Talk:Death Magnetic/Archive 2

Album Cover

I added the album cover, per Metallica.com hope you don't mind. Kroma (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

why the album cover was replaced with the old logo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmagnetic08 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The wallpaper isn't the album cover per se – since album covers are designed as rather squared shapes... --Kochas (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

the one that's up there right now is rather rectangular 70.253.146.114 (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The one that is up right now is 450 × 450 px. It's physically impossible for it to be rectangular. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

With those dimensions, it's physically impossible for it *not* to be rectangular. If it's a square, then - by definition - it is also rectangular. intooblv (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, i have added the official cover. here's why this one should be used. go to metallica.com (official band website). go to news headline: Cover Art Boys and Girls! dated 7/17/2008. [1]I have converted the pdf into a jpg and uploaded it here. Since this is exactly what metallica has labeled as the Death Magnetic cover, I feel this is what should be the graphic posted on this album page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kroma (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Amazon posted a different cover on their website. With a bigger logo in the middle. I think it looks pretty good and better than the one used here (or Metallica's website). Hope this is the ultimate one.--80.133.204.245 (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the cover art to the version with the silver logo in the middle. Reason: the version of the cover art presented on Metallica.com at the time of the unveiling was 400x600, which someone forced into a square shape. Secondly, note that these banners from Metallica.com feature the silver logo in the middle: [2], [3]. Lastly, the version I uploaded seems to have been sent out by WB and/or Q Prime to various merchant sites. Hey, I just realized, it's Kroma from MetallicaBB! *waves* --Patrick (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

well..i think the "new" cover looks dumb, but it wouldn't surprise me if it ended up being what's on the cd cover. I guess we'll all find out soon enough. Kroma (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Uk cover is the coffin thing as a booklet, its like a cutout, and the metallica logo is on the plastoc of the case itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.68.51 (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

should we add here...

should we add here about the "vagina-like cover" controversy?

Really?....that's absolutely ridiculous.... Arch_stanton1138 (talk)

Agreed. This information is redundant. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

lolz i read that in metal hammer magazine! i think it was a passing joke rather than serious criticism though.

But the cover really looks like a cunt or an asshole 80.230.163.2 (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sure, after you've been fucked by a coffin. WP:NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, and the reason why this isn't notable. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we all please grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.33.106 (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, there's not much growing up to be done here. The cover in the likeness of a vagina was something that was actually pointed out, so if anyone should grow up, it's Metal Hammer who published their thoughts on the similarity. But really, the only people who should grow up are the few who actually believe this is notable. Yet another dead issue that is appearing to begin dragging... Vixen Windstorm (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look anything like a bloody vagina! It looks like a coffin shaped magnet with iron fillings around it! Zazaban (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No one ever said it looked bloody Bryan 04:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallicafan1bryan (talk • contribs)

Have any of you actually seen a vagina? Because seriously, they don't look anything alike. Oh and by the way, heres something that may interest you guys. 15 second clip of a new song. http://www.metallica.com/index.asp?item=601104 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2rr6Pzw2dk

Please spare this page the personal attacks. Metal Hammer alluded to the album cover's likeness of a vagina. I don't think it makes sense either, but it's not necessary to call people out on something that was only reported by a publication. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

song lenght

someone added song lenght. is it sourced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmagnetic08 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

it's just a prankster messing around —Vanishdoom (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

whoever you are.STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmagnetic08 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Album leak

Appears to have been leaked out onto the internet. From what ive seen tho, i wouldnt expect much. J. Smith (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Most likely a fake, the album hasn't even been finished yet. Rehevkor ✉ 10:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed 124.169.139.74 (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the album not being complete yet isn't the best argument for a leak being fake. Unmixed albums leak all the time. Still, this one probably is a fake. From what I've observed, albums tend to leak between three and a maximum of five weeks before release. There's exceptions, but this is just what I've generally noticed. But I have yet to see a September album legitimately leak in July lol. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's out... listening to it right now. DMighton (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that.

