Talk:Songs of Innocence (U2 album)

Early reviews
These are some of the early reviews that I have removed for right now, but I have used the Metacritic ones with the lone exception of USA Today in order to balance it out. AdditionSubtraction (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * References

Y2kcrazyjoker4's edits
He's single handedly deciding what should be up there and taking down important information. Can someone please check this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonlybman (talk • contribs) 18:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I looked at his (her?) edits, and they appear to be bringing the article into compliance with generally-accepted standards on Wikipedia, such as only including the first date of release in the infobox (with expanded details elsewhere in the article). If you have a specific content-related question, feel free to ask it here. However, please comment on the content, not the contributor; this talk page is not the place to question another editor's character, and personal attacks will not be tolerated. —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've collaborated with Y2kcrazyjoker for years and never had any problems. I looked through the edit history for the article and all I've seen are edits in line with Wikipedia's policies. On the contrary, I would suggest that it appears to be Theonlybman that is adding content in a manner contrary to Wikipedia's spirit, particularly WP:NPOV, and acting in bad faith. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just read through and edited the article myself. Theonlybman's claims are either entirely in bad faith or they are not reading the edits that others have made. Rather than "trying to cover up the fact this album release was a complete disaster", it's a removal of information that is a) already present in the article b) in the appropriate section, and c) is much better written and cited to a more reliable source. Can we now end this farce and cease the unfounded complaints and personal attacks? Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Boost to U2 catalogue
Just a thought; I've seen it mentioned on Twitter for most of the day that most of U2's back catalogue has re-entered the charts (or at least the top 100 on iTunes) as a direct result of the release. Might be worth including that boost if a reliable source for it can be found. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Melicans, I just had a look and found this source but it only says they charted within the Top 200 on iTunes: http://www.mashable.com/2014/09/12/u2-album-itunes-chart-apple-release/
 * I'm not too sure on what's reliable and what's not but that's the only source I've found so far. Ultra Viole t Ligh t  11:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's certainly interesting, but I'd say we need to see more coverage of it before including anything in the article. I would also assume it isn't uncommon for an artist to experience a sales bump like this when a new release comes out, especially when its been so many years between releases.  Calidum Talk To Me 15:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's probably a good idea Calidum, chart archives are a good place to start once they've been published. I've only seen a sales bump with Stereophonics and now U2 so I can't really comment on that. Ultra Viole t Ligh t  16:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * iTunes chart shouldn't be mentioned in articles, per WP:BADCHARTS. However, if U2 albums show up at some of the official national record charts (WP:GOODCHARTS), information like that might be worth including. Anyway, I guess it's too early for that. BTW, I agree with Calidum that such a boost in sales is not unusual. —  Ma y ast  ( talk ) 17:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting move to "Songs of Innocence", droping "(album)" from the title
I suggest we move this to "Songs of Innocence". According to a wikipedia search, and also according to the article Songs of Innocence and of Experience (disambiguation), there is nothing else that matches this exactly. There are articles with longer titles, article with a "song" as a singular. But if there's nothing else with the same title, shorter is better. Comments? Srezz (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The album's title is a reference to a book of poetry by Blake that's a pretty key work in British Romanticism (and as the disambiguation page suggests, provided the name for a lot of other creative works). It's put together in the Wikipedia with its "sequel" he wrote later called Songs of Experience (which Bono himself said would probably provide the name for their next album) but Blake's was the first use of the name, and almost certainly what the U2 album was named after.Artimaean (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you.  Calidum Talk To Me 15:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea. But as a move like this might be considered "controversial" by some Wikipedians, it should be requested at WP:MOVES.  Ma y ast  ( talk ) 17:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Can somebody else please handle the WP:MOVES thing, it looks quite complex. Thanks. Srezz (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Srezz it wasn't the only album, the Belgian No.1 album was already in the Jasper Steverlinck article with a full tracklist. Last week I separated it out to allow uploading of an album cover. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I notice 05:30, 10 September 2014 User:Dream out loud moved page Songs of Innocence (album) to Songs of Innocence (U2 album) over redirect (distinguish from David Axelrod album) and was reverted. But it clearly should have (U2 album) per WP:NCM In ictu oculi (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

