Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Resistance (album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | I Belong to You (Muse song) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 08 January 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into The Resistance (album). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Lately there seems to be a lot of edits surrounding the release date. According to WP:ALBUMS#Release, only the earliest know release date is to be posted in the infobox. To avoid further editing conflicts, perhaps either a comment should be placed in the infobox or a release history section should be created. Fezmar9 ( talk) 16:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The release date should (and will, if I have anything to say about it [which I will]) be listed as that which is true in the band's home country; in this case, 14 September 2009. Just because Benelux received the album on the 11th, that means squat; this format has always been used and is widely accepted, and should be. Stop changing it. Andre666 ( talk) 08:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Can the malaysian malay muse fanboys please stay the fuck away from the muse pages if you don't have any references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.2.102 ( talk • contribs)
malaysian english is very easy to tell. i'm a malaysian and i can't stand all these mentally ill fanboys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.135.212.208 ( talk) 05:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
While I read and am genuinely pleased that all of these reviews on the new album are giving nothing but praise, a few reviews that manage to squirm through such as the current Kerrang! and Rolling Stone review, are Spanish reviews. Now I dont know how these magazines work since I don't live in a country where they're released or if the international issues are just translated and the review work is still the same person all-in-all, but can spanish reviews really be counted on an English Wikipedia page? Carbo45 ( talk) 10:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Consider replacing The Fly's review score of 3.5 stars to 'favorable', as the review awards 5/5 to the latter part of the album, and 3.5/5 for 'the rest'. A total score of 3.5 is therefore wholly misrepresentative of the review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.222.94 ( talk) 11:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking about ironing out some of the reviews at hand out here. Some of them are just "favourable" and I think some spots should possibly be saved for the bigger names in reviewing business such as Allmusic and Kerrang. Wiki only allows 10 reviews at max. Plus that review that Guardian made wasn't really a review, it was more of an article. A new review from Spin gave this a 3.5/5 by the way. Just putting this out there. Carbo45 ( talk) 09:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The reviews should also be formatted correctly with references, per WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews. This includes magazines which should use the (Cite journal) or (Citation) templates. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 06:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Question out of curiosity again since I don't want to go and delete something without being too sure (still not all the way sure with Wiki stuff), but I just noticed that a review by The Observer was put in the column. Now I know that the article was posted on Guardian, but on The Guardian review (which I updated for the "real" review), its also signed as "The Observer" underneath, only another writer, and the reviewer gave a score. So what do we do with the two reviews? They really seem to clash with each other. Carbo45 ( talk) 10:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I posted a sputnikmusic review, and I want to know why it was deleted. I made sure it didn't go over the 10 reviews max, because i decided that it's better to reference a review one can read on the internet. Sputnikmusic staff are regarded as professional music reviewers on wikipedia, and I can only assume it was taken down because of some fanboy who didn't like the idea that a critic gave the Resistance a 2.5/5. I think that by adding it, the reviews will be less biased. Itachi1452 ( talk) 23:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
"That would be me, I deleted it in favor for the Allmusic review since the way I see it, they're far more of a known source for music. It's 10 reviews now. One review had to go out of there. It wasn't a fanboy move, but feel free to put it back up there if you think another review is deemable to be removed. I guess a review with a less positive reception isn't too bad at all. Should have thought of that actually. Sorry. EDIT: Oh yeah as for the Reception, I'm taking out the reverse lyric thing. Seems more of a trivia, and I doubt it's "skyrocketted" any way, changing the reception"
You mean, you replaced it, as it was a negative review. And you changed it to a more positive review. You realise that's censortship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 ( talk) 15:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I state that I've been on a Muse fan board recently, where they were openly discussing the fact that they had been editing the "reception" and "reviews" section, on the basis that they felt that it didn't reflect how good the album actually was.
As in, in the mind of a muse fan.
This is an encyclopedia. Not a fan board. This should represent how the album has been perceived worldwide. Not how it's perceived by muse fans. "Carbo", was on this message board saying he had been removing data from the wikipedia page.
How do I know, as he was discussing in detail the Sputnik music incident, that he admits was him, above.
In response to Kiac telling us "how things work here - go elsewhere". I disagree totally with you. This isn't a page to just show the best of Muse, and to please people who like them. You should be trying to approach the issue with balanced opinion.
And the only way of doing this is posting only "major" reviews on the album, be it good or bad. Post all the good ones, and all the bad ones.
