Talk:The End of All Things to Come

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chilled Ghost of Atonement?[edit]

The "Chilled Ghost of Atonement" anagram paragraph seemed to serve no purpose whatsoever, so I have removed it. If anyone can make a good case for why it should remain there, please do so, or else I believe it should stay removed. --Muugokszhiion 05:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Track Eleven[edit]

Isn't there any information on the eleventh track? --Deathdoor 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found some interesting stuff on the number combo. I can't figure out how to simplify it to 11:11, but a number of sources said it. -ExNoctem 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beginningofallthingstocome.jpg[edit]

Image:Beginningofallthingstocome.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LostAndFound.JPG[edit]

Image:LostAndFound.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

One cite in the article claims it was one of the most acclaimed metal relesaes of the year, but metacritic gives it a 48/100. So which is it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

I don't necessarily disagree with the genres being added, but you need sources for the genres being added. Everything needs a citation. That's how wikipedia works. Please read WP:RS and find this information. I'll refer to Jimbo's quote here:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information...

–Jimmy Wales [1]

  1. ^ Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved 2006-06-11.

Please find sources for genres and everything else. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"you need sources for the genres being added" there's no policy saying this, that's you're personal opinion, which you're enforcing on this article. See Template:Infobox musical artist

"The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop). Genres should be separated with a comma delimiter. Genres should be wikilinked. Use piped links where needed, for example: Pop, rock. Note: most genres are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. However, the first word in a list of multiple genres should be capitalized."

Nowhere does it say genres have to be sourced. I call the big one bitey (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't say to just "put whatever you think!" either. You still have to follow the general rules of WP:RS and WP:OR. Placing so many sub-genres of metal as you did as well goes against what the infobox says (i.e: Hip hop music rather than East coast hip hop). Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Mudvayne are listed as all of those genres on their page and all of them are sourced so it's not original research. There are tons of good articles and featured articles which have no sources for the genres. I call the big one bitey (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's listed like that on one page, doesn't mean it's okay for others and you can't base your research on other Wikipedia articles per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. There might be FA or GA articles without sources on genres, but honestly, genre is one of the most edited and removed things on music articles. I wish we did not have the genre section in the infobox to avoid this kind of vandalism. What's even more troubling with genre (which I've read a few books about) is that many critics find that one when one critic or expert refers to one genre, they might mean something else when another sources discusses the genre. It's tricky! Either way, I'm trying to encouraging people to try and find sources for genres for albums and singles and such to try and avoid vandalism. As long as there is sources, then it's a lot easier to avoid the vandals. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genres for albums should of course be sourced. While a band may generally play one style or set of styles, any particular album may include other styles, or may not include some styles that the band normally plays. Saying that "the artist has sourced genres, therefore it's ok to use those genres here" is not true. Any information presented in any specific article should be sourced within that article, and especially any controversial information (such as genres). While it is true that Template:Infobox musical artist does not say that genres need sources, this is because it is assumed that editors have read WP:V. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception Section[edit]

The Reception section currently appears to be rather biased and not neutral.

The first sentence claims "The End of All Things to Come received positive reviews when it was released in 2002.", and is cited to a Boston Herald article. However, the link provided does not say this. I'm not sure if that link is intended to represent a full article that isn't available online, or if the link is the entire article. Can someone explain whether there is a longer version which explicitly states that the album "received positive reviews when it was released in 2002"? If not, this should be removed, as it appears to contradict other parts of the article.

While the information in the second sentence is an accurate quote (if rather short), and I'm willing to accept that the third sentence is also an accurate quote (I'm not interested in paying to find out), the section is very short, and seems constructed solely to support the first sentence. As noted in another talk section above, Metacritic only averages 48/100 from reviews. In addition, the rest of the reviews are 3/5, 2/5, 2/5, and 3/10. These are not positive scores, these are mixed or negative scores. Reading the reviews that are available confirms this; of the reviewers cited on this article, most did not like the album or had mixed feelings on it. There's also no text from any of these mixed/negative reviews included in the Reception section.

So I think the section should be expanded to include text from all of the reviews cited, and I really question claiming "The End of All Things to Come received positive reviews when it was released in 2002.", and think that it instead should read "The End of All Things to Come received mostly negative to mixed reviews.". MrMoustacheMM (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the cited source which says that the album received positive reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.42.92.110 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if the link actually worked, we'd be able to. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed deadlink. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, metacritic in comparison says several bad reviews. The Boston article called it "one of 2002's most acclaimed heavy metal albums", so where are the reviews that claim this? Even the positive reviews are kind of vague in their praise. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic lists a small number of reviews. Out of the number of sources listed, the majority of reviews cited are positive compared to what Metacritic posts on their site. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the majority of reviews are weak. Two positive ones from Launch and EW, three mixed or average, and two bad. It doesn't even address some other article calling it "one of 2002's most acclaimed heavy metal albums.", if we can't find any other sources coming close. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's obvious you are editing in bias against the band, but I'll remove the statement if it makes your precious tantrum throwing butt happy. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MTV[edit]

I removed this article from MTV as it's talking about the album's genre, but the album had not even been released yet. I don't think it's appropriate to refer to the music on an album that one has not even heard yet. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't think they didn't listen to the album prior to release, considering that they're a music news organization? 63.155.164.33 (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that this album is progressive metal. Why fight the sources? --68.185.2.134 (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the sources don't support that genre. Certainly not the MTV one which was a pre-announcement of the album, calling the band prog metal but not the unreleased upcoming album. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That source could be used at the band article, but not for this particular album, as there's no indication that they had listened to an advance copy at that point. (and they're referring to the band, not the album, in the source.)Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed some sources added again. The AllMusic and the MetaCritic reviews stated that the album is leading the band to become an all out prog group. But not that this album is part of that genre. Please don't add it unless it distinctly says this per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuggaloProghead (talk • contribs) [reply]
You seem to be going through all these albums and adding/removing genres based on an agenda. Stop that. JuggaloProghead (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remind you of WP:GOODFAITH, if a quality source is found. Then please add it. If not, don't add genre and other items back based on opinion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed progressive rock on the genres from Uriah Heep (band) in spite of my opinion, so don't accuse me of opinion-based edits. JuggaloProghead (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The End of All Things to Come. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_End_of_All_Things_to_Come&oldid=1195501776"