iTunes 2 covers
I found differences between two types of iTunes covers. The early release is on here, and it has the sun-like thing on the left side of the label. The newer one has the sun-like thing on the right, and takes off the LP written on the label. See for yourself. I don't know why they made this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.140.74 (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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: move the page to Songs of Innocence (U2 album), per the discussion below. The plain title, Songs of Innocence, is a redirect to a different article, and this discussion did not establish that the U2 album is the primary topic for the search term. The discussion also exhibited a lack of agreement that this is the "primary" album with the title Songs of Innocence. Dekimasu よ! 21:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Songs of Innocence (album) → Songs of Innocence (U2 album) – WP:NCM. --Relisted. Dekimasu よ! 00:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support move to Songs of Innocence as the primary topic for that term; a hatnote would be sufficient to direct readers to the collection of poems by Blake that uses a longer name. Oppose move as proposed as WP:PDAB is a failed guideline that shouldn't be enforced anywhere. While there is another lesser known album of the same name, it's article was only created after the U2 album was released despite being released 10 years prior. (And it was created by the nominator of this move request, conveniently enough.) -- Calidum  02:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NCM is a working practiced guideline, the only editor in RMs opposing it User:Calidum is yourself. And in any case WP:NCM provides no reason for a 2014 album to move over William Blake's 1789 poetry collection. What is your reason for holding a 2014 album to be more important than one of the major works of English literature? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support move because other albums have the same name, according to the disambiguation page. Katy Gallaghon (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
 * Support move to base title as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Nevertheless, if consensus determines that this is not a primary topic, then and only then I would support as proposed. Red Slash 22:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Red Slash, same question what is your reason for holding a 2014 album to be more important than one of the major works of English literature when all Google Book references to "Songs of Innocence" refer to the major work of English literature and not this album? Are U2 God? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because that is not, in fact, the full name of the book. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 17:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 Nonsense that is the full name of the first book. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support addition of "U2"; no one knows the current primary topic, Song of Innocence (David Axelrod album). In ictu oculi, if you want to propose disambiguating the Axelrod album, go ahead, but I'd oppose that proposal, anyway. --George Ho (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I change my vote to support moving to base title; I overlooked the plural "Songs". There are "Song of Innocence" topics; there are not topics exactly "Songs of Innocence". "Distinguish" hatnote would suffice. --George Ho (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:George Ho when you say "there are not topics exactly "Songs of Innocence" - are you suggesting that the first 1789 book which is the subject of "Songs of Innocence" in Google Books must be forked out of the Songs of Innocence article or is not notable? If we're proposing that then WP:Disambiguation needs to be changed to say we disambiguate against titles not topics, which is a major change. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That 1789 book first must meet WP:Notability and WP:Notability (books), even when the book is proven to exist. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User:George Ho, what Google Books results do you get for 1789 "Songs of Innocence" ? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean Songs of Innocence and of Experience? Why scrapping out "Of Experience"? To prove your point? As I said, there's not one topic that is exactly "Songs of Experience" and doesn't have "Of Experience". --George Ho (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User:George Ho, no, I mean what I said: what Google Books results do you get for 1789 "Songs of Innocence" - the first Blake book? Have you conducted a Google Books search? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh... I see two separate books in one article, Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience. --George Ho (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, thanks. Per Introduction to English Literature ed. Monnickendam, Soler, Alegre, 1999 "Blake wrote two short collections of poems Songs of Innocence (1789) and Songs of Experience (1794) which illustrate the problems lying at the centre of Romanticism" The above support to move the U2 album over the 1789 book is based on the opinions of editors who have not checked the usage in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll still oppose addition of U2. --George Ho (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For better or worse you can't, WP:NCM In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The album is relatively new, so keep (album). Also, why won't a hatnote suffice? --George Ho (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't use hatnotes when the album is not the only album, per WP:NCM but artist name + album; i.e. Songs of Innocence (U2 album) which is why the nomination states "WP:NCM". In ictu oculi (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Conveniently enough, Wikipedia we can chose to ignore rules if we wish. -- Calidum  17:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can, but RM closers don't generally ignore guidelines such as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NCM without a case based on an alternative policy. It's quite evident here that Songs of Innocence (the 1789 poetry book) is the primary topic for Songs of Innocence in Google Books, and the 2004 No.1 Belgian album not only "exists" per WP:NCM but Songs of Innocence (Jasper Steverlinck album) was in the Belgian charts for 41 weeks. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support WP:PRECISE ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2014 (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.

