Talk:The E.N.D.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:The E.N.D)
Jump to: navigation, search

Image on Cover[edit]

The image on the cover is a Andriod of Apl, Taboo, will.i.am, & Fergi mixed together. On "The Black Eyed Peas: Then & Now" (which aired 8/21 on FUSE) they said that they had there heads scanned and mixed all their features together to create the android —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.250.2 (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Page title[edit]

This page should be called "The Energy Never Dies" instead of the abbreviated form..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.205.27 (talkcontribs) 23:01, 7 January 2009

This page should be called The E.N.D. not The E.N.D theres not dot at the end of the title someone fix it Phil (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Phil
I propose to change the title into The E.N.D. (with full stop) again. It appears that several sources write it differently and some even add ([The] Energy Never Dies) to it. While we don't need to include the latter (as it doesn't appear on the cover art or on Dipdive), I think it would be better to follow the general style of writing and add a full stop (for example: U.S., m.p.h. etc.).--Totie (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Would you do that to any other artist's work though? 'Oh, it look like they've misspelled this, I think it's better to follow the general style of spelling and correct it for them'?? Akiioni (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be The Energy Never Dies, or The E-N-D as it is. 24.56.20.41 (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If it's the artist's intention to spell it wrong, then we use the wrong spelling as well. In this case however, we don't know the artist's intention. If there is no consensus, then Wikipedia's guidelines apply.--Totie (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Release Date???[edit]

The release date on this page is March 31st, but on the Black Eyed Peas page it's May 12. So i wasn't sure which is right, is it the March date??

So could someone fix up the wrong date.

Hdk94 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


The real release date is June 9th, It was confirmed by Interscope records. Thfresh-prince (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

March 31 or May 12 might be the release date for the first single, "Boom Boom Pow". MatthewWaller (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The album is released Friday June 5th in Australia219.90.190.242 (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The release history is really messed up, Australia and Europe gets it on June 5, Asia gets it on June 6, UK get it on June 8, and the rest of the world gets it on June 9. MatthewWaller (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
What's so messed up about that? There's never been an album released on one static release date.. Digitelle (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No no no... the correct release dates that I said are not the same as the ones on the page, someone's sorted it now anyway, so it doesn't matter. MatthewWaller (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani?[edit]

Someone has added that the BEPs are featuring Gwen on The END on both this page and the main BEP one. Is there any truth to that at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.116.226 (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Theirs a rumor about her being on the album but nothing has been officially confirmed Thfresh-prince (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Boom Boom Pow[edit]

A page for "Boom Boom Pow" needs to be created. Thfresh-prince (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

there IS a boom boom pow page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.102.9 (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Boom Boom Pow was created 22 February 2009, right after Thf-p requested it. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

References[edit]

Please do not edit the references without good reason from where I pointed them. If this continues I will seek protection. --  Punk Boi 8  talk  02:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


LupE.N.D.[edit]

Hey, I just added a tiny fact that Lupe Fiasco's postponed(final) album has a similar title, as in they both spell out E.N.D. as an acronym rather than the actual definiton. Everyone cool with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMSXIII (talkcontribs) 23:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It's a random fact of no particular significance. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

fake tracklist[edit]

People keep adding a fake track list, which includes songs such as "Don't tell me more", which have not been confirmed. I left all of the songs up (Imma Be, and Boom Boom Pow), as well as the ones band member Will.i.am has confirmed in his interview with Rolling Stone. Thfresh-prince (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a video on the internet of them recording the album, a song is playing in the background, but I don't know what it's called. MatthewWaller (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cover[edit]

I've seen a cover but I'm not sure if it's real, it looks fake, but everyone is convinced that it's real, I won't post it since it's too early. MatthewWaller (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was fake, this one however, is definitely the real one, it was posted by will.i.am himself. MatthewWaller (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I Got A Feeling???[edit]

what song is I Got A Feeling? I never heard of that song is it confirmed or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.96.223 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It turns out, that song is actually real, they performed it live and are going to release it as their next single too. 92.23.107.122 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Imma Be[edit]

