Talk:Wasting Light

Prose change
According to WP:Writing better articles, the language used in articles should be formal and practical, which this version does so more efficiently than this version. The latter seems to embellish with words such as "only" and sales of another album that are not relevant. Opening the section with that the album "became the first Foo Fighters' album to reach number one" is giving too much importance to a charting, which is less significant than what the Billboard 200 actually charts, the sales. It is more formal to introduce the album's performance, chart and sales, and then anything extra about that performance, what they are on another level, "second-highest" and "first number-one". Putting both things together, as the latter version does, is more efficient as a summary style and would fit better in the article's lead. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the big deal here is. You seem to be upset that information was added to what you had previously written. All of the pertinent information was kept present, and added embellishment by stating Wasting Lights first week sales to In Your Honors first week sales which itself was included in the reference. I fail to see how adding In Your Honors first week sales is any different than stating that this is the group's first album with Pat Smear since 1996. Information that's stated at least twice in the article. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue here is about diction and style, which contributes to the tone. I don't about that other information about Smear, but my version of the reception section seems to suit the guidelines about encyclopedic style better. Dan56 (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with you, but I don't agree with you either. "Better" is a subjective term and you're obviously going to be biased to your preferences. Regardless, could you please include the information regarding the sales figures of IYH since you're so much "better" than I? Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Dan56 (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I was asked to comment here—my only previous edit was to remove a hidden personal attack. Both versions seem to communicate the same information, and it doesn't look worth arguing over. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Letterman performance
Should we mention their performance of the album Live on Letterman, with Beatles inspired instruments and clothing?--Mrjeeee (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Recording Dates
Am I right in thinking the 'recorded' section should just be the dates the band were in the garage with instruments and recording material to tape for the record? Because if so the current dates are wrong.

Recording for the album in Dave's garage began on Labor Day 2010, as shown in the twitter post by Dave - http://twitter.com/#!/foofighters/status/23169977345 That is Taylors kit in the garage. All pictures tweeted up to then were from 606.

The current date of August 16 2010 was when they began pre-production in Studio 606. Again, look at the tweets - http://twitter.com/#!/foofighters/status/21359323431, http://twitter.com/#!/foofighters/status/21427611996 - That is Studio 606, not Dave's garage studio where they actually recorded the album.

Again the finish date is wrong, January 3 2011 is when Dave tweeted that the record was officially finished, including mixing and mastering. Recording however was complete on the day of the Paladino's show, December 21 2010. Dave said to the audience that night they finished the record a few hours previous. So, which dates should it be? If you want to go with pre-production dates and dates post mixing and mastering all of the other dates need changing. For example the S/T record wasn't mixed until a few weeks after Dave recorded it in a week.

As far as I'm concerned the album was RECORDED between September 6, 2010 - December 21, 2010. Skilmore (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as it's cited in the article... Dan56 (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

To No End (song)
I was watching the Foo Fighters documentary Back and Forth (Foo Fighters documentary). During the documentary around the 93 minute mark you can see a chart with all the songs that were recorded for the album. Every song is on the album except for the song titled "To No End". Shouldn't that be included in the article?--SportsMaster (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That song should not be included in this article because it never appeared on any releases worldwide. Alcohkid (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Deluxe Edition
I've seen the deluxe edition as a double CD physical release on some retailers, so it's not only an iTunes exclusive. --BrowndRemastered (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Tour Information
Wasting Light World Tour was to be merged here per consensus in March. But the tour information here was deleted in September. I was not part of the initial discussion, so I have restored the original tour article with its merge tags. Take whatever action you think necessary. JimVC3 (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Genre
I listen a lot to wasting light, and it's a very raw record, it's not pop-influenced like There Is Nothing Left to Lose, and it will clasify as Grunge, alternative rock and hard rock. --Julianserpa (talk) 09:46, 9 november 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, are these assertions supported by sources? You can't just edit pages to certain genres under your reasoning that "it's a very raw record... not pop-influenced" and so on. The type of genre changing that you have performed is not encouraged on Wikipedia; if you want to assign a genre to a song, band, or album, then a reliabe source needs to be found, and the reasoning thereof should not be based on original research. Besides, the music itself is exceedingly more important than the genre tags assigned to it. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 09:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Singles template
I contested this change to the article and need some clarification on whether or not country of release can be specified in the singles template. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Concert tour
Per the AfD, Articles for deletion/One By One Tour, the concert information from Wasting Light World Tour into this article. It has been added a couple of times and simply deleting without a discussion. I propose that the information stay here until there is some sort of consensus whether the information should either be here or deleted from Wikipedia completely. Aspects (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

UK certification
Does anyone have a source for a UK certification for Wasting Light. According to one news source it sold 114,000 copies in its first week in the UK. Only 100,000 copies have to be sold for it to be certified Gold in the UK. But for some reason on the BPI website there is no mention of it.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)