Talk:Crash Love

Album cover
We probably should leave the cover alone until it's officially released Zeropunk16 (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yea, I would love to see something saying "this is the cover." Fezmar9 (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Track lengths
I added the lengths for both Medicate and Fainting Spells. The latter is based on the version released through veronicasawyer.com. Nich148 9 (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Veronicasawyer.com appears to be a personal fan site and thus is not a reliable source for encyclopedia content. None of the sources currently cited in the article give any track lengths. Even iTunes doesn't list them. Wikipedia not being paper and having no deadline, we can wait until better sources give us the lengths, and then we can have the lengths for the entire album rather than just 2 tracks. Please exercise patience. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Veronica Sawyer is part of the viral campaign for the album, and is an official AFI site. iTunes has provided 'Medicate' as a single, which contains the track length. While there is no sound reason to wait for more of the track lengths when we already know some information (there's no sense in delaying it just for the sake of making the page look a little more complete), I can't be bothered to argue. Nich148 9 (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no deadline, just chill, no need to get everything added prematurely. If they're still arguable, just leave them, no big deal. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 08:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's part of the viral marketing campaign for the album and yet it's not mentioned anywhere in the article about the album? I'm skeptical unless you can show that it's officially connected. I'm looking at Crash Love on iTunes right now and it does not list lengths for any of the tracks, including "Medicate". --IllaZilla (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well you sign up to the email subscription there and they send you back an email with a link to Universal Music's privacy policy. And a link to "their" website http://www.afireinside.net/. Other than that I can't see anything. There is no actual publication of the lengths, just Original Research of the actual lengths in the user's player after downloading. I think we should just wait. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 10:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Medicate on iTunes is listed as 4:21. I'm looking at it right now. The whois data for veronicasawyer.com shows it as registered to Universal Music UK. It was the first place to publish a clip of Medicate (a high quality 30 second preview), was linked to from the AFI official Twitter feed (and Jade Puget's Twitter, too), and contains a mailing list method of downloading 'Fainting Spells' in high quality, which was also linked to by the band. Nich148 9 (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't see it. I have iTunes open right now, and I'm looking at the deluxe version of Crash Love in the iTunes store. The "time" column is completely empty, no track lengths listed at all. When I click on your link I get the same result (it just opens iTunes and takes me to the deluxe edition, still no lengths). I don't know how to account for the inconsistency between what you're seeing and what I'm seeing (I can see lengths for all their other albums in the iTunes store just fine). As for the Veronica Sawyer site, if you can find some secondary source coverage about it in news or music press to verify its connection to the Crash Love marketing campaign, that would make good content for the article. It certainly would be worth noting that there's a viral marketing campaign around the album. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the AFI Twitter feed has mentioned both veronicasawyer.com and @v_sawyer (the Twitter account connected to the site) numerous times (1 2 3). #2 is in connection with a promotion where you grab one of the provided stencils, use it to spray paint a shirt with the design and wear it to Reading Festival for a chance to meet AFI. It was the first to link to a 30 second preview of "Medicate" (still available on the site) 2 days before it was available to purchase on iTunes. This is the tweet (the ow.ly link is a shortlink to VS.com)


 * Update: secondary sources on vs.com are hard to find, which would explain the lack of a section on it. NME mentions it, but they also refer to it as a fan site. I'm 99% certain it isn't one, based on what I've said above (registered to the band's label, linked officially, etc.). Since it isn't confirmed though, I'd agree with you that it should sit by the wayside. Nich148 9 (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the track times added recently do match up to the times on Musicbrainz, +/1 one second or so. And this particular album was added by Mike Diver from the BBC. So they're likely more or less correct. This is probably not a citeable source, though. --Blue Dream (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Musicbrainz content is user-contributed, so it doesn't pass WP:RS (it's essentially a wiki). I'm not very comfortable with "likely more or less correct" and "probably not a citeable source". Again, being as we have no deadline, we can afford to wait for either A) the album to come out, or B) more reliable sources (e.g. Allmusic) to publish the track lengths. I'd even be satisfied if iTunes listed them at this point, but they don't. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * all teh track lengths are on their myspace why'd you take them off? i put them all on there...--68.18.134.74 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If so, all you need to do is cite "teh" myspace page. Currently not a single one of the sources in the article's "references" section gives any track lengths at all (we don't really have a source for the "medicate" length either, but it is listed at itunes so we could cite that if necessary). --IllaZilla (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's really worth, I bought the CD today, it came out in Australia today. 123.50.149.194 (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no source in the article stating that the Australian release date is earlier than the rest of the world. If it is, and we can cite it to a reliable source, then it's certainly worth mentioning that release date in the article and probably changing the date in the infobox. Does anyone have a source giving the international release dates? --IllaZilla (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Genre
