Talk:Scars on Broadway (album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Albums (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Release date[edit]

Someone previously posted that the release date was June 29th. Anybody got a citation for this? FallenWings47 17:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The release date is July 28. I cited their official website. (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Track Listing[edit]

When did this become official? Reference? Was supposed to have 12-14 tracks, this lists 15. (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It was sent out on the scars on broadway mailing list. You cant source it, but its true. (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Member names and about Rick Rubin[edit]

Does anybody know the last names of the lead guitarist, the bass guitarist and the keyboarder? I just know their first names.

And Rick Rubin don't produced the album. It was only Daron. he said it in a german interview:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Rick Rubin wasn't involved in the production of the album! Don't add it again. It's wrong! Ultio (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC) :I havn't seen any sources stating Rubin as the producer, so it remains out of there. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 04:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC) ::There's now a reliable source that states Rubin as a producer, so it's stays. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 06:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you bought the album you maybe saw that only Daron Malakian was the producer and not Rick Rubin. Like I said one month ago. (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep Daron is the only one who produced it. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 05:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Album leak inclusion[edit]

We need to reach a consensus. I don't think the information about the album leak should be posted. There's no policies for or against it, so a consensus must be reached by all editors. My reasons are simple. Including that information effects album sales. It's not the most relevant information. There's no verifiable sources that can source it, without providing a download link, which is illegal. I think posting the information AFTER the album's release would be fine, but for now, I'm dead set against it. Replies, please. And no re-adding it until a consensus is reached. dude527 (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I love metaphors, so let me use one here: If the a famous person dies one day at 12:02 PM, wikipedia would immediately add info of there death into there article. We wouldn't wait until, after the funeral.. We don't hold back info here on wikipedia.

That should apply here too. And consensus isn't needed because there ISN'T Any policy against it. I point to Chinese Democracy which has an entire section based on leaks, and that album is far from out. you also state that it would effect albums sales, but so would having negative critical reviews from professional reviewers, which wikipedia has in it's articles. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 06:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And also, there may be no way to source the leak, but we all know it's been leaked. there's no denying it. Not all information needs to be 100percent every single statement sourced. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 06:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This is more of a birth then a death. We wouldn't add any info about a person before they were born. And the funeral thing isn't right, either. It would be more like, if someone was sick, we wouldn't add the info until they die. A consensus is needed because a user disagrees, and in that case, a consensus is generally needed. It's different with critical reviews, though, because they're meant to effect sales, and Wikipedia has policies for them. There's no policies for leaks. Just wait until some other user besides me or you posts again, because we know each other's views, and that's not true. Wikipedia thrives on verifiable information. dude527 (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
It's usually quite the contrary, in fact. If there's a policy against something a consensus isn't needed. If there isn't a policy against that, then a consensus IS needed. dude527 (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles about albums that talk about leaks. Why shuld this one be any different?--Kornography (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

When I posted info about the leak of Elect the Dead when it leaked, the information was deleted. I don't see why this article should be any different to that. Flag of Poland.svg gracz54 (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then get rid of everything about album leaks on every single article then ill let up.--Kornography (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Also, I'd like to add that Dude, you are a hypocrite. You mention on your page that you share the same name for youtube. Well I noticed that you put up leaks for Brian Welches new album, (Thats not coming out for another 2 and a half months.)I don't want to bust your bubble or anything cause I love your rare Korn tracks on your page but won't those leaks affect sales?--Kornography (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make me hypocritical, I posted samples. I only post the full tracks if the artists don't care. While I don't mind leaks on YouTube, I am solely against them mentioned on Wikipedia, because there's no way it's verifiable, unless you link a download. Even then, it's just not right. It's not encyclopedic information unless some big event caused it, and it sure as hell does not belong in the "Writing and Recording Process" section, as it had nothing to do with writing or recording. Even if we were to post it, it's not considered "notable" information. dude527 (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, it is notable information, because it relates to the album and it's release. It fits well in the section it was, because the sentence before it was about the album being completed. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 02:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note that just because some information relates to an album, does not make it notable. dude527 (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
But all album leaks are notable, because it relates directly to the release of the album. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 06:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I will re-iterate. Just because some fact relates to the album, does not make it a notable fact. dude527 (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Leaks are Notable though, because they are directly related to the album's release date. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 09:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just found a guideline that's against this. WP:OR
""Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material."
"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."
Whether you like it or not, those two snippets of info solely base against your argument. This is because of how Wikipedia defines original research ("Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found.). The fact that the album leaked would be considered original research, because no reliable sources provided coverage on it, and there's no citations that can prove it as per WP:RS. That alone stops you from posting this as per WP:NOR, the verifiability rule tops it off. (The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth). In that, there is no way to accurately verify the leak, because no sources covered it, therefore, no verifiability can be found, only original research, which is not allowed. dude527 (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you realize that we will never reach an agreement on this-- (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We just did. I laid it out for you, there are policies against it, so it must not be included. In the event a reliable source provides coverage, then info can be added, and a source cited. dude527 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


I think if this article is to follow Wikiproject Albums, it should most definitely stick to those guidelines, including separating genres by a comma solely. --The Guy complain edits 05:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter. Those guidelines aren't set in stone: they're recommendations. there's no penalty for not following them. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 05:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
No, they are guidelines for each article participating in the project to follow. I suggest that you read through the entire thing, and that we follow suit of every other musical album article under the scope of Wikiproject Albums. --The Guy complain edits 05:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
From Wikiproject Albums: GENRE: The one or more music genres that the album reflects, delimited by a comma should be listed here.

Notice it does not say "The one or more music genres that the album reflects, delimited by a comma should be listed here. It must be only a comma and nothing else, if you put something other than a comma; the article will be expelled from wikiproject albums" They're seperated by a comma the way they are; but spaced out so it's not all bunched up. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 05:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you're arguing semantics. It says commas, and commas is all it says. It's important to follow suit of all the other musical album articles on Wikipedia, to fit styles. All the other musical album articles are delimited by commas, so, too, should this be. --The Guy complain edits 05:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
But it is seperated by commas. May i point out WP:IAR (If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it).

So. If a nonexistant rule prevents you from improving or maintaining wikipedia; ignore it; simply because it's nonexistant. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 05:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To what aspect are you improving the article? Prove that you are. You're actually causing it to stick out, because it no longer is fitting styles with the other articles in Wikiproject Albums. The Manual of Style says styles are important. This rule is far from non-existent, too. It would be non-existent in describing genres of a feature film, or a theater drama, but it is existent in an article which is supposed to be following suit of these rules. It's supposed to follow suit of the other articles in its class. --The Guy complain edits 06:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I'm from the german wikipedia. Doy you have a source for the It will probably be something electronic mixed in with traditional Armenian and thrash, death, black, and doom metal influences. When, or even if, the music comes out, it will still be structured, just like System of a Down's music is." line? In my Wikipedia there are sources much more important than here. Thank You -- (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC) ps: excuse me for my horrible english but when I am looking over german talkpages, I see the same problems of english speaking users :)