I'm prety sure the song titled "Imma Be" is their second single. It has already been released on iTunes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertluis (talkcontribs) 23:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just a promotional single, they'll release 2 more before the release of the album (1 per week) MatthewWaller (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Promotional singles[edit]

Is it really necessary to create articles for each promotional single? I think it's confusing, as they are not considered ordinary singles. A section is enough IMHO.--Totie (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, as long as it's specified that they're not commercial singles. Digitelle (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of keeping individual articles for each promo single, we could make a singles/promo singles section on this page with a summary of each single and promo single. • вяαdcяochat 22:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, it doesn't really matter. Look at articles for the promotional singles "Crack a Bottle", "Old Time's Sake" and "Beautiful". None of these songs are commercial singles yet they have articles. Also, the former two were exclusively released on iTunes during the promotional campaign for their respective album, just like the promo singles from The E.N.D. It doesn't matter if digital singles have articles, as long as they're not treated like official and commercial singles. Digitelle (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
in response to the comments above, the comparison to Eminem is irrelevant as those singles have been listed as official releases. Furthermore the releases from BEP are strictly promotional and in terms of reducing webspace they should really be contained on one page. We as wikipedia editors have a responsibility to reduce wastage and i agree with user Totie. It seems over excessive and wasteful to have full pages for each promotional single especially considering that there isnt much information on each. Plus it does confuse some readers as we have seen in the recent edits of this page (some people keep trying to add promotional singles to the infobox). (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

I have gone one step further and under recommendations of other wikipedia users on The E.N.D. (promotional singles) page i have merged the information into the main article. It seems more appropriate and makes more logical sense. As regards to the situation with Eminem that is the editors who deal with that page who should deal with those issues. The singles released from The E.N.D. are strictly seperated into promotional and official singles and althought yes technically the promotional singles do qualify under WP:notability it does seem pointless to have individual articles and even a single page for all three songs. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Kraftwerk influence and Auto-Tune trend[edit]

From album cover to music, this album looks like a modern version of Kraftwerk's Electric Café. Also, it would be nice to add some internal link or short explanation about auto-tune usage in music. Deliogul (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Producers[edit]

David Guetta??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny pt (talkcontribs) 11:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Page name[edit]

I don't know who moved this page back to The E.N.D., but nowhere on the album is there a period-type character after the D in the title. This page was fine at The E.N.D. Digitelle (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion above. Where do you see the album title without a full stop? All I can see is that there isn't a consensus--both styles are used. The cover art doesn't even have full stops, so I guess it's just for styling reasons.--Totie (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk from The E.N.D. (promotional singles)[edit]

Merger[edit]

Merged all corrosponding information from Imma Be, Alive and Meet Me Halfway to create on article. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

This isn't going to work out unless we clean it up and improve it somehow. • вяαdcяochat 02:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not include this article into The E.N.D.? I don't see why we need to make an article for this. We don't need to include the infoboxes and covers.--Totie (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this should be merged into the article because most of the information would be left over, like the producers, chart positions in several countries, and release dates. This article does meet the criteria of notabily by charting on important charts and having a "popular" recording artist. It should be allowed here to remain and gorw. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing You[edit]

Has also been release on dipdive.com --89.241.50.79 (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Party All The Time has also been released —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.50.79 (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

But they aren't going to be released on iTunes or other music stores, unlike these three 'singles'.--Totie (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

They will not be on itunes but are still promo singles so they should be included even if it is just the cover release date and saying there are just on dip dive Missing You - http://dipdive.com/member/iamwill/blog/4697 Party All The Time - http://dipdive.com/member/iamwill/blog/4594 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.18.148 (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

One infobox each[edit]

Should every song have one infobox each to make it less confusing for the reader? MatthewWaller (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed a lot of redundant information. Three infoboxes make the article very long. I still suggest to merge this article into The E.N.D.--Totie (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Even without the infoboxes, it would still be too long to just merge it with The E.N.D. I'll move all the infoboxes to the top so the page won't be as long.MatthewWaller (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but according to you there is too much information--but where is it? All I see are release dates, producers, writers and song durations. The only other notable are chart postions, but we can assemble those in one section. This whole article here is bloated with information we can easily put into the main article.--Totie (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Their next single[edit]

I read a rumor that the next single released will be party all the time or one tribe. What do you think?

