Talk:Only by the Night

arena rock
I wouldn't call this genre arena rock, even U2 don't use this flamboyant term. Then we can call every other alternative rock album as arena just as well. RonDivine (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

pitchfork is a professional review?1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.203.36.100 (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

when does alternative or indie rock become mainstream if this was one of the biggest bands in the UK at the time and everyone wanted to copy them, never got why not so popular in USA?

mANHATTEN is an amazing track and not even a single! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.55.211 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Covers
The white cover is the more common one, this was put right. The "face split cover" is, as far as I'm concerned NOT the European cover as in Germany and in France, the white cover is in stores. The only country where the alternate cover is the common one is the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.166.251.87 (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviews
There is around 100000 (lie) reviews in the template, which is not acceptable. Whereas the Reception section has an expand tag in it, someone has to get that reception section fixed up, i'll leave the reviews there for a few days so they are available if need be, then we'll have to cut half of them. kiac (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reviews
Shouldn't Wikipedia strive to give as much information as possible? Why delete things that aren't factually incorrect? Just because they're not a part of some close-minded view? It's a sad state of affairs... Everything that is appropriate should be allowed or nothing at all. Raincoat50 (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Why delete things that aren't factually incorrect?" bleeh. You just lost your argument. kiac (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:MUSIC states that there should be no more than 10 professional reviews, so if more are added or if they are unprofessional reviews they will be removed. --JD554 (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Very mediocre album
No-one has mentioned how mediocre and musically dissapointing this album is, it recieved several awful reviews, if it is so 'AMAZING' how could it be rated badly by any of the music press? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukestar1991 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the reception section? It starts The album was met with mixed reviews.... --JD554 (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright then
I suppose that mixed revire thing covers it but hey it should mention the drastic change in musical direction. Lukestar1991 (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --JD554 (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Title (name)
Everywhere on this page, it says Only by the Night instead of Only By The Night. The last one is the correct one I think. You can see it on their website. Greetz Buchters (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has naming policies which correctly adhere to the English language. Capitalization is explained quickly simply here. By and the are correctly not capitalized. k-i-a-c  ( hitmeup  -  the past ) 03:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry. In Dutch it is not correctly. I tought it was the same in Englisch. Thank you. Buchters (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Award win!
A winner at the 2009 Meteor Awards tonight! -- Candlewicke STundefined 02:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

songs
interesting fact - the single 'use somebody' has just 37 words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.193.236 (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Only by the Night. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5o3D4adtB?url=http://www.aumreport.com/amr100.html to http://www.aumreport.com/amr100.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811043551/http://www.qthemusic.com/cgi-bin/50bestalbums/month.pl?id=2 to http://www.qthemusic.com/cgi-bin/50bestalbums/month.pl?id=2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://{{billboardurlbyname|artist=kings/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915190126/http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_annual.asp to http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_annual.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108131925/http://www.viva.tv/charts/viva-album-jahrescharts-2010-2010-211/ to http://www.viva.tv/charts/viva-album-jahrescharts-2010-2010-211/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/kings-of-the-road-kings-of-leon-1003944465.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Only by the Night. 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/20120214232438/http://www.columbia.co.uk/news/10385/0/ to http://www.columbia.co.uk/news/10385/0/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930101822/http://elbo.ws/post/1768922/kings-of-leon-premier-notion-music-video/ to http://elbo.ws/post/1768922/kings-of-leon-premier-notion-music-video/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722205009/https://www.kingsofleon.com/pages/news/kings-leon-to-headline-at-hyde-park to http://www.kingsofleon.com/pages/news/kings-leon-to-headline-at-hyde-park

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Critical Reception
Hello to everyone,

I noticed that the album-reception is listed as "mixed", strangely directly followed up by the sourced metascore-sentence using "generally favorable" as the term defining the album-reception. In other words; "generally favorable" can be sourced as a directly quotable wording, "mixed" cannot; plus, the quality of the article definitely suffers from it as an unsourced "mixed" is always a subjectively steeped judgement and has no place in a general overview. The diverging reviews can be left in there, of course, but "mixed" is a personal judgement and none that can be directly sourced in this overarching review-context, whereas "generally favorable" can be sourced and is in accordance with what Wikipedia normally does.

Quite obviously, the matter can be fixed by editing the article, but I wanted to stick to the talk-page beforehand and initiate a little section on the topic. If you want to look up a short, simplified reasoning behind why such "mixed" receptions are nothing which should be featured unless sourced, feel free to check out the talk-section on the Kings Of Leon WALLS-album, we had a discussion much of the same kind there.

Thank you all for reading, Autorefiller, 07.07.2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autorefiller (talk • contribs) 21:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Whoops, forgot to sign. Sorry for that. Autorefiller, 18:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)