Talk:All Hope Is Gone/Archive 2

iTunes
What happend to that bonus track from iTunes? I sold out dumb dumb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.71.40 (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell you only go the track if you pre-ordered the album. It is no longer listed as a track on iTunes, so I don't know how to confirm what it was.  Black  ngold29   20:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if iTunes listed it, we could not apply it to the article without a reliable source, which iTunes is not. -- The Guy complain edits 20:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming the song wud of been released by now, so plez, n e 1 keep track on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.71.40 (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I already stated the track was only avalible to those who PRE-ordered. It's not there anymore.  Black  ngold29   03:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The bonus Itunes track is Psychosocial(Live) Source Offical Slipknot Board (Filthy113 (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Forums are not reliable sources. -- The Guy complain edits 04:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Leaked Album
Should the information regarding the album leaking to the Internet on August 20, 2008 be mentioned on the article? --David Morón (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been addressed in the archived talk page here, the decision being that the leak is not notable, as it does not comply with WP:ALBUM. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say no since it was already released in Japan. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only does it fail to comply with WP:ALBUM, it also fails to comply with two of the pillars of Wikipedia, those being WP:V and WP:OR. Those are just rules, though, and in my own opinion, I would say that the album leaking 6 hours before it's official release, would not be notable, except in the feat that Slipknot kept it hidden that long, but noting that would fail WP:NPOV in the sense where its trying to make that feat seem more impressive than others.  So no, I don't think that would be relevant information, as discussed on the archived talk page.  The Guy  complain edits 19:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah they sure did one hell of a job keeping it hidden. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Composer credit?
Since the album has been released, does anybody have song composers for the track list? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very unlikely considering it's only been released in one region. The Guy  complain edits 21:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The liner notes of Slipknot albums themselves credit all songs as simply written by "Slipknot," so I wouldn't expect too much in terms of specific composer credits listed in All Hope Is Gone. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've gone on ahead and rated for WP:Album, even though the best rating we can give is inadequate. Really nicely done. Please add whatever limited composer information the album may give when it's available. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

GAN
So how long we gonna wait till its up for good article? Jakisbak (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's got to be stable. :) You might want to wait until the reviews are in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah i know it just looks so good already :P Jakisbak (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I expect there to be more reviews to come. I would like to add as many as possible for a nom.  Black  ngold29   03:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks so good because we're so damn good *flexes muscles* lol. Yeah the reception section can be expanded tenfold, and to be quite honest... I don't like the way it's written so far. It's like quotes, for example:
 * In a preview for Rolling Stone, Chris Steffen wrote that the "the band’s multiple percussionists generate a din that’s more suffocating than ever" on the track "Gematria." He went on to call "Snuff" the "most melodic" song, comparing it to Vol. 3's "Circle." The album's second single, "Psychosocial," "is capped off with a time-signature shattering guitar/drum breakdown that will leave the best air-instrumentalists stumped."
 * "In a preview for Rolling Stone" - why did you start with that? Shouldn't it be like:
 * Critics complimented the percussive edge of the album; reviewing for Rolling Stone, Chris Steffen said "that the band’s multiple percussionists generate a din that’s more suffocating than ever" on the track "Gematria".
 * Like you should touch on a response to the album and then back it up with quotes from reviews. Instead of just saying "[name here] reviewing for [magazine] said "[this]". And then [other reviewer] said "[this]"."