The album is finally leaked. Should I post that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.162.83.79 (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It didn't leak per se, it was just incidentally put on sale in a record shop in one region, earlier than the date that the label meant for it to be put on sale in all regions. So because one store in France sold the album two weeks early, it indirectly became available to every region of the world who weren't supposed to even have this access to begin with. Unfortunately for the band and its label, a few early purchases of the album by French customers has led to countless unpaid Internet downloads. It's clear that numerous fans will still be picking the album up from September 12 onward, but the fact of the matter is it wasn't meant to be sold until September 12 and this particular venue "broke the rules." Vixen Windstorm (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely be included that the album leaked. It is very important. I've been told that metallica did comment that they did not mind. they just will not allow that store to have their next album on release. I've also heard that Warner Bros. Records are going to sue them or something of the sort. I haven't been able to find anything online about it though. The album is very good, I am very pleased with it. Tippmann1125 (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

They did not mind, yet their label is sueing? From the actual information that ISN'T bullshit, Lars Ulrich stated that things were "golden" considering how long the album was under wraps without any leak, and basically giving a "what can you do, it's 2008" attitude towards the whole thing, IMMEDIATELY AFTER saying that while he had a good attitude towards the situation, that no, he's not just saying "oh it's okay everyone's downloading our music illegally". While that relates to the album leaking, it doesn't automatically make it notable. Everyone knows already, big deal. It's NOT encyclopedic at this point in time, and I highly doubt it will be, unless in fact they are really sueing a record store in France for selling an album barely two weeks early. Sounds a little ridiculous when put that way, doesn't it? —Vanishdoom (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The band members and label are not the same thing, so their opinions on the issue may differ. I believe that the information on the French store selling album early, which lead to the availability of the album on the Internet, should be included in the article, together with Lars Ulrich's comment on that, because it documents the shift in his views on the entire Internet vs. music industry problem. The Napster case was an important part of Metallica's history, so it DOES matter how the band members see this problem now. Also, the "leak" is now part of the history of how Death Magnetic reached the listeners. That's how I see it. Michal Stankoviansky (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

release date

why does it say that the album is going to be released on the 23rd of september. not only does the sentence in the beginning of the page have misspellings, but it unsourced... someone should erase if source is not found and official confirmation by the band is not made 76.214.18.194 (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. 82.41.243.91 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And I've put it back, with a ref. It took a few seconds to find a source, don't be so hasty to pull information Thedarxide (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's better to pull unreliable information then find a source rather than just leave it there.

you may be right, but we still dont know how reliable this site is. what i was thinking was that in order to have an accurate release date, metallica, whether on their official website or on the missionmetallica site, should officially state it. i still think this should be deleted until metallica officially states the release date76.214.18.194 (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source for a simultanious worldwide release on September 12th

[[4]] If you cant see it, then create an account, it's there, near the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.145.199 (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. There's confirmation that retailers of different regions are receiving the album on different dates, so the article's current representation of Death Magnetic's release history is quite fine the way it is. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

On the 1st of August an image has been uploaded on the official website of Metallica telling that the worldwide release date is September 12 under the "The Last Piece Of The Puzzle" title.

[[5]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.176.123 (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well tell that to Japan who are receiving the album on the September 10. Never hold complete stock in "worldwide" releases, especially when there are already four different release dates for this album, in four differing regions. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, then put down the release dates for all of the regions with references. Otherwise, the "worldwide release date" should be September 12. Benjammn311 (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, that is exactly what this section of the article is for. This has been dragged on long enough. The template documentation for album Infoboxes clearly states that "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified." Well the earliest known date that Death Magnetic will be released is September 10, hence why September 10, 2008 appears in the Infobox. It doesn't really matter what the band's website reports. Metallica.com isn't an album retailer. There are four different release dates, as referenced by actual album retailers, and these dates have been sourced in the Release history section as they've unfolded, for at least a week. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not noticing the release history. I thought it would be like all the video game articles in which they put the release dates in all regions in the upper right box. I never really saw the difference before. Nevertheless, take a chill pill....Benjammn311 (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, okay. Well I'm getting pretty annoyed by constant reverts of the Infobox back to September 12, just because of an obvious overstatement by the band's website. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