At the minute, you just seem to be making room for the good ones, and deleting the bad ones. I assure you, you are not working by the rules, and far from being able to get this page "protected" you may find yourself being kicked off for vandalism yourself.
The reception section consists of a vague "mostly positive reviews", which is simply not true - it's mixed at best, and a glowing quote for Zane Lowe, their best friend.
How can that be an encylopedic reception section. I add in a couple of quotes from the NME, and Pitchfork, and you delete them!
Again, this is not a fan site. And I think you'll find that you will be the one reported. Not the other way around.
If an quote is referenced, relevant, and sourceable, and on topic, and from a major title, you have no right whatsoever to delete it. It's viewed as censoring the article.
So when I'm going on muse boards, and reading threads about fans "controlling it", you know, make up your own mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.68 ( talk) 14:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments related to the reception section moved and replied to below. U-Mos ( talk) 17:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Having obtained an early copy of the album, I can confirm that the back cover of the CD lists the two-part songs in the (+Collateral Damage) format. Consider changing it to match the official format.
In the muse.mu-mediaplayer the lengths of tracks differ from the wiki-lengths. Reason to change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.50.251 ( talk) 10:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You've used "state magazine" as one of your 10 reviews. State magazine = the student magazine of the university of toronto!? My god. Are you trying to keep average reviews out that much!? Can I ask why you have ignored worldwide (poor reviews) like the nme and pitchfork, and yet used studentmagazines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 ( talk) 16:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
There has been constant editing of this article concerning the leakage of this album. I've always known information like that as non-notable, but Muse themselves have commented on the leak, and there is a source to confirm that. Is the link still unimportant? I would initially say that it still isn't important enough for wikipedia, but I want other opinions before I remove it. Thanks in advance. Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done 02:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The currently accepted format for listing reviews is to provide citations instead of embedded links. The reasons for this listed at WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews make perfect sense and are neither "wrong" nor "crap." Fezmar9 ( talk) 21:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Rolling Stone hates Muse the same way they hated Queen that's why Muse is huge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 ( talk) 06:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I was just saying you should put Rolling Stone's review cause they're just as important as NME or Pitchfork I mean geez, can't you people get a clue?
Basically, this section needs balancing out. Only one negative comment is given no more than a passing mention, wheras there should really be a paragraph on the criticisms that have been levelled at the album, as seen in the two low-scoring reviews in the infobox. U-Mos ( talk) 16:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I state that I have tried to "balance" out the "reception" section 3 times today, and 3 times it has been deleted for no apparent reason.
All I did was add some of the feedback from Pitchfork and the NME. It seems that the reception section is only for "positive reviews".
The entire section is completely biased (only has links to 2 reviews, both totally positive), and is being censored. I may put a request into wikipedia to have this page partially protected, as it's obviously being controlled very closesly - most likely for commercial reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.68 ( talk) 17:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I added in PopMatters' review of the album, one of the more "negative" ones, plus adding the MetaCritic score to give a general overview. It's starting to shape up now again, at last. Carbo45 ( talk) 17:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Get rid of that Twitter crap. There's 15 solid, reliable, professional reviews linked to by Metacritic, and we still use a Twitter post by a radio broadcaster as our leading professional review? hah. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 03:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
What is gained by posting the exact same track listing three times? It makes sense with something like Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness where the vinyl listing is in a completely different order, but here it's the exact same on all three formats. Fezmar9 ( talk) 18:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
So what's the standard for the track name formatting? The album artwork, and even the official site says (+track name), so why aren't the tracks being formatted like this? If we're not going by the CD's formatting, other cases spring to mind ( Snow ((Hey Oh)), for example) should be formatted (in)correctly. Just a thought, seeing as this is how the band clearly wanted the titles. Le.Kwyjibo ( talk) 01:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have added a NPOV tag to the Reception section, per concerns discussed in this talk page. I have removed the Zane Lowe's Twitter source as a self-published source that does not meet reliable source criteria, as well as the Japanese reviewer sourced to Blogspot, since we have other reliable sources we can use. I have added a review from Rolling Stone magazine to highlight some negative criticism of the album. However, I still believe the section can be significantly improved. Most of the positive reviews are not from major news sources, when there are plenty to be found - see The Resistance on Metacritic. Ali (t) (c) 16:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Kiac has undid a revision by User:Kstrike155 ( see diff), removing the use of the {{tracklist}} template. WP:ALBUM does not have a specific policy in using the tracklist template, only stating that it may be a better choice "in more complicated situations." I wanted to try to gain consensus as to whether or not we should use the {{tracklist}} template. My opinion is that we should use the template - it's more organized and aesthetic. Ali (t) (c) 07:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Should "Soaked" be added. The demo leaked, sounds great, and Adam Lambert is using it on his new album. -- FlySWATER ( talk) 19:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe as a demo or potential b side? It shouldn't be added to the official track listing because its not an official track. Its a song that didn't make the final cut for the album. -- FlySWATER ( talk) 21:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