Main infobox cover
The cover which was infamously automatically downloaded to tens of millions of users' iTunes accounts, or the cover of a commercial version that has sold substantially less? I think the one which should be used at the top of the infobox is pretty obvious, and so does, but disagrees. Explanations? Input from others? –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how many people own the album with whatever cover, the LP-style cover was exclusive to the album's digital release thru iTunes, iTunes Radio, and Beats Radio from Sept 9 to Oct 13. For every other retailer/service (and even for iTunes after Oct 13), it is the hugging cover. If you try and purchase the record 5 or 10 years from now, you won't be able to purchase a copy of the LP-style cover. The hugging cover is clearly the canonical cover. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 01:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Genre
I honestly don't know why I'm wasting my time on some numbnuts who thinks he knows everything about album articles, but it's just getting irritating and childish. Apparently, Mr. Know-it-all here believes that the critics reviews we use to source the genres for this page and The Miracle (Of Joey Ramone) fall under WP:BIASED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, and WP:RSOPINION. I just want to ask: besides music critics and the artist themselves, who else could we use as a source? If Wikipedia uses music critics as trusted sources, then how else do we source genres? I guess that music critics would fall under WP:RSOPINION, but again, how else do we source genres? They do require a source after all, according to WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:SUBJECTIVE. Aria1561 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, can you please stop with the name calling. Stuff like "numbnuts" and Mr. Know-it-all is very offensive and unnecessary. I never implied to be greater or better than anyone here. I treated you with respect and honesty, so I hope you`ll do the same. Anyways, let`s get back to the topic. Someone listed sources for the album genres and I reverted because of such guidelines like WP:BIASED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, and WP:RSOPINION. These guidelines simply contradicted the sources that were acquired. Honestly, music genre for Songs of Innocence is more of a WP:CK. Those unreliable sources have been there since the beginning of the album release. But no one used them up until now? Seriously, that's a nuisance, at first for like 5 months no one used an unreliable source to support an extraordinary claim, but now is ok to do that. Thank you for taking the time to go to the talk page, I appreciate it.Correctingsection0062
 * "Songs of Innocence is a rock album" isn't common knowledge like the number of the days in a week. Also how come is The Daily Telegraph unreliable? Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Songs of Innocence (U2 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/triple-a/future-releases
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSN1054376520090311
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/news-gossip/taking-care-of-business--the-u2-interview-1698937.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/u2-talk-horizon-follow-up-spider-man-musical-in-rolling-stone-cover-story-20090304
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/feb/15/u2-no-line-on-the-horizon
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/u2-beyond-the-horizon-plans-for-next-album-take-shape-20091001
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/music/u2-access-all-areas-1782416.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.u2.com/news/title/on-the-record
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/music/i-was-in-grave-danger-bono-20101021-16v5i.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1018/1224281343133.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hamhighbroadway.co.uk/news/u2_recording_new_album_in_famous_crouch_end_studios_1_3485320
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113005101/http://www.fimi.it/5233 to http://www.fimi.it/5233

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) 11:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Songs of Innocence (U2 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/20141024140930/http://www.fimi.it/main/chart_id/1904 to http://www.fimi.it/main/chart_id/1904

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) 11:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)