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I dont think it requires knowledge of Hemingway to understand what "modern warfare" refers to in the sentence or in general.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

At any rate, I think it's a good thing that Hairspray (musical)'s opening sentence currently tells us that it's based on the 1988 John Waters film of the same name, and that Life of Pi (film)'s opening sentence tells us that it's based on Yann Martel's 2001 novel of the same name. It'd be a good thing if the same level of clarity and informativeness could be seen here as well.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrohead, you've failed to explain what it is about this particular article that makes mentioning publication years so unacceptable within it. You alone have now removed the novel's publication year three times.[1][2][3] I imagine you have some very compelling and easily understood reason for this.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Well the reason of course cannot be expected to be any better than your reason to repeatedly reinsert it in spite of having convinced noone else that it is an important or even necessary addition. So both of you- stop editwarring. If either of you feel strongly that either inclusion or exclusion is the only acceptable solution then start an RfC about it and get some additional input. The onus at this point is on Gibson Flying V who is the one wishing to make a change which has been contested and which none of the two editors commenting on it have been convinced is necessary.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course the publication year is not necessary. You'll probably find that very little of what's in the article would qualifiy as such. I'm arguing that it's inclusion is worthwhile. Editors of the aforementioned articles and featured articles such as Carousel (musical), 300 (film), Blade Runner and Casino Royale (2006 film) would appear to agree with me. I'm sure no one needs me to point out that quality of arguments is of higher importance than quantity of editors who don't like it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Make and RfC and get a consensus. The quality of your argument is determined by their ability to convince. At this point you have convinced noone.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
If you would just imagine how your agruments would fare in equivalent discussions on the aforementioned articles' talk pages, you'll probably find that the year can be re-inserted right now without having to bother with the RfC.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
You obviously don't know when to quit. I guess you don't have a better thing to do around and keep bothering me with this foolish issue for weeks. Here's a simplified explanation how it works: you boldly add content, I disagree, you open a discussion. After opening a discussion, achieve consensus that you're right and rightfully add what you wanted in first place. You had such experience with The Call of Ktulu, so it shouldn't be too difficult. Until then, don't stubbornly add something that's disputed and don't play dumb when two people disagree with you.--Retrohead (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems to have gone just the way Talk:Ride_the_Lightning#RE:_The_Call_of_Ktulhu did. In the now lengthy absence of a single argument for why this article should be treated differently to any other article when it comes to this question of including publication years, can we now just go back to my version as per the opening remarks of this discussion?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus in favor of your version.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
No? Well I'm not sure if you've noticed this, but supporting inclusion are myself and FoCuSandLeArN, both with clear reasoning provided. You're neutral. HamedH94's contribution can be dismissed as nonsense, and Retrohead has shown that they'll knee-jerk revert any edit I make on this article (complete with incivility) for some personal reason that only they know. Looks like WP:CONSENSUS to include to me. But I'm guessing you need to hear it from an admin for some reason, not from me. I'm just unsure sure how to make one come along and tell you.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
If you again single handedly try to add a year, I'll be asking for administrative assistance at WP:ANI.--Retrohead (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
As cute as that "threat" is, Retrohead, and as tempting as it is to see how that would go for you, you must know this is going to turn out the same way Talk:Ride_the_Lightning#RE:_The_Call_of_Ktulhu did, with you self-reverting. Come on. Why all the time-wasting?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Your arrogance is mind-blowing. You want to ignore my explanation as nonsense? And why not ignore your arguments as gibberish? WP:ANI won't weigh on the year (added or excluded), but whether your attitude is constructive or disruptive.--Retrohead (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The needless lengthening of this discussion is what's disruptive and we have you to thank for that, Retrohead.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Should the year of publication of Hemingway's novel be mentioned[edit]

There is no consensus for including or excluding the information. In that case, the article should revert to the status quo before the RfC was raised, which is not to include it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One editor argues that it is important to include the year of publication when mentioning hemingway's novel "For Whom the Bell Tolls" as in this edit [4]. To be frank I don't give a fig myself either way, but the fact that someone would edit war on an article that is undergoing FAC review about such a trivial detail grates me. Hence this RfC. You are being asked whether the article should include or exclude the year of publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talkcontribs) 14:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Include - when mentioning works based on other works, including publication years appears to be a common practice, adopted in several featured articles.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude - I don't think listing the year is necessary. The reader won't have trouble understanding the context of the sentence because the year the book was released is not related to the song.--Retrohead (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude - i'm not a fan of music, but in film articles, when the phrases "based on", "inspired by",... are used, the year of the original work isn't mentioned. i think it's excessive. check the MOS and see if you can find anything relevant. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards include, per Gibson Flying V, and given that the time gap is so long I think such a tidbit would actually be convenient. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 10:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Include - It's helpful to the reader to see at a glance whether the work referenced is current or not. There are no policy grounds for omitting it.Martinlc (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