 * I started it like that because it was the first review (in this case it was a preview) it was written weeks ago, long before release. I agree it should now be changed.  Black  ngold29   16:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would help more if I could... but I can't, so I can only offer suggestions.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  12:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll help modify. But also, please note, punctuation marks go inside quotations.  The Guy  complain edits 22:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not always on Wikipedia. I admit to finding that horribly confusing, as it runs counter to everything I learned at school. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Shoot now I have to make a bunch of edits concerning that. Thanks, though.  The Guy  complain edits 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think i'll leave that to you i'm so confused about that :P Jakisbak (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple, but I have a question for future reference, and also for some other articles. How does one cite a reference to a DVD on Wikipedia?  The Guy  complain edits 22:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhm would it be Template:Cite DVD-notes you are looking for ? Jakisbak (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I was actually talking about a DVD that comes with a CD, like the "Making of" DVD that will come with All Hope Is Gone. But we're getting off topic, so if there's a specific policy, just PM it to me. The Guy  complain edits 23:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Skimming it down to build it up
You guys, I think we can seriously improve this article. But first we gotta skim it down by taking out EVERY unreferenced statement, or finding references for them. I know that there's not a lot of unreferenced information, though, so the next step I think would be to make this article flow better. To me, it seems that it sometimes jumps all over the place subject-wise. We should make it more sleek. And also, once the album releases in the US, we can add documentary information to the article, completing it. But I'm just saying, right now we should do a bit of cleaning up, does anyone agree? The Guy complain edits 23:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. I think that we should add tags instead of just removing statements, atleast for a few days.   Black  ngold29   23:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah the album could look better so I'll search for some sources. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Quotes around album title
Why were they added to every album title throught the article? Per WikiProject Albums only songs have quotes, not the album titles. Album titles are italisized. Same goes with the first occurence.  Black  ngold29   23:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it goes the same with the first occurance. WP:BOLDTITLE: "The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence, and should appear in boldface." I think the lead section guideline is a bit more significant than WP:ALBUMS. I think the first occurance is JUST boldfaced, and then the others in the article are italicized.  The Guy  complain edits 00:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it be? Even magazine titles are in italics upon first mention. I can find no other albums that is not bolded and italisized, regardless of "class".  Black  ngold29   00:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:ALBUM: Songs and singles are placed in "quotation marks", album titles are italicized and artists are left alone, with punctuation outside quotation marks. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I really don't know, but I just thought, you know?  Wikiproject Albums is a simple set of guidelines, and not official rules (or so i hear).  And the lead section thing is rules, isn't it?  The Guy  complain edits 00:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:LEAD is a guideline. But so is Manual of Style (titles), which says to use italics for titles of albums. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think just for the first occurence, it should be boldface. This is because Manual of Style (titles) states to use albums in italics, but WP:LEAD says to use the first occurence simply boldfaced.  I think jointly, those should work side-by-side.  The Guy  complain edits 19:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

We should probably be following suit of other featured album articles and following their example by keeping the first instance of the article title italicized and without quotation marks. Not to mention that's just the way instances of album titles are properly formatted in general. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC) editsemiprotected there is one small problem with this article it wasnt joey jordison who broke his ankles at mayhem festival it was Sid Wilson he jumped from the top of the stage to the bottom and snapped both ankles and this was said by corey taylor at mayhem festival at DTE energy music theatre and other venues along the tour.


 * Joey and Sid both broke the ankle and feet respectively. Sid kept playing in a wheel chair (and crawled around stage), unfortunatley Joey can't really drum with a broken ankle; he was the reason the remaining tour was canceled.  Black  ngold29   01:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Awards?
How about an "Awards and accolades" section? I might be getting the cart before the horse here but I'm sure they'll get awards and stuff for this album... maybe grammy nominations and stuff. You could put stuff in like that it was awarded "Album of the week" from Radio 1, which is like the biggest radio station in the UK and it's really surprising that a metal act is being appreciated like this on the radio here because it's very rare. You could also put in like platinum status and stuff, just a suggestion.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  11:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could that go in the Recpetion, at least until there are more? That's what we did with the other albums.  Black  ngold29   13:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Release Date
Unless I'm mistaken, the release date listed in the article (August 20) is wrong. I've pre-ordered the Album from Best Buy, and their release date is listed as August 26th. This is also the date I've heard on Radio any several other places, so I'm not sure where August 20th came from. Can we get this verified and fixed please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.14.244 (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The album was released on the 20th in Japan. Per WP:ALBUM the earliest known release date should be listed. We're waitin' too!  Black  ngold29   15:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true, but it was released in Japan on the 20th. That's what's gotta be listed. It's funny, too, because people wanna say "oh it leaked", but it didn't -- It was simply released in Japan. The Guy  complain edits 19:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cover art and booklet shots avalible