In the Chart Preformance section, only Uprising is listed as a single when Undisclosed Desires has also been released as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamamaniac ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The top genre for this album is listed as prog rock, followed by alt. rock. It seems to me that plurality of reviewers seem to think this album is alternative rock and not quite as progressive as previous albums. I propose switching those two labels so alternative rock is the top genre. I would have switched it but whenever someone abruptly changes anything about the genres it sets off a firestorm. Obamamaniac ( talk) 23:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Pop Rock should definitely be added to the list of genres, not at the beginning but it should be in there as it is a turning point album for Muse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.184.217.36 ( talk) 17:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if everyone stop using the name Studio Bellini as Matt Bellamy only used the name jokingly and has not named his home studio. For now, until any confirmation as to what the studio's name is, the simple use of Lake Como, Italy will suffice. Florez411 ( talk) 20:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Curious, perhaps someone should mention the fairly obvious link between this album and the Book "1984" by George Orwell. References to the "Thought Police", "Eurasia" and a lot of similar hints in the lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.153.2 ( talk) 13:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, it just occurred to me, too. As for the sources, I found a mention of this influence on some French webzines ( http://www.radioactif.com/nouvelles/nouvelle-muse_influence_par_george-477220-22.html ; amongst others). The Muse Wiki apparently takes note of it, as well. But I cannot find any "serious" newspaper that would raise such a point, I'm afraid. However, the "1984" article on this very Wikipedia lists "The Resistance" under "Adaptations and derived works (no source referenced). Py.coudert ( talk) 08:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Just an idea, as it is to an extent a notable track. For starters, it was mentioned and hinted at several times before the release of the album and before the album even began production (the title of the song was seen written on Matt Bellamy's hand during photoshoots around the release of H.A.A.R.P. for starters, among other hints), it's generally considered a fan favourite at concerts (like Citizen Erased, which like this was an album track), it's got a unique structure in the context of the other tracks on the album which tend to go verse/chorus/verse whereas this goes into a longer atmospheric bridge with synths and stuff rather than being stuck with one time signature and riff. And finally, it did have a music video in the form of the MTV-sponsored video which was filmed for awareness of human trafficking. I for one think that these can be elaborated on in an article which is centred on this one song, as it's considerably got more background and information available about it than most of the other tracks on the album, meaning that in my eyes it merits its own article.
Of course though, I'll leave it to my fellow editors to come to the conclusion - I'd rather not just make the album for it to be deleted, just pointing out that it is notable in regards to general information about it, in a similar way to Citizen Erased. Thanks for reading this, hope you'll get back on this so I can get started working on the article, if it happens. Just wanted to clear up whether it was viable for a separate article in everyone's eyes firstly. Cross Pollination ( talk) 19:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Have scaled the genre back to just alternative rock based on subsequent comments from User:Lukejordan02, subject to getting some consensus as to genre sourcing. The alternative genre seems self-evident for Muse, however "new prog" wasn't indicated, let alone referenced in the article. However, it seems symphonic rock and space rock is applicable, given that these were mentioned and apparently sourced, particularly with respect to Exogenesis: Symphony which is a much-discussed centrepiece of the album. Is there consensus to restore the symphonic/space rock genres, or is there a sourcing problem to be addressed? Dl2000 ( talk) 22:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
The Resistance (album). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on The Resistance (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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Rainy Men. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Rainy Men until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
DemonDays64 (
talk) 23:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