This album leaked, so let's begin discussing what genre it belongs to. My vote goes to: Alternative rock and Post-punk revival. NineInchNailed (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Firstly, we cannot base article information on a leaked version of the album, as the leak is of course copyright violation and thus inadmissable as a source (see also WP:LEAK, which seems pertinent). Secondly, you are suggesting that we engage in original research as a group and base the genre on our own collective point of view. This is unacceptable. Genre descriptions in the article should be derived from reviews and other sources offering critical commentary about the album, per WP:V and WP:RS. The only genres that should be listed in the infobox are those that are referenced to reliable sources within the body of the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not so much of a leak as much as the album is streaming in its entirety on AFI's *official* myspace page. so i believe it falls well under copyright restrictions 72.201.127.242 (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Still, the genre is not up to us to determine. It's up to the sources, which should become plentiful as the release date is now less than a week away and the reviews are starting to come in. We have no deadline and can thus wait for the critics' opinions to be published before we attempt to assign a more specific genre or subgenre than "rock". --IllaZilla (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, now that the album has been released and we have 4 reviews linked in the article, it's probably time to take a look at them and decide what genres the critics are classifying this album as. Here's what I see in the reviews:
 * Allmusic: Mentions a number of genres & subgenres, but seems to focus on "pop/rock".
 * Alternative Press: Doesn't really mention anything more specific than "rock".
 * Rolling Stone: Again, doesn't get very specific, but calls it a "more streamlined" of Decemberunderground ' s mix of "dance music and hair metal with their theatrically gloomy punk."
 * Sputnikmusic: Again, not much to go on as far as genres. Doesn't even mention any specific ones.
 * Wow, now that I've looked at those I'm rethinking whether we even can get more specific than just "rock". At best, based on the sources, I think we might be able to use alternative rock or pop rock, but there aren't really even strong cases for those. Perhaps we should wait for more reviews, which I'm sure will keep coming in. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * LA Times: "layered post-punk guitars... band has grown with accelerating sophistication, stepping further beyond easy pop-punk thrashings to something grander".
 * International Business Times "is a more straightforward rock album than the synth-heavy 'Decemberunderground.'"
 * No considerable mention in Rock Sound, The Boston Phoenix or a couple of others I checked. They all seem to be indicative of just straight forward rock, no specifics. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 08:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On more than one occasion have at least three articles stated a Gothic rock sound. I added that genre (with three reference), along with Post-punk (with one reference). But I can certainly agree that this is Alternative rock. What I will not agree with is leaving the article with just that one Alt rock tag, as it doesn't do the album/article justice. Whether or not your opinion differs, you cannot deny what the articles have stated. NineInchNailed (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. The mentions of "goth" and "gothic rock" are all either in passing, referring to the band in general, or only refer to 1 specific song. If you could show the 3 that you think describe the album as a whole as gothic rock, then I might be swayed, but I just don't see that in the sources. Allmusic mentions it as one of many styles, but gives the album's genre as "Pop/Rock". As for post-punk, the only source that mentions that is the LA Times, and only refers to "sweeping, layered post-punk guitars"...desribing just 1 element does not make the entire album a post-punk effort, especially when only 1 of the 6 reviews even mentions this style. In fact, looking over the sources, none of them seem to mention "alternative" either, and though I favored that term earlier I'm now hesitant, as it's really overused as a blanket term for anything rock music that's not overtly mainstream. I really think that all we have for consensus among the sources is plain "rock", with a number of different styles blended in. The individual styles etc. can certainly be mentioned in the article body and referenced to each source that mentions them, but as for pinning down just 1 or 2 genres for the infobox I think we may have to stick with "rock" or "pop rock". --IllaZilla (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, alright, fine. I agree that this album sounds nothing like The Sisters of Mercy or The Cure. ~ NineInchNailed (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in the process of writing "Critical reception" and "Style" sections, so maybe we'll have more to go on after that. The references really belong in the prose rather than in the infobox when it comes to these, as the infobox is merely meant to be a summary. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am impressed with how well those sections were composed. My applause to you for that ~ NineInchNailed (talk) 07:09, 02 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hadn't thought to check Metacritic before, but doing so gave me several more reviews to pull from. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Just Rock? That's stupid. It should be Alternative Rock or Post-punk. --79.115.178.45 (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not unless you can verify those claims through reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed it, though I probably should've read the above discussion first. Either way, I recall being told that any modern rock music is usually considered alternative. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 08:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Finn
Has anyone seen any sources mentioning his involvement in the bonus tracks? Quite notable considering it's a posthumous release of his work. k.i.a.c ( talktome  -  contribs ) 03:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The credits he's listed for in the Personnel section are straight from the liner notes of the deluxe edition (and indeed, I cited the entire section to those liner notes). The reason they're a posthumous release of his work is because those 2 tracks are B-sides from Decemberunderground and Sing the Sorrow, both albums that he produced. The liner notes also dedicate Crash Love to his memory; that might be worth mentioning. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't questioning a source, just wondered if there was something further worth noting. Sad how you never really see articles on music video directors and producers, the people that exemplify the talents of these artists. Kiac 12:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 'component' charts
Darwin, the charts you are removing are not even component charts... Kiac 12:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * They're component charts for the Billboard 200. Definition of component = "a constituent part; element; ingredient". The Billboard 200 is the main chart, additional album charts are components of. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Kiac has a very valid point. After looking into the dispute, Alternative Albums, Hard Rock Albums and Rock Albums seem the be the charts in question. These are not component charts and hold no weight in the making of the Billboard 200. They are merely a comparison of albums in a similar genre on the Billboard 200. They are in no way an "element" nor an "ingredient" of the Billboard 200. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So Fezmar9 is claiming that the other charts are calculated differently and independently of the Billboard 200 then? If that is true, where is there an official document explaining this Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is the "official document" explaining that the other charts have any weight in making the Billboard 200? The Billboard charts article doesn't explain this at all. I'm skeptical that these are actually "component charts", as it is possible for albums to chart on the 200 without making any of the so-called "component charts" (as in the cases of American Psycho and Famous Monsters). I don't believe we currently have any good explanation of how the various album charts interrelate. We certainly don't have any source stating that they're "component charts" of the Billboard 200. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If we don't have any good explanation of how the various album charts interrelate, then how can Fezmar9 state that they're not component charts and hold no weight in the making of the Billboard 200? Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I obviously can't speak for Fezmar9, but since you seem to be so knowledgeable about the workings of Billboard, I'll ask you directly: Can you give us a source proving that the individual charts (Alternative Albums, Hard Rock Albums, etc.) are used to calculate the Billboard 200? And can you explain, or provide a source explaining, how this calculation works (ie. how the individual charts are weighted or compiled in order to come up with the Billboard 200 positions)? Such sources would lend more credence to your claims that the individual charts are "redundant" and "superfluous". Currently I can find no explanation of how these charts are factored into the Billboard 200 (if indeed they are), which is one of the reasons I do not see them as redundant or superfluous. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Component charts are more for singles as their peak on the Hot 100 is determined both by airplay and sales. Albums do not get airplay, so their peak on the Billboard 200 is directly related to sales alone. The only chart that could technically be considered a component chart, in regards to albums, is Digital Albums, as album sales are compiled of both physical and digital albums. I say technically because there is no physical album sales chart in existence, so there is no other chart to compile Digital Albums with. Coming directly form Billboard.com on the Billboard 200, "The week's top-selling albums across all genres, ranked by sales data as compiled by Nielsen SoundScan" and from the Hot 100 page, "The week's most popular songs across all genres, ranked by radio airplay audience impressions as measured by Nielsen BDS, sales data compiled by Nielsen SoundScan and steaming activity data provided by online music sources."   