Critical Reception[edit]

'However it is here that opinions began to differ with Entertainment Weekly describing the album as "pure Top 40 nirvana",[16] while PopMatters concludes that after listening to the album and "dancing all night [...] you just may not be able to respect yourself in the morning".'

I was under the impression that "dancing all night [...] you just may not be able to respect yourself in the morning" would be a positive comment? So in fact, they don't differ at all?110.175.66.122 (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The E.N.D is the 2nd biggest album of the year in Europe in 2010[edit]

I think it should be mentioned in the article. It's a massive accomplishment, as it requires the album to be popular in lots of different countries, and different cultures at the same time. It's not the sort of chart where you can get to the top by asking a few radio stations to promote you, or performing on a TV show. It's also quite impressive since it was released in 2009, although the #1, The Fame Monster was also released in 2009. The chart is compiled by Billboard.

http://www.billboard.com/#/charts-year-end/european-top-100-albums?year=2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.86.108 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Deluxe edition[edit]

Can someone put a picture of the alternative cover(deluxe edition),because it is very different from the standard.. here it is : http://www.google.gr/imgres?q=the+e.n.d+deluxe+edition&um=1&hl=el&sa=N&tbm=isch&tbnid=g4fpU2w8rFqrsM:&imgrefurl=http://bringdabeatback.blogspot.com/2009/06/black-eyed-peas-end-deluxe-edition.html&docid=_DxTwpxIUaRjEM&w=320&h=320&ei=ZXqITp6QCsWRswbOlejgAQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=130&vpy=123&dur=1313&hovh=225&hovw=225&tx=112&ty=116&page=1&tbnh=116&tbnw=120&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&biw=1024&bih=567

WHY???!!!???[edit]

I made a tracklist of a japanese version that does exist and has a reference but it got deleted. WHY? It had Simple Little Melody and Mare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.140.74 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The E.N.D → The E.N.D.[edit]

This discussion is old, we had it years ago (see above and Talk:The E.N.D World Tour#Tour title) and the consensus was at the time to stick with English punctuation in the absence of a clear common name for the album and use the title with a full stop at the end. Apparently the article was at some point moved back to The E.N.D again, instead of The E.N.D., without contesting the consensus first. I would like to reopen this discussion again, because I still don’t think it is the correct title. When I look at the references (including reputable sources like Billboard, Rolling Stone, Washington Post, Grammy and so forth; also Metacritic, Slant Magazine, Spin), the external links, iTunes and Amazon, most have a full stop. The strongest evidence to the contrary I can see in the album cover and tour posters (which technically use no full stops but interpoints). I would say we stick with Wikipedia policy in the absence of a clear common name and use the title with the full stop, in accordance with the Manual of Style (see specifically mutatis mutandis MOS:TM)–Totie (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The E.N.D. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on The E.N.D. 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 on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 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) 04:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: all moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


MOS:TM for decorative non-standard punctuation. This question has been popping up on the Talk page for a long time, and there have been prior undiscussed moves, but I don't see any prior formal RM discussion. Let's please settle it one way or the other. For the moment, I've adjusted the article content (which was inconsistent) to match the current title. I haven't yet studied whether the sources are consistent about the styling. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The E.N.D. 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 on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 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) 15:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Socking[edit]

Banned long-term genre warrior MariaJaydHicky has a nummber of recurring crusades. One of them is removal of any reference to Black Eyed Peas' pop albums and songs being pop.

In addition to the IP edits here, they are currently crusading on various Mariah Carey articles as Butterflycharmbracelet.

Past history indicates this user will: ignore the accusations of socking and/or deny they are that user, blatantly lie about sources, appear as another user specifically to argue in favor of the change, make genre changes as part of a larger change being made to hide the genre change, use several accounts simultaneously to deflect attention, etc. Essentially, they will lie and cheat in whatever way necessary to achieve the sacred goal of...changing a genre in Wikipedia article.

There is little point in blocking all of the IPs. I am simply reverting all of them per WP:EVADE. We'll probably need to block the named account as Maria typically has a great deal of difficulty understanding that a particular masquerade has been uncovered. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)