High quality pictures of the cover art and booklets for both the Standard and Special editions are now avalible. Use where needed.  Black  ngold29   06:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not considered a reliable source, though, wait until it's released in US. -- The Guy complain edits 06:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those were taken from the official forums. It's a hell of a rip-off job if they're fake, though from my use of the site I find it reliable.  Black  ngold29   06:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS doesn't. -- The Guy  complain edits 06:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the one guy who runs the site, and knows band members, does his fact checking then yes, it does. I've talked to him though e-mail a few times. Anyway, it's not like we'll have to use the cover art for much. It doesn't have much outside of the lyrics, though we could mention about the "Purgatory masks" were used in the Special Edition art. I won't object to waiting two days to confirm that though. ;)  Black  ngold29   06:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:RS? Forums are not a reliable source, whether the person who runs them knows the band or not, it has to be in a published, reliable article, by a reliable publication with a reputation for fact-checking, and a general editing staff, such as Blabbermouth. What you have does not pass WP:RS. -- The Guy  complain edits 07:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is in a year of using OpiumofthePeople I have never once found incorectly reported info. I have never and most likely will never cite it though.  Black  ngold29   07:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's a fan site, and so an un-reliable publication -- To Wikipedia's standards. -- The Guy complain edits 07:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we're not gonna use "execute" over ".execute." or not give the credit the production crew that can clearly be seen in the liner notes of an album that has been officially released, just because OpiumofthePeople were the ones who provided us with the first inside look at the album before August 26. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically you wouldn't be citing OpiumOfThePeople... you would cite the booklet itself and that is a RS. They are definitely legitimate scans. You couldn't use these images on Wikipedia because they're watermarked but you could use information gathered from them, for example... the credits.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  11:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The images of the Japanese version weren't as high quality, but they were identical and undoubtably real as the album is officially out over there. They also included the periods on ".execute."  Black  ngold29   14:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I got the album today over here in England, if need be I'll upload the images. I can assure you, the images posted on Opiumofthepeople.com are correct. Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless it will aid the article at all you can't upload them to Wikipedia under fair use... if that's what you were thinking of doing.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  23:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't, I just meant if spelling or titles needed confirmed the album is the best source. But now that the album appears to be out in England we shouldn't need them.  Black  ngold29   23:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to upload, I was just saying I would to support the fact Opiumofthepeople.coms images were correct; which they are. Jasca Ducato (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Order!!!
Psychosocial (live) WAS only a pre-order track but has now been made PERMANENT to the iTunes Special Edition of this album, so please change this!
 * Proof? Disturbedfan24 (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's on iTunes... why else would he notify this if it wasn't? Just to start up BS with the antagonistical editors? —Vanishdoom (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On My iTunes it still says "iTunes Exclusive Track [Pre-Order Only]" no mention of Psychosocial Live so I dont know. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I find no listing for a Special Edition AHIG on iTunes whatsoever, nor any mention of Psychosocial Live.  Black  ngold29   14:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find Psychosocial Live but on iTunes it states their version is the Special Edition, which includes the main 12 tracks, those three bonus, and the fourth one which has not been named. I think Psychosocial Live should be changed back to iTunes Exclusive Track [Pre-Order Only] that's what it still says. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what mine has. It doesn't say "Special Edition", but it does include the three extra tracks; the third of which is listed as "iTunes Exclusive Track [Pre-Order Only]". Maybe it's different in other places than the US though? Anyone who can confirm that?  Black  ngold29   15:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The iTunes bonus track is "Psychosocial Live", it's on the Australian iTunes Music Store. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallaggaz (talk • contribs) 16:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * iTunes is not proper sourcing. If a reliable source provides coverage on the name, we can then add it. -- The Guy  complain edits 16:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. Plus, and I'm not sure if this will work, but I'm going to try and post the iTunes url link to All Hope, and it clearly shows the bonus track hasn't been released. I'm not sure if everyone can view it: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPreorder?id=284722809&s=143441 Disturbedfan24 (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, the link takes you to the iTunes store, sorry. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * iTunes is not proper sourcing, as it cannot be accessed by everybody who doesn't have the program. Even in the event that it does appear there, it can't be listed without proper sourcing. Not to mention that iTunes fails WP:RS because it gets the title ".execute." (iTunes lists it "execute") wrong. -- The Guy  complain edits 17:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesnt matter anyways since we cant all see it. And I'm making it "execute" the . would be it at the end of my iPod lol. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so somehow. 1) It's listed as ".execute." and 2), it works fine as ".execute." on my iPod. Jasca Ducato (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mine is weird, it put numbers and stuff like that at the bottom, but it seems fixed since I last synced it. Anways, it actaully says ".Execute." on iTunes but whatever. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviews
I am a new user and can not edit a semi protected article. Could an established user add this review link for me. Thank you. Tunelab Mikel (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * TuneLab Music link
 * Done. Good find.  Black  ngold29   23:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Found two reviews, and added them to the page. Synsun (talk) 1:30 PM, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Buzznet link


 * [The Three Rs] link


 * Not to be biased towards Slipknot but The Quietus review link is of low quality and clear misinformation (such as mis-stating the band member's overall age). It additionally seems out of place with no star rating system or a variant given on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowlyZach (talk • contribs) 00:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Found IGN's review on it, anyone care to add it?