Fezmar9 (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So if my understanding is correct, Crash Love ' s position on both the Alternative Albums chart and the Billboard 200 is determined by its sales data: its sales against other Alternative albums determines its position on that chart, and its sales against all other albums of all genres determines its position on the Billboard 200. In other words, the 2 charts are created using the same raw data, but one uses a larger data pool than the other. So the album's position on the Alternative Albums chart does not determine its position on the Billboard 200; the charts do not depend on each other at all, but they are created from the same sales data. So Alternative Albums is not a component chart of the Billboard 200. It is, rather, what one might call a "sub-chart". It appears that "component charts" are only used in the singles charts, not in the album charts. Is this more or less correct? --IllaZilla (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That was very well stated, yes. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That has been my point. An Alternative Albums chart simply weeds out any non-"Alternative" albums to provide a sub-set of the Billboard 200, effectively making that chart redundant and superfluous as compared to the Billboard 200. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Work out your actual argument and take it to the WP:Record charts discussion you linked to below. This is going nowhere, in fact, it's gone right back around to the first statement I made to create this discussion. The simple fact is, you have misidentified these sub-charts as component charts and totally voided your argument. Start again at WP:RC and come with a better argument than your opinion, because on just this article's talk page there is three of us that disagree with your notion that they are redundant and superfluous. Kiac (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have two cents to add, at a rather late date, I realize, but I only saw all this discussion today. I don't know much about these charts, but it seems like all this discussion is about a few rows in a table that is just above the references. In general, I favor keeping valid information in the articles rather than deleting it. If an editor found the information interesting enough to put it in, then unless there is an overwhelming reason to remove it, it should generally be left in. I don't see that there is any good reason for removal here, and I consider repeatedly removing it, despite the contributing editor's objections, to be much worse. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Request
Included below is the current talk thread between myself and IllaZilla, as he apparently feels I refuse to talk about this here. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Here ya go, enjoy! :-) Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked for a "project guideline or standard", and that's neither. That's a discussion, and one that's ongoing right now. There is no consensus anywhere at this time that it is inappropriate to list positions for Billboard's various component charts. The idea seems to be based entirely on the fact that component chart data for other countries either doesn't exist or isn't available, but that's no reason to deny our readers relevant, verifiable information on an album. It may be entirely pertinent to an interested reader (myself, for example) that while Crash Love reached #12 on the Billboard 200, it ranked higher (#5 & 4) in comparison to other albums of the same genre (the Alternative, Hard Rock & Rock charts). There is no valid reason for excluding this information which is likely of interest to persons reading a comprehensive encyclopedia article about the album. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently it's not valid cuz you say it's not valid. The Billboard 200 is calculated based on the component charts, which makes the component charts superfluous when an album's already charted on the Billboard 200. It might be great for fanboys such as yourself, but it is generally pointless and confusing to put genre charting information when an album has charted on the Billboard 200. But whatever, you're not hearing any of this. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, and apparently so do most other editors since a vast majority of album articles contain listings of various "component" charts in addition to the Billboard 200. And unless there is consensus established that providing these verifiable facts is in appropriate, then removing them based on your own irrelevant opinion that only "fanboys" are interested in them is highly inappropriate. The component charts are not superfluous: if they were, then Billboard wouldn't bother calculating them. Their purpose is to show how an album performed not just in comparison to all other albums, but to other albums of the same genre, or same market. It is neither "pointless" nor "confusing" to include this information in a comprehensive encyclopedia article discussing an album's performance and impact. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Component charts are important for industry insiders, which is why they are published. Fanboys distort the reason of this. What's important for a commercially established group is how an album did on the Billboard 200, any additional charting info is superfluous and confusing. If it charted at number 12 on the Billboard 200, then it charted at number 12. End of story. That’s what people want and need to know. And no, most articles do not contain component charting info. I agree, wiki is inconsistent on this, as some do articles, and some articles don’t, but don’t try to intimidate me with blanket statements or original research. