Talk:Beggars (album)

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

Post-hardcore Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Post-hardcore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of post-hardcore and related topics 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.Post-hardcoreWikipedia:WikiProject Post-hardcoreTemplate:WikiProject Post-hardcorePost-hardcore articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference ideas for Beggars (album)

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Sixth or seventh studio album?[edit]

Is Beggars Thrice's sixth or seventh studio album? Are we considering The Alchemy Index to be one release or two? I foresee some edit warring over this in the near future... Fezmar9 (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd count it as one, but it's actually 4 EPs which usually aren't counted as "albums" for article leads. That makes Beggars technically their fifth studio album. tdogg241^TC 23:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of consistency, I think it's a safe bet to call this their sixth album, since The Alchemy Index's article states that was their fifth. And since a) TAI was recorded all in one go, and b) it was the band's original intention to release all four volumes at the same time, I'd also say it's reasonable to count it as one release. GeneralAtrocity (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was just playing devil's advocate, really. tdogg241^TC 01:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leak[edit]

According to the source provided about the leaking situation, Vagrant Records asked for people to avoid spreading the leak. Anyone else think we should honor their request, and take down this information until the album is released? Obviously it is sourced and notable, and should probably be mentioned. I just think maybe we could hold off on including it until Thrice and Vagrant get things sorted out? In the announcement from Vagrant it suggests they might release the album in a different way due to the leak. Perhaps when this new release is known it could then be added. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band has now released a statement indicating they might push up the release date. I think that mentioning the leak is acceptable and necessary at this point, but we should not mention where it can be found (as a previous editor had done). tdogg241^TC 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:ALBUM: The date an album was leaked onto the Internet is not notable unless it results in some other action that is notable, such as being directly responded to by the musical artist or their management, or the leak itself receiving broad media coverage. Personally I'd agree that this particular leak meets the criteria for being added to the article, as long as no info is later added about where it can be found. GeneralAtrocity (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date[edit]

There seems to be some confusion over the release date. While it may have been released a couple days earlier in the U.K., the official U.S. release date is August 11. Likewise, the article for new Muse song, Uprising, states that it is to be released on 7 September, while here in the U.S. it has been out for a week already. We should be shooting for consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.230.206 (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WikiProject Albums (which aims to provide consistency among album articles), in the infobox, "only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified." Fezmar9 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember a fair bit of confusion over the release of All Hope Is Gone, which was released in Japan first, and its article reflects that. Beggars was released in the UK first, therefore that's the date that should stick (unless it was released even earlier elsewhere that is). GeneralAtrocity (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album Art[edit]

Thrice stated during their chat on AP.net that the album art has been officially changed. An update needs to be made here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.210.210 (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the cover using the "extra album cover" extended infobox template. I think it's worth keeping since they had to change the cover due to the leak. tdogg241^TC 06:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will we run into an legal/copyright issues by posting this? The original cover was scrapped because Thrice didn't have clearance from the artist to use it. Is this still covered under fair use? Fezmar9 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't considered that. From what I'd read, Thrice had to go with a different cover because they couldn't get the clearance for the original artwork in time for the new release date, which made it sound like more of a timing issue than a copyright issue. The old cover had already been included in promotional materials for the album. tdogg241^TC 16:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard 200[edit]

Although the significance may be considered original research, it might be interesting to note that Beggars had originally peaked at #48 on the Billboard 200 chart after the digital album was released. It then peaked again this last week at #47 with the physical CD release. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beggars (album). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090404014623/http://soundcheck.freedomblogging.com:80/2009/04/01/big-grooves-emerging-from-within-thrices-tiny-garage/5705/ to http://soundcheck.freedomblogging.com/2009/04/01/big-grooves-emerging-from-within-thrices-tiny-garage/5705/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 21:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Wood & Wire" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wood & Wire. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 23#Wood & Wire until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]