While I see there's an old discussion on this page about this topic, I'm not sure how conclusive it is. Are the sources for the 11 September release (As seen in the "Release history" section) still the same that were there in 2009, or are these newer? If they are newer, are they still not confirmed as reliable enough to include the 11th in the infobox and elsewhere as opposed to the currently listed 14th? And if their reliability is uncertain, then why are they included in the article at all? QuietHere ( talk) 05:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Resistance (album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | I Belong to You (Muse song) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 08 January 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into The Resistance (album). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Lately there seems to be a lot of edits surrounding the release date. According to WP:ALBUMS#Release, only the earliest know release date is to be posted in the infobox. To avoid further editing conflicts, perhaps either a comment should be placed in the infobox or a release history section should be created. Fezmar9 ( talk) 16:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The release date should (and will, if I have anything to say about it [which I will]) be listed as that which is true in the band's home country; in this case, 14 September 2009. Just because Benelux received the album on the 11th, that means squat; this format has always been used and is widely accepted, and should be. Stop changing it. Andre666 ( talk) 08:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Can the malaysian malay muse fanboys please stay the fuck away from the muse pages if you don't have any references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.2.102 ( talk • contribs)
malaysian english is very easy to tell. i'm a malaysian and i can't stand all these mentally ill fanboys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.135.212.208 ( talk) 05:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
While I read and am genuinely pleased that all of these reviews on the new album are giving nothing but praise, a few reviews that manage to squirm through such as the current Kerrang! and Rolling Stone review, are Spanish reviews. Now I dont know how these magazines work since I don't live in a country where they're released or if the international issues are just translated and the review work is still the same person all-in-all, but can spanish reviews really be counted on an English Wikipedia page? Carbo45 ( talk) 10:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Consider replacing The Fly's review score of 3.5 stars to 'favorable', as the review awards 5/5 to the latter part of the album, and 3.5/5 for 'the rest'. A total score of 3.5 is therefore wholly misrepresentative of the review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.222.94 ( talk) 11:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking about ironing out some of the reviews at hand out here. Some of them are just "favourable" and I think some spots should possibly be saved for the bigger names in reviewing business such as Allmusic and Kerrang. Wiki only allows 10 reviews at max. Plus that review that Guardian made wasn't really a review, it was more of an article. A new review from Spin gave this a 3.5/5 by the way. Just putting this out there. Carbo45 ( talk) 09:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The reviews should also be formatted correctly with references, per WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews. This includes magazines which should use the (Cite journal) or (Citation) templates. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 06:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Question out of curiosity again since I don't want to go and delete something without being too sure (still not all the way sure with Wiki stuff), but I just noticed that a review by The Observer was put in the column. Now I know that the article was posted on Guardian, but on The Guardian review (which I updated for the "real" review), its also signed as "The Observer" underneath, only another writer, and the reviewer gave a score. So what do we do with the two reviews? They really seem to clash with each other. Carbo45 ( talk) 10:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I posted a sputnikmusic review, and I want to know why it was deleted. I made sure it didn't go over the 10 reviews max, because i decided that it's better to reference a review one can read on the internet. Sputnikmusic staff are regarded as professional music reviewers on wikipedia, and I can only assume it was taken down because of some fanboy who didn't like the idea that a critic gave the Resistance a 2.5/5. I think that by adding it, the reviews will be less biased. Itachi1452 ( talk) 23:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
"That would be me, I deleted it in favor for the Allmusic review since the way I see it, they're far more of a known source for music. It's 10 reviews now. One review had to go out of there. It wasn't a fanboy move, but feel free to put it back up there if you think another review is deemable to be removed. I guess a review with a less positive reception isn't too bad at all. Should have thought of that actually. Sorry. EDIT: Oh yeah as for the Reception, I'm taking out the reverse lyric thing. Seems more of a trivia, and I doubt it's "skyrocketted" any way, changing the reception"
You mean, you replaced it, as it was a negative review. And you changed it to a more positive review. You realise that's censortship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 ( talk) 15:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I state that I've been on a Muse fan board recently, where they were openly discussing the fact that they had been editing the "reception" and "reviews" section, on the basis that they felt that it didn't reflect how good the album actually was.
As in, in the mind of a muse fan.
This is an encyclopedia. Not a fan board. This should represent how the album has been perceived worldwide. Not how it's perceived by muse fans. "Carbo", was on this message board saying he had been removing data from the wikipedia page.
How do I know, as he was discussing in detail the Sputnik music incident, that he admits was him, above.
In response to Kiac telling us "how things work here - go elsewhere". I disagree totally with you. This isn't a page to just show the best of Muse, and to please people who like them. You should be trying to approach the issue with balanced opinion.
And the only way of doing this is posting only "major" reviews on the album, be it good or bad. Post all the good ones, and all the bad ones.