 * IGN link Carbo45 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.  Black  ngold29   16:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Personnel
should we combine the columns and make them even? As of now, it looks unclean and a bit impractical. -- The Guy complain edits 19:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We could just make it three columns. One band, two even production.  Black  ngold29   19:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That would work assuming it doesn't stretch the screen. -- The Guy complain edits 19:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends on the width of each individual viewers' monitor. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Three columns looks stupid in my opinion, it breaks the style of all other Slipknot articles. Two columns are fine.. look at Voliminal: Inside the Nine.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  19:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The second column is really, unevenly long if we use only two columns. -- The Guy complain edits 19:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So what if it's longer? It is only a stylistic thing but I think it's looks really messy with three columns. I personally prefer the way it looks as two columns. I wouldn't expect there to be guidelines for this sort of thing and trying to decide which one to use would just be to an editors personal liking. That being said... I think it's important to have all Slipknot articles in the same style and all other articles (albums and DVDs) have two columns.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  19:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a good point with styles, but personally this album had more production team than any of their others. Keeping the common everyday reader in mind, I really think that three columns is better, regardless of keeping styles, its more even for casual readers.  -- The Guy  complain edits 19:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah exactly.... that's just you saying your prefer three columns. So who are we going to decide which one is used on the article? Should we put it to some kind of vote or what? Lol this is stupid... it's only a fucking visual thing. Waste of time.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  19:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying its just my preference. I'm trying to keep in mind the casual reader instead of keeping up with styles. -- The Guy  complain edits 19:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You both have good points, but as Rezter stated all of the Slipknot articles do have two columns. I don't think one could argue it's "too long", because most albums have traditionally used one column for everyone. So two columns seems to be the precedent, I guess we should follow that.  Black  ngold29   19:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't argue that it's "too long," I argue that it's uneven. -- The Guy  complain edits 20:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's more people working behind the scenes than there are band members... that is why. One lsit is larger than the other but that certainly doesn't make them "uneven", it doesn't detract anything from the band members or anything. It's just a visual thing.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah but visual thing do matter and that could possibly detract from the flow of the article to casual readers. That's what I'm getting at. -- The Guy  complain edits 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

iTunes Bonus Track inclusion: original research
We cannot include the iTunes bonus track because no reliable sources currently cite it. Also, Vermilion is track #14 on the physical release. Stop changing it. -- The Guy complain edits 01:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not entirely sure if it's actually OR. Just because you can't link to it doesn't mean you cant use it. What about books and magazines? They are considered very valuable sources and commonly regarded more reliable than websites, however unless you have access to that book it isn't verifiable. So why is iTunes considered original research? You didn't come to the conclusion on your own, you got the information from iTunes. According to WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." iTunes is one of the leading companies in MP3 sales and one of the biggest companys in the world, it is certainly reliable, I believe. I think there should be some way of viably sourcing iTunes, I know you can't link to it and it is only verifiable by people who have the software but I certainly believe it's a strong source.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  02:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your earlier argument in the archived discussion states otherwise. iTunes is the only thing that say that the track exists, and it doesn't even have it listed anymore, therefore, not even people with the program can confirm it. -- The Guy complain edits 02:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For the reasons Rezter stated, I would agree it is a WP:RS. However, in this case as Dude states it seems to fail WP:V. This is the first time that I've ever seen this type of situation so I really don't know; but until we can somehow have it verified, I would vote not to include it.  Black  ngold29   02:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On reflection of my previous statements and a re-read of the policies I genuinely believe it's a reliable source. It's kind of late and I'm not in the mood to look in to it more but I think it should be brought to the attention of somebody with more authority to get their opinion on the use of it as a source.