See, the thing is that we do not know if these retailers are telling the truth. also, wikipedia shouldnt give information on when a particular retailer is going to release the album. it should state when the band plans to release the album. i still think sept 12 should be in the infobox. 76.214.18.194 (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ALBUM states the earliest known release date is the only one to be included in the infobox. Any others may be mentioned in the actual article. Just because it goes worldwide on the 12th doesn't mean it's not ACTUALLY being released until then. Do you understand now? —Vanishdoom (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that it is September 12th, with worldwide launch on that date. Confirmed in official email. 58.170.45.198 (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ALBUM. Stop dragging this. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Release date, according to Metallica themselves, is September 12, 2008. This is a WORLD WIDE release date. As in, they're releasing it world wide on the 12th. If they were releasing before that, they wouldn't say WORLD WIDE unless, perhaps, English isn't their first language and they're a little confused. http://metallica.com/index.asp?item=601061 I changed all the release dates in the article to this OFFICIAL date, but someone changed it back. I undid his undo, and then he undid mine. :) SodaBob —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, read the talk page guidelines, and put your new text under old text. Secondly, read everything that has been said of this issue here. Japan gets it on the 10th, North America gets it on the 12th, Poland and the UK get it on the 15th and Finland gets it on the 17th. z0mg what about the worldwide release date of the 12th? Oh yeah, Metallica isn't an album retailer. If actual separate releases have sources, they will not be ignored. Nothing is released in virtually every region of the world on the same day, not even a Metallica album. Please stop making a discussion of this. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I figured out I needed my text at the bottom and tried to correct it, but you already had and there was a database lock. Regardless, apparently, you and others here trust a bunch of retail websites, who were all almost certainly guessing previous to the official release of the date by Metallica, over Metallica's own official release date. I know that ith video games, for example, retailers are always making stuff up and giving out a release dates that have nothing to do with anything, and then later they correct it when the official date comes along. And in my mind, if a retailer releases an album before the official release date (as someone mentions above), that's just illegal, not really an actual release date. Hence, for me (since this is a future event), the "earliest KNOWN" release date is Sept 12, since what retailers claim is often not the case. And don't worry, this discussion is lame anyway, not sure why I even bothered. Oh, well. SodaBob —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Import albums are always released earlier than the album or band's country of origin. It isn't illegal, that's just how it works. No album is really released on the official date the band announces, especially the one date they announce through their website. Linkin Park's Minutes to Midnight is another good example (really any album can be used as an example, but Minutes to Midnight is one of my more distinct experiences with upcoming albums that were to be released before the band's word claimed). The album was announced for a May 14, 2007 release date, but ultimately its first official release was actually on May 9, 2007, in Cyprus. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I lied. I'm back. This is so lame I can't believe it. So now, Rtiztik, you're actually editing out correct, proper, verified and fully referenced information? For the record (and everyone else's info), I added, in addition to the sentence about the "earliest known release date" of Sept 10, a completely separate and additional sentence simply indicating that the official Metallica world wide release date is Sept 12. What is wrong with that? In his comment, when he removed this addition, Rtiztik says, "You knew this would happen." No, I didn't know you would remove my completely correct, proper, verified and referenced information, especially since I had read (in the discussion above) that, as VanishDoom indicates, "the earliest known release date is the only one to be included in the infobox. Any others may be mentioned in the actual article." So, I follow that guideline, adding the world wide sept 12 date as additional information in a completely separate sentence in the actual article and changing no other information, and it still gets cut? So, in other words, I concede that the 10th is the "earliest known date" (for whatever that hearsay is worth at this point in time, but I can dig your anecdote about Minutes to Midnight), I add in the official date as verified information to the article, and it still gets cut. Kinda lame. SodaBob