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "What people want and need to know" is not up to you to determine. This is an encyclopedia. We present facts and let readers decide what is important to them. Just because you don't give a crap about any other Billoard chart except the Billboard 200 doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't care as well. People interested in the field of music, albums, and songs may find use and value in charts like Alternative Albums, Hard Rock Albums, etc. They are not just for "industry insiders". And where exactly am I "intimidating you with original research?" A majority of the album articles that I've had experience with have component chart info. I see that you are now calling my edits "vandalism". The restoration of valid, factual, referenced information is not vandalism, especially when it is only being removed by 1 editor who refuses to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and has been reverted by multiple other editors already. You are the only one who feels this information does not belong in the article, and you are clearly disrupting the article to prove a point. If you remove the chart positions again without forming a consensus on the article's talk page then I will have no choice but to report your behavior to ANI, as it is unacceptable. There is no policy, guideline, standard, or consensus stating that it is inappropriate to include component chart info in an album article. Your removal of them is based entirely on your own point of view and is disruptive. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything you said can be turned around on you. Your demanding of the inclusion of the component charts is entirely based on your point of view and is disruptive. Go ahead and report my behavior, I don't give a fuck. Make it a big deal. I beg you. You're no better than you claim me to be. I notice how you've changed your statements from "a vast majority of album articles contain" to "A majority of the album articles that I've had experience with". You're trying to intimidate me with your own anecdotal experience. "Vandalism" is a powerful word and claim here on wiki, and so far you have been the only editor reverting my acts of "vandalism", not multiple other editors as you claim. I have not refused to discuss this on the article's talk page. We have been talking about it here and to the best of my knowledge this particular discussion hasn't been brought over there. It's clear that either you are delusional or need to take a much needed break from wiki, as you seem to have a hard time gathering your facts and are making powerful claims and threats against me. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"B-side"
IllaZilla - Is there any way we can resolve this? It genuinely annoys me to see words like "B-side" and "demo" just thrown around. It is absolutely NOT industry standard to refer to officially released non-album material as just a "B-side". These are NOT catch all phrases that can be applied to any non-album track. Totally inaccurate. Nevermind the fact that we could actually use the notes given on the very back of the Crash Love deluxe edition and the subtitles to ensure accuracy. I will not back down on this - it is not accurate. A B-side is a track on a single that is not the featured track. A bonus track is not a B-side, a demo is not a B-side, an outtake released later is not a B-side.

I am not stating opinions here, I'm absolutely right in this case. I don't want this to get personal, but your reporting me over this is outright bullying - absolutely ridiculous and completely unnecessary. 68.32.194.67 (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't "reported" anything, I merely gave you a notice about reverting in the hopes that you would disuss the issue here. "B-side" does not refer only to the flipside of a single. Yes, that was its original definition, but as the vinyl single has faded out over the years it has become an industry standard term for tracks that are recorded, mixed, and mastered during an album session, but left off of the finished album (as opposed to a demo which may not appear on the album either, but is generally a rough unmastered recording..."demo from Crash Love sessions" is better wording than "demoed prior to Crash Love"). In this usage it is synonymous with "outtake". For what it's worth, the A-side and B-side article is almost entirely unsourced, and altering it to suit your preferred definition in order to back up your argument here isn't appropriate. "Outtake" would be an acceptable substitute term, but there isn't any article on "outtake" for readers to understand the context of what that means. However, we do have an article on "B-side", a synonymous term in the music industry, which explains the nature of these types of tracks. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful thieves
Isnt it a single right now? A music video has been made for it and I'm not sure if the song has played on radio stations, but it probably is now a single considering Medicate was released back in August. --24.141.7.98 (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See the definition of single: a music video and a single are not the same thing. A single is released separately from the album, either as a record, CD, or download (AFI themselves have done several music videos for songs that were never released as actual singles: "He Who Laughs Last...", "Third Season", and "Totalimmortal"). It also needs a reliable source showing this and giving some details about it in order for it to pass WP:NSONGS. I do note that the song has charted, but this doesn't mean it's seen release as a single. What format is it available on? What record label? What are the B-sides? Where's the artwork? At least "Medicate" had its own artwork as a digital single. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Record charts