At the minute, you just seem to be making room for the good ones, and deleting the bad ones. I assure you, you are not working by the rules, and far from being able to get this page "protected" you may find yourself being kicked off for vandalism yourself.
The reception section consists of a vague "mostly positive reviews", which is simply not true - it's mixed at best, and a glowing quote for Zane Lowe, their best friend.
How can that be an encylopedic reception section. I add in a couple of quotes from the NME, and Pitchfork, and you delete them!
Again, this is not a fan site. And I think you'll find that you will be the one reported. Not the other way around.
If an quote is referenced, relevant, and sourceable, and on topic, and from a major title, you have no right whatsoever to delete it. It's viewed as censoring the article.
So when I'm going on muse boards, and reading threads about fans "controlling it", you know, make up your own mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.68 ( talk) 14:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments related to the reception section moved and replied to below. U-Mos ( talk) 17:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Having obtained an early copy of the album, I can confirm that the back cover of the CD lists the two-part songs in the (+Collateral Damage) format. Consider changing it to match the official format.
In the muse.mu-mediaplayer the lengths of tracks differ from the wiki-lengths. Reason to change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.50.251 ( talk) 10:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You've used "state magazine" as one of your 10 reviews. State magazine = the student magazine of the university of toronto!? My god. Are you trying to keep average reviews out that much!? Can I ask why you have ignored worldwide (poor reviews) like the nme and pitchfork, and yet used studentmagazines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 ( talk) 16:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
There has been constant editing of this article concerning the leakage of this album. I've always known information like that as non-notable, but Muse themselves have commented on the leak, and there is a source to confirm that. Is the link still unimportant? I would initially say that it still isn't important enough for wikipedia, but I want other opinions before I remove it. Thanks in advance. Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done 02:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The currently accepted format for listing reviews is to provide citations instead of embedded links. The reasons for this listed at WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews make perfect sense and are neither "wrong" nor "crap." Fezmar9 ( talk) 21:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Rolling Stone hates Muse the same way they hated Queen that's why Muse is huge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 ( talk) 06:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I was just saying you should put Rolling Stone's review cause they're just as important as NME or Pitchfork I mean geez, can't you people get a clue?
Basically, this section needs balancing out. Only one negative comment is given no more than a passing mention, wheras there should really be a paragraph on the criticisms that have been levelled at the album, as seen in the two low-scoring reviews in the infobox. U-Mos ( talk) 16:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I state that I have tried to "balance" out the "reception" section 3 times today, and 3 times it has been deleted for no apparent reason.
All I did was add some of the feedback from Pitchfork and the NME. It seems that the reception section is only for "positive reviews".
The entire section is completely biased (only has links to 2 reviews, both totally positive), and is being censored. I may put a request into wikipedia to have this page partially protected, as it's obviously being controlled very closesly - most likely for commercial reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.68 ( talk) 17:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I added in PopMatters' review of the album, one of the more "negative" ones, plus adding the MetaCritic score to give a general overview. It's starting to shape up now again, at last. Carbo45 ( talk) 17:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Get rid of that Twitter crap. There's 15 solid, reliable, professional reviews linked to by Metacritic, and we still use a Twitter post by a radio broadcaster as our leading professional review? hah. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 03:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
What is gained by posting the exact same track listing three times? It makes sense with something like Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness where the vinyl listing is in a completely different order, but here it's the exact same on all three formats. Fezmar9 ( talk) 18:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
So what's the standard for the track name formatting? The album artwork, and even the official site says (+track name), so why aren't the tracks being formatted like this? If we're not going by the CD's formatting, other cases spring to mind ( Snow ((Hey Oh)), for example) should be formatted (in)correctly. Just a thought, seeing as this is how the band clearly wanted the titles. Le.Kwyjibo ( talk) 01:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have added a NPOV tag to the Reception section, per concerns discussed in this talk page. I have removed the Zane Lowe's Twitter source as a self-published source that does not meet reliable source criteria, as well as the Japanese reviewer sourced to Blogspot, since we have other reliable sources we can use. I have added a review from Rolling Stone magazine to highlight some negative criticism of the album. However, I still believe the section can be significantly improved. Most of the positive reviews are not from major news sources, when there are plenty to be found - see The Resistance on Metacritic. Ali (t) (c) 16:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Kiac has undid a revision by User:Kstrike155 ( see diff), removing the use of the {{tracklist}} template. WP:ALBUM does not have a specific policy in using the tracklist template, only stating that it may be a better choice "in more complicated situations." I wanted to try to gain consensus as to whether or not we should use the {{tracklist}} template. My opinion is that we should use the template - it's more organized and aesthetic. Ali (t) (c) 07:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Should "Soaked" be added. The demo leaked, sounds great, and Adam Lambert is using it on his new album. -- FlySWATER ( talk) 19:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe as a demo or potential b side? It shouldn't be added to the official track listing because its not an official track. Its a song that didn't make the final cut for the album. -- FlySWATER ( talk) 21:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