The article states that the album will be released as early as September 10, you added instead that it might. No, it will be released on that date in Japan, hence, "It is scheduled for release as early as September 10, 2008." You didn't know you would remove my completely correct, proper, verified and referenced information would be removed from the article? Well maybe that's because your contribution manipulated the truth that it is already correct, verified and referenced that this album is not going to be released worldwide on September 10, 2008, and that it is in fact one of four different release dates. There is already a release history section of this article to show other sourced dates the album will be released. You seem to be the only one left who has a problem with the formality of this article. We go by the earliest release date, in both the Infobox and the article's lead. Anything else goes in the release history section, granted that has been confirmed. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right. Thing is that some people (like me) have to wait 2 days after Japan. lol 76.214.18.194 (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, as do I and as this is the English Wikipedia, I'm assuming most people who visit this article will receive the album no earlier than the 12th as well. But the fact that the album hits stores somewhere on Earth prior to September 12 cannot be ignored. Hopefully this issue will finally be lain to rest. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The release date is wrong; it should be the 12th of September. Missionmetallica.com, Metallica.com or Metclub.com can be used as references. 10th of September from CdJapan is just plain wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.244.97 (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

K. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The OFFICIAL website says the album will be released on SEPTEMBER 12. I don't know what more it takes in order to change the September 10th entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeTkO (talk • contribs) 06:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I should add that the OFFICIAL website also states that the album is to be released on September 12 WORLDWIDE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeTkO (talk • contribs) 06:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't add that because several others have tried to argue the same thing, but this, this, this, this, this, this and this just seem to reduce their arguments to absolutely nothing. Now that was proof the album is out before September 12. This, this and this are proof the album has three different release dates after September 12. See WP:ALBUM, and above all, stop dragging this. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Rziztik stated above, "The article states that the album will be released as early as September 10, you added instead that it might." No, I didn't. In that version, *I* did not touch the original sentence regarding the sept 10th date, I just added in that the official release date is the 12th. Someone else may have added "might," but I did not. All I added was a single sentence, verified and referenced, regarding the official release date, and you removed it. Again, I concede that there may be release dates earlier than the 12th, but I believe that it is true and, more importantly, historically useful information to show that the official release date is to be sept 12th. <shrug> —Preceding unsigned comment added by SodaBob (talk • contribs) 14:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My whole point was that I think the official band website should take precedence over other sources. Now if there are alternative release dates (and there may well be), I would have no problem with them being listed once they have appeared on metallica.com. That's all. Legitimate or not, I think all other sources are secondary to metallica.com and missionmetallica.com - hence my comment. And let me be clear that I'm not arguing against earlier release dates being truthful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.117.183 (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, what is so hard to understand about this. Imports are released before any "officially announced" release date. Get over it, Death Magnetic is no different. WP:ALBUM says the earliest release is the one that will appear in the Infobox, so that is exactly what this article is doing, using September 10 in the Infobox as it is the earliest date on which the album is hitting stores somewhere in the world. Just because you can't wrap your heads around the fact that Japan (and though not in this case, sometimes Europe even) receives albums earlier than the rest of the world, doesn't mean this article has to suffer because of it. Unlike you guys, there are actually competent editors here who are taking good care of this article. Rather than reading "It will be released on September 10," the lead reads "as early as September 10" so as to be sensitive to the misconception that the album will be released worldwide, on behalf of an overstatement by the band's website. You don't even know the entire extent of the band's involvement with their website, so "worldwide" could be something the webmaster overlooked when announcing what was actually the album's North American release date (American band's websites usually go by slating the North American release date, even in the usual case that in Japan and Europe, and sometimes other places, the album isn't actually scheduled for release on that date). An overstatement by the webmaster is probably what has happened here, but that can't be sourced. However, what can be sourced is the known fact hat this album will be released in Japan two days before North America, on September 10. You can't argue with this article's formalities when it has been constructed following the rules set by WikiProject Albums. I'm done talking about this. The point has been long made, this here just makes it concrete. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The bands official website clearly states September 12 worldwide, yet you're still arguing that it will be out earlier as a japanese import. How hard is it to accept that "WORLDWIDE" means Japan too? It does, in fact, mean WORLD. WIDE. I love the way that when official info on the release comes from the band's official site, you claim it is an overstatement. The September 12 release is not a misconception. It is a fact. The band is well aware on what goes on on their website. Thats why when the band's record label ordered that pre-release reviews be taken down from various websites, Lars Ulrich himself demanded that they be re-uploaded to the websites, and he himself copied them all to the official Metallica website. If the worldwide release bulletin was misinformation, the band would've had it taken down already. Instead of using logic and trusting the band's official website, you're willing to believe websites that do not cite their information source (a source which is most definitely not an official Metallica affiliate). Oh and by the way, while Amazon.co.uk lists the release date as the 15th, Play.com lists it as the 12th, and also has the carton box for sale in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.94.145 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, new piece of info. I emailed the Metallica Club folks about the release dates, using the contact email on Metallica's website. And this is what they said, and I quote: "September 12 worldwide, no matter what the other sites say. 9/12/08 is the album release date, everywhere." This is straight from the horse's mouth. Can we please at least add in a sentence indicating this official release date. Another non-Metallica source, Rolling Stone Magazine, also claims a world wide, simultaneous release date of Sept. 12th as well, and I trust Rolling Stone for info like this alot more than hearsay from a bunch of retailers and other websites who clearly copied their information, in most places verbatim, from one another. Here's the Rolling Stone article, which says, in part: "While most albums are released in Europe on Monday and the States on Tuesday, Metallica are keeping with the unorthodox nature of this album’s release, giving the world Death Magnetic on a Friday." Thus, the earliest KNOWN (for an actual fact, not by hearsay) release date is the 12th. SodaBob —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for verifying with the MetClub. That's what I meant when I stressed the 'official' in official website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.117.183 (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, I just checked the source that's cited for the "September 10" passage and it reads SEPTEMBER 12. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.117.183 (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your source for the Japan release date says the 10th on here. The actual page says the 12th. I advise you fix it. CDJapan.co.jp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.213.223 (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And now someone has changed the source for footnote [1] from the CDJapan website to the Babbermouth website which still has references to September 10th among other dates. It in turn cites sources like Amazon and CDJapan. Given that the CDJapan website has already changed to show a release date of September 12 and that Blabbermouth is citing CDJapan as saying September 10th, I leave it up to the intelligent readers to figure out for themselves if this is a coherent set of facts, worthy of what is put up as a legitimate and accurate online encyclopedia with high standards and respect for templates, guidelines and procedures. Last but not least, the Blabbermouth.net piece that footnote [1] refers you to (that same footnote that purports to support the September 10 thesis)states that "Tuesdays are when almost all CDs are issued in the U.S." which itself is an unsourced claim. What's even more important than its being unsourced however is that it seems to make an argument perched atop a "most". I regret to say it, but "most" does not mean "all". So again, I'll leave it to all of you to discern on your own whether it isn't perhaps possible that although "most" albums are released on a Tuesday in the U.S., "Death Magnetic" may not follow suit. Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe the fact that "most" records come out on a Tuesday makes it obligatory for ALL records to come out on a Tuesday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeTkO (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And the source for the UK release date has (drum roll please) also changed their info from Sept 10th to Sept 12th. Amazon.co.uk - I can only imagine that as these retailers and other websites wake up, they'll all change to the correct, official date. As I stated from the beginning, retailers make stuff up with regards to a release date ALL THE TIME for books, music, video games, and so on, and then correct themselves when the publisher tells them otherwise. Yes, I understand that NORMALLY the various countries release stuff on certain days, and so the retailers guessed the date based on those normal rules. But Metallica isn't playing by those rules this time around, and it is even more clear now that the date is the 12th, in plain English, "world wide."SodaBob