HamedH94, I'm surprised to hear you say, "in film articles, when the phrases "based on", "inspired by",... are used, the year of the original work isn't mentioned", as the discussion above includes mention of four film articles (three of which are featured articles) that do precisely that, indicating that it is a worthwhile and apparently widely-adopted practice.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

it's better to avoid discussion, cos its ineffectiveness has led to this rfc. present your arguments at the survey and wait for the 30-day period to end. then an admin will decide whose arguments are more valid. --HamedH94 (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Did you just say we should avoid discussion on an RfC? Are you high on something? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 10:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you uncivil or something? Why the insinuation of taking drugs? If you disagree with someone's opinion, that's certainly not a reason to call him names.--Retrohead (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I see you have no penchant for levity. I was making fun of your absurd suggestion not to discuss an RfC (whose purpose is precisely discussion!); alas the comment might've been humourous in the first place, in which case I'd be the one at fault! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Bang that head that doesnt bang"[edit]

Retrohead has removed the italics that I added to the name of the tour. I think this title/name clearly needs either Italics or quotation marks around it as it makes for very awkward reading to have it stand as a full sentence in the middle of a sentence (even if it has title case). Adding italics was also suggested in the first FA review.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw it was suggested, but it's not in line with the manual of style. Here's the link to the policy, and other tour articles such as Not in This Lifetime... Tour are not written in italics (such as albums) nor in quotes (such as songs).--Retrohead (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
That looks like a wikiproject guideline, not a part of the MOS - and in this case I think it creates problems that conflicts with the purpose of the MOS. Also I cannot actually see where the style suggestions of the Wikiproject actually states that italics or quotation marks should not be used in the article text - only that it should not be used in the title of articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing in the MOS about naming tours (my bad). The linked guideline is the only thing I found that refers (the 'Naming' subsection) how to write tours. My second point was to follow how tour names are written in other articles, in order to be consistent.--Retrohead (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I think readability is more important than consistency across articles. I suggest you ask what other reviewers at the FA nomination think and then base a decision on the feedback.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no arguing that readability comes first. This issue doesn't affect only this article, so it needs to be discussed at some more inclusive debate. I don't oppose italicizing the tour name for better orientation, but someone else might want the tour to be in quotes or in capital letters using the readability argument. If there's is a consensus that tours should be italicized, I'll implement it right away.--Retrohead (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I dont think the decision made here can be necessarily transfered to all other articles - this particular tour name is a full sentence, which is what causes the issue, if it were called for example Metallica 1986 World Tour the problem wouldnt arise in the same way. I would suggest that the FA reviewers will be exactly the right group to make a decision for this specific article - and that there is no need for a general policy on the matter.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you OK with two apostrophes? Also, where so you think they should be put? 'Bang That Head That Doesn't Bang European tour' or 'Bang That Head That Doesn't Bang' European tour?--Retrohead (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the MOS it doesnt suggest that as an option (only for quotations inside quotatoins and for plant cultivars and simple gloss). Personally I don't care much how you mark off the title, as long as it is done somehow, but there are probably some people at FAC and at the MOS talkpage who could give you recommendations.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This came up somewhere—I can't remember where, but it was either here or another article Retrohead was working on—but after digging we discovered that tours do not get italicized or quotemarked, only capitalized. It's the same deal with product names, for example (I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!, etc). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 17:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Uncredited performances[edit]

Seeking consensus regarding the inclusion/exlusion of uncredited performances by Jason Newsted. It has not been our practice to include uncredited performances, and I believe the existing note about his role in bonus tracks only, is sufficient. Flat Out (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the note in the bonus tracks is sufficient and appropriate. In the (unlikely) event that SuddenDeth joins this discussion, I'd like to see a strong rationale for deviating from the published liner notes. --Laser brain (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. Yet somehow certain users now find the removal of Newsted from the 'Personnel' section of this article "disruptive". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The liner notes (especially if they're taken from the band's website) aren't always 100% accurate, and if we can make minor changes or additions to the personnel section at any of the albums' articles (not just the addition of Newsted for the bonus tracks) to make them more accurate, then I don't see why it's unnecessary. In this particular case, I don't think a small note in the bonus tracks section of the track listing is sufficient. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ride the Lightning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Pretty neat that this article got featured![edit]

Thanks Retrohead as well as others who worked on it. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)