Difference between revisions of "Talk:The Resistance (album)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
::Not sure about that since fourth album theory was basically a seperate entity, and this page was meant to transform into the final one...there's a few bits of irrelevent info that no one will want to read in a year's time, but a lot can be rearranged into a description of the recording and writing process. Like, ever single instance the 15-minute song was mentioned, it won't matter a year after the album was released...a lot of this can be reduced to single sentences with multiple references, or maybe just moved to the talk page or hidden in-article...like if someone really wanted to know when the third time a band member mentioned "electronic songs" on the album there's the history, it doesn't really warrant its own article [[User:۞|۞]] 18:58, 22 May 2009 (BST) | ::Not sure about that since fourth album theory was basically a seperate entity, and this page was meant to transform into the final one...there's a few bits of irrelevent info that no one will want to read in a year's time, but a lot can be rearranged into a description of the recording and writing process. Like, ever single instance the 15-minute song was mentioned, it won't matter a year after the album was released...a lot of this can be reduced to single sentences with multiple references, or maybe just moved to the talk page or hidden in-article...like if someone really wanted to know when the third time a band member mentioned "electronic songs" on the album there's the history, it doesn't really warrant its own article [[User:۞|۞]] 18:58, 22 May 2009 (BST) | ||
:::Personally i find the way that information is slowly leaked and speculation as to possible inclusions to be really interesting and really enjoyed reading [[Fourth album theory]] after BHaR came out as i didnt follow muse as closely then as i do now. Then again there were more clues last time such as the setlist anagrams and cryptic forum posts. Anyone else got an opinion on this? --[[User:Wilfio|Wilfio]] 19:58, 22 May 2009 (BST) | :::Personally i find the way that information is slowly leaked and speculation as to possible inclusions to be really interesting and really enjoyed reading [[Fourth album theory]] after BHaR came out as i didnt follow muse as closely then as i do now. Then again there were more clues last time such as the setlist anagrams and cryptic forum posts. Anyone else got an opinion on this? --[[User:Wilfio|Wilfio]] 19:58, 22 May 2009 (BST) | ||
*I agree that it should be now condensed. Some of the running commentary info isn't needed anymore Such as speculation that the | *I agree that it should be now condensed. Some of the running commentary info isn't needed anymore Such as speculation that the album won't be an album, we no know that it will be. I say we have a 'History' or 'Production' Section which includes this info, with less specificity & detail --[[User:Musername|Musername]] 20:44, 22 May 2009 (GMT) | ||
Revision as of 19:45, 22 May 2009
I think it's time this when from went from being a running commentary on the album to being a proper article now that official announcements are being made. ۞ 15:19, 22 May 2009 (BST)
- how about splitting it into 2 articles like Fourth album theory and Black Holes and Revelations (album)? --Wilfio 18:53, 22 May 2009 (BST)
- Not sure about that since fourth album theory was basically a seperate entity, and this page was meant to transform into the final one...there's a few bits of irrelevent info that no one will want to read in a year's time, but a lot can be rearranged into a description of the recording and writing process. Like, ever single instance the 15-minute song was mentioned, it won't matter a year after the album was released...a lot of this can be reduced to single sentences with multiple references, or maybe just moved to the talk page or hidden in-article...like if someone really wanted to know when the third time a band member mentioned "electronic songs" on the album there's the history, it doesn't really warrant its own article ۞ 18:58, 22 May 2009 (BST)
- Personally i find the way that information is slowly leaked and speculation as to possible inclusions to be really interesting and really enjoyed reading Fourth album theory after BHaR came out as i didnt follow muse as closely then as i do now. Then again there were more clues last time such as the setlist anagrams and cryptic forum posts. Anyone else got an opinion on this? --Wilfio 19:58, 22 May 2009 (BST)
- Not sure about that since fourth album theory was basically a seperate entity, and this page was meant to transform into the final one...there's a few bits of irrelevent info that no one will want to read in a year's time, but a lot can be rearranged into a description of the recording and writing process. Like, ever single instance the 15-minute song was mentioned, it won't matter a year after the album was released...a lot of this can be reduced to single sentences with multiple references, or maybe just moved to the talk page or hidden in-article...like if someone really wanted to know when the third time a band member mentioned "electronic songs" on the album there's the history, it doesn't really warrant its own article ۞ 18:58, 22 May 2009 (BST)
- I agree that it should be now condensed. Some of the running commentary info isn't needed anymore Such as speculation that the album won't be an album, we no know that it will be. I say we have a 'History' or 'Production' Section which includes this info, with less specificity & detail --Musername 20:44, 22 May 2009 (GMT)