Its not obligatory for albums to be released on a Tuesday in the U.S. St. Anger, Metallica's last album, was released on a Friday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.213.223 (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, you guys are such Wikipedia nubs. Until today, CDJapan had the album listed as having a September 10, 2008 release. Not only that, but they are reissuing Kill 'Em All, Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets and ...And Justice for All on the 10th as well. Four albums by the same band were scheduled for Japanese reissue on the same day Death Magnetic appeared to be slated for release in Japan. Then there is the fact that no album is released everywhere on the exact same date, especially albums released through major record labels like Warner Bros. Anyways, until today CDJapan said the album would be released on the 10th. This, coupled with the fact that no album has ever had a typical and fixed "worldwide" release, and the fact that Japan is especially the region that receives the benefit of albums released earlier than their country of origin (as well as bonus material, usually, but not in this case there's no word of regional bonus material) pointed to the earliest known release date being September 10. If there is confirmation of an earlier known release date than even what is publicized in North America, than that is the earliest known release date and what Wikipedia uses in the Infobox and lead. People who don't understand that are nubs who have no knowledge of the WikiProject Albums outline for album articles. Now if CDJapan says September 12, that's a different story. It doesn't mean the album is being released worldwide on September 12, but it does mean that apparently Japan, or at least this retailer, will not stock Death Magnetic until September 12. This doesn't change anything for Europe's later release dates, though. It just means the earliest known release date, while not "worldwide" per se, is in fact September 12. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly, you're starting to become a little uncivil here, please be a little more considerate to other's feelings. They're only trying to help, not respecting that will only end in trouble (even if you're responding in kind). Secondly, WikiProjectet Albums is just that, a project, its guidelines are not official per see. Just a couple of thoughts.. Rehevkor ✉ 21:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not becoming uncivil, I'm just fed up with the fact that people misconstrue the meaning of "worldwide." For since before the release date was announced by the band's website, the release date for Japan was said to be the 10th. Besides that, there were several release dates slated for after the 12th. Even after I tried to point out and remind that imports do happen to, quite frequently, be issued before in North America or wherever the album originates, and that band members are not always in charge of every word published on their website verbatim, people seem to just say, "No, no, the website says worldwide so the album is coming out that day worldwide," while not bearing in mind that Metallica.com isn't an album retailer. The record label is ultimately in charge of wherever and whenever the album is released. The band records the material and makes it ready, the label sees that it is distributed accordingly. Take websites like MansonCollectors, for example. They catalog every release in the Marilyn Manson discography. Looking at their database, do you think this band says, "Okay we want this album here on this date, this album to get issued here in about a year, a promo of this in France, and this single to have ten different pressings in Australia and Germany?" It is the label who is ultimately in charge of these decisions, which is why it is unjust, and not to mention completely inaccurate, to suggest that there is no error in a band's website's statement that an album will be receiving a release on one certain date. Apparent blind faith (not to be uncivil if you'd consider it so, but I can't see how else to word this) in such a statement is what has made this issue span four days. People wanted the Infobox to read September 12, and because of appropriate source updates, now it does. Now we can all be happy seeing as this article both once again appears to be without error, and uses the 12th in the Infobox and lead. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest, no offence to you, but I think you misconstrued "worldwide". Worldwide means exactly that; the whole world. Obviously the band's label told them it would be released worldwide September 12. The band would not have posted the bulletin if their label had not told them the release plans. You seem very distrustful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.213.223 (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not distrustful, I'm being serious. I would have to see it to believe that Death Magnetic will be the first album ever recorded, to be released everywhere on the one same date. See the release history section, it comes out in a number of regions on the 12th, and has three seubsequent European release dates. This does not qualify as a worldwide release. And no, I'm not offended because on the contrary, it seems my reminders that it is in fact the label, and not the act that decide the final regional release dates has not gone through. I'm not going to risk being reported for incivility over people who do not appear to have a concise understanding for the mechanics of the record industry. You guys wanted September 12 in the Infobox and lead, and CDJapan has since updated to make that so. No point dragging on a resolved issue. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, just letting you know that the U.K release date is also Sept 12 now. Amazon and Play.com are both listing 12/9/08. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Death-Magnetic-Metallica/dp/B001BWQ0N2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1218131449&sr=8-1 http://www.play.com/Search.aspx?searchtype=allproducts&searchstring=death+magnetic&page=search&pa=search&go.x=0&go.y=0 Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.112.178 (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mexico's release date is September 11.

http://www.mixup.com.mx/mixup/product.asp?dept_id=1&subdept_id=71&sku=602517737266189.144.18.182 (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

News on metallica.com: http://www.metallica.com/index.asp?item=601073 says world wide release date is sept 12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.237.249 (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Read above dude, this isn't news. September 12 is the cause for this whole argument. But it now looks as though Mexico gets the album a day early. I'm just too tired to have the article reflect this considering no one seems to understand that every place on Earth does not see an album on the same day. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Though that Mexican site does say "This date can change, depending on supplier." I have the sneaking suspicion that it will before 11-September. Also, just for reference, they say it will cost $181. Converting from pesos to dollars, that comes to $17.83. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