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  02:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * iTunes is not a third-party published source with a reliable publication process (It gets the track ".execute." wrong as ".Execute."). They only sell the music, they can't be used as a referencing point, by any means as they do not write and publish articles about the music, they merely are a vessel through which the music is sold. That does not pass WP:RS. -- The Guy  complain edits 02:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I disagree iTunes fails RS based on their failure to leave a single letter lowercase on their store (when I put the disc into my computer it does pop up correctly), even the most reliable sources make mistakes, nothing is perfect. I have left a messege on the RS noticeboard concerning the matter. Hopefully we can get a few more views on the matter.  Black  ngold29   03:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the basis for which they fail. The basis is that they don't have a publication team, and they don't provide published articles. They're not meant to be used as a referencing point, because they don't have any articles to cite, all they have is music to sell.  Do you see my point? -- The Guy  complain edits 03:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the thing is we are not citing "articles" we're citing their "music to sell" because it is the only place that it can be found. But remember, I agree with you in this case because there currently isn't anything to cite whatsoever.  Black  ngold29   03:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you fail to see the point. It has no publication process or team. It doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking. It is not a third-party publication, it's a third-party store. -- The Guy  complain edits 03:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, this has actually already been sourced in the article, in citation #24 — it's the blabbermouth article that released the album artwork and also noted that iTunes preorders come with a bonus track. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but we're talking about how the track is titled "Psychosocial (Live)" -- The Guy complain edits 17:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While the pre-order only track is in fact "Psychosocial (Live)" there is no source for it, and even more, the track isn't on iTunes any more either. So we can't include it. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not on any more because it was a pre-order only track. I am sure that it's not the best verification but it was available for verification on the release day.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  20:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm aware of that, because I pre-ordered it from iTunes. It really doesn't matter if its listed or not since its gone now anyways. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm told we cannot use retail websites as sources, though. Isn't that basically what iTunes is? -- The Guy  complain edits 21:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've heard that difficult to find release dates can be cited to retail sites, since it's really your only source for older items with no internet coverage. This is obvoiusly different though.  Black  ngold29   22:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Next single
I'm not sure if we would be allowed to create the article yet on the grounds of notability but "Dead Memories" is goign to be the next single from the album. Crahan himself said himself; "That'll be the second single." I dunno when... maybe they'll shoot the video and everything else just before they begin their Asian tour in October.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  11:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article for the song is still a far shoot from passing WP:MUSIC. -- The Guy complain edits 15:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats
Just want to say congratulations to all who contributed in making this article a "Good article" class. -- The Guy complain edits 01:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess the article does meet the GA criteria, but there is a lot more info that can and should be added before an FAC. I would think we should wait a few weeks, maybe a month before that.  Black  ngold29   04:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait until the record runs its cycle (All singles released, no more potential "new information") to submit it for a Featured Article status. -- The Guy complain edits 04:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That might be difficult as they released singles for Vol. 3 two years after the album, but yeah, I agree.  Black  ngold29   04:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be more difficult to convince that it should be a featured article when there's still room for expansion, as not all the information has been released yet. Not to mention, touring in support of the album would be notable in the "Promotion" section, with cited sources, but they've obviously yet to finish the tour. I'm just saying, a work-in-progress should not be a featured article, and its not finished until every piece is added. -- The Guy  complain edits 04:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That being said, though, I do acknowledge that it's very very possible. -- The Guy complain edits 04:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think with a rewrite of the Reception and Musical and Lyrical themese section and a general wizz through. This article will be FAC standard. All articles are open for expansion... for example Slipknot discography is a featured list but it's getting expanded all the time. We don't have to wait 2 yeas until everything dies down around the album to submit for FAC, it is very close to that standard now.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  11:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As you mentioned the Reception section, could use a giant expansion. There are a ton of reviews in the infobox, all of which can and should be quoted in the prose.  Black  ngold29   14:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)