Currently, there are no separate WP:ALBUMCHARTS and WP:SINGLECHARTS pages stating separate rules for listing charting information on albums and singles on wikipedia. The same rules on WP:CHARTS apply for both albums and singles. As stated on the WP:CHARTS page: "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart." As the same rules apply for singles and albums, this definition merits the removal of the additional Billboard charts as Crash Love peaked at #12 on the Billboard 200. What's created confusion is that the wording in the WP:CHARTS statement is specific towards singles and there are no chart examples for albums listed on the WP:CHARTS page. What's also added to the confusion is that in the past the term "component chart" was used in place where the more appropriate term "genre chart" should have been used instead when referring to the various album subcharts. As the Crash Love page currently stands, there are four non-American album charts listed (UK, New Zealand, Australia and Canada) and an equal number of American charts listed, with all the American charts coming from the same publisher (Billboard). The current listing gives undue weight within the American market by listing the main American chart plus three additional genre subcharts (in this case being Billboard's Alternative, Rock, and Hard Rock genre charts). Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As before, the charts you are objecting to (Alternative albums, Rock albums, etc.) are not component charts, as they are not used to calculate a "main chart" (the Billboard 200 is not an aggregate of these other charts, but rather is calculated separately, as discussed above). Billboard only uses component charts for songs, to calculate the Hot 100 etc. They are not used for the Billboard 200. The reason that there are more US charts listed is that Billboard chooses to create separate album charts for different genres, while countries like the UK and Australia do not. If the UK had individual genre charts we would include those too. Nothing has changed since the previous discussion 5 months ago, and consensus is clearly in favor of keeping the sourced chart positions. If you have a problem with individual genre charts, you need to raise the issue at WT:CHARTS or WT:ALBUMS and establish consensus there first, rather than making changes based on WP:CHARTS when it in fact currently says nothing about Billboard's genre charts (which are used in nearly every album article including our FAs). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read my statement above. I did not say they were component charts, I stated they were genre charts. They are not calculated differently than the Billboard 200. For example, the Alternative Rock albums chart filters out any albums that Billboard deems non-"Alternative". It is a subchart of the main chart. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Edition
In this version of the album there are three bonus tracks - a re-recorded version of Carcinogen Crush, Ether and duet version of Miss Murder including Kyosuke Himuro. This information is already in the articles about the singles and Decemberunderground. But I'm not sure if the other bunus tracks can be found too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.76.237 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you mean this should be added to the article then it's been here and removed due to lack of sources. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 16:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * When it was being added and removed I tried to find sources for it, and the only thing I found (which didn't pass the reliability standard) said that the "duet" version of "Miss Murder" isn't actually a duet: It's a cover version by Himuro that has been mashed up with the original to create a single track. But again, unless this information can be verified through reliable sources then it can't be included. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I was thinking that this should be in the article but I couldn't find a source about the track list as well. However I heard these tracks and Carcinogen Crush sounds different than the version on the single. The production is better and I think the bass lines are mellower (excuse my lack of theoretical music knoleadge). I'd be happy if someone find the truth about these Japanese edition. 212.50.76.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC).


 * p.s. I've listened to the song with a bad quality in the internet 212.50.76.237 (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * True that Miss Murder isn't a 'duet' per se, but sourced or otherwise shouldn't that tracklist stay up? Whether or not one is supposed to cite retailers, it is a known fact that the Japanese edition does indeed contain those three tracks. There is another version of Carcinogen Crush (the only difference is 2 seconds of silence) and Ether, along with Miss Murder, on the Japanese album, so shouldn't that probably stay up? 75.73.139.144 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, so not it should not "stay up" unsourced. Shopping websites are not proper sources for an encyclopedia. See WP:RS for advice on finding reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Genre
Are we really going to leave it with just Rock? That's no specific at all. I suggest we put Alternative Rock and Glam Rock. Here's the source: http://www.allmusic.com/album/crash-love-mw0000828700 If you read the review in the first sentence it refers to the album as "Alterna-Glam". Which I can only assume is a fusion between Alternative Rock and Glam Rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeMIW (talk • contribs) 09:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)