Talk:The Alchemy Index Vols. I & II

ALBUM TITLE
This album REALLY IS called "The Alchemy Index"...check the myspace page's videos. ~ Tray Shadix

Release Date
What's the source on that October 16th release date?

The latest post on their blog...207.210.28.19 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Not you.

Check alchemyindex.com - That's where the release date was posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.103.95 (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Press review
The link posted for the Alternative Press review links to the band's own flickr account, as seen at AlchemyIndex.com- just in case anyone was meaning to mark it as spam. If anyone can find a link to the review online, even better. Anylayman 22:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That IS a link to the review. It's a scan of the actual article from the Alt Press magazine. I think it's fine the way that it is, but in case that link fails or Thrice takes it off their flickr account, here is the web version of the same article as found on the Alt Press website. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Split?
I think that the Alchemy Index Vols. I and II should be a seperate article from III and IV. Thoughts? --Pbroks13 14:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it would make sense.Anylayman 22:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say so, it's a singular concept with relating ideals, on the other hand, I can see the argument for splitting as it is in 2 seperate releases; but I think that's through nessecity (sp?) rather than design on the band's part —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.1.114 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing the split good for organizational issues. As petty as they are, problems like the Future Album template and the album pictures' layout could be avioded. But it is supposed to be one big idea... so I'm not sure.

Also, look at System of a Down's Mezmerize and Hypnotize albums. They also had a singular concept, but on two different date releases. --Pbroks13 01:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There should definitely be some sort of split as they have different release dates DavidJJJ 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll go ahead and split it. --Pbroks13 22:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit late, but SOAD's albums didn't really have a singular concept, they had a pseudo-concept of sorts with Soldier Side linking the two together, whereas the Alchemy Index is a singular concept which has been split more through nessecity than design I feel. however, I can see the advantages in the split ("house tidying") but there really isn't enough information on each part alone for the split to "work". unfortunately, it's one of these things that will never be able to keep everyone happy. I think (if possible) merging the two after the release of Air & Earth is a better idea, as then the whole problem with the Future album template etc. will be nullified; and it really is more of a singular concept than say, the SOAD albums. [/$0.02] 89.242.231.114 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Change Redirection!
I typed in "The Alchemy Index," and I was brought to just this one page. There should be TWO links, one to this page and one to the III & VI page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theotherness (talk • contribs) 11:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A little late, but it's done now! -- p b r ok s 1 3 talk? 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge
Although I was the one who proposed a split, now I believe the articles should be merged back together. It makes more sense, and it shouldn't be too difficult to put the information together. -- p b r ok s 1 3 talk? 18:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Both are separate records, released at separate times; I say we keep the articles separate. If only at the very least for the sake of chronology. GeneralAtrocity (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with General. Though the project is a whole, both albums are entirely sepereate releases and have their own individual reviews and sales.  Keep it as it is. Thricecube (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove the template. -- p b r ok s 1 3 talk? 07:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)