In the Chart Preformance section, only Uprising is listed as a single when Undisclosed Desires has also been released as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamamaniac ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The top genre for this album is listed as prog rock, followed by alt. rock. It seems to me that plurality of reviewers seem to think this album is alternative rock and not quite as progressive as previous albums. I propose switching those two labels so alternative rock is the top genre. I would have switched it but whenever someone abruptly changes anything about the genres it sets off a firestorm. Obamamaniac ( talk) 23:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Pop Rock should definitely be added to the list of genres, not at the beginning but it should be in there as it is a turning point album for Muse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.184.217.36 ( talk) 17:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if everyone stop using the name Studio Bellini as Matt Bellamy only used the name jokingly and has not named his home studio. For now, until any confirmation as to what the studio's name is, the simple use of Lake Como, Italy will suffice. Florez411 ( talk) 20:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Curious, perhaps someone should mention the fairly obvious link between this album and the Book "1984" by George Orwell. References to the "Thought Police", "Eurasia" and a lot of similar hints in the lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.153.2 ( talk) 13:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, it just occurred to me, too. As for the sources, I found a mention of this influence on some French webzines ( http://www.radioactif.com/nouvelles/nouvelle-muse_influence_par_george-477220-22.html ; amongst others). The Muse Wiki apparently takes note of it, as well. But I cannot find any "serious" newspaper that would raise such a point, I'm afraid. However, the "1984" article on this very Wikipedia lists "The Resistance" under "Adaptations and derived works (no source referenced). Py.coudert ( talk) 08:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Just an idea, as it is to an extent a notable track. For starters, it was mentioned and hinted at several times before the release of the album and before the album even began production (the title of the song was seen written on Matt Bellamy's hand during photoshoots around the release of H.A.A.R.P. for starters, among other hints), it's generally considered a fan favourite at concerts (like Citizen Erased, which like this was an album track), it's got a unique structure in the context of the other tracks on the album which tend to go verse/chorus/verse whereas this goes into a longer atmospheric bridge with synths and stuff rather than being stuck with one time signature and riff. And finally, it did have a music video in the form of the MTV-sponsored video which was filmed for awareness of human trafficking. I for one think that these can be elaborated on in an article which is centred on this one song, as it's considerably got more background and information available about it than most of the other tracks on the album, meaning that in my eyes it merits its own article.
Of course though, I'll leave it to my fellow editors to come to the conclusion - I'd rather not just make the album for it to be deleted, just pointing out that it is notable in regards to general information about it, in a similar way to Citizen Erased. Thanks for reading this, hope you'll get back on this so I can get started working on the article, if it happens. Just wanted to clear up whether it was viable for a separate article in everyone's eyes firstly. Cross Pollination ( talk) 19:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Have scaled the genre back to just alternative rock based on subsequent comments from User:Lukejordan02, subject to getting some consensus as to genre sourcing. The alternative genre seems self-evident for Muse, however "new prog" wasn't indicated, let alone referenced in the article. However, it seems symphonic rock and space rock is applicable, given that these were mentioned and apparently sourced, particularly with respect to Exogenesis: Symphony which is a much-discussed centrepiece of the album. Is there consensus to restore the symphonic/space rock genres, or is there a sourcing problem to be addressed? Dl2000 ( talk) 22:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
The Resistance (album). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on The Resistance (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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Rainy Men. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Rainy Men until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
DemonDays64 (
talk) 23:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
While I see there's an old discussion on this page about this topic, I'm not sure how conclusive it is. Are the sources for the 11 September release (As seen in the "Release history" section) still the same that were there in 2009, or are these newer? If they are newer, are they still not confirmed as reliable enough to include the 11th in the infobox and elsewhere as opposed to the currently listed 14th? And if their reliability is uncertain, then why are they included in the article at all? QuietHere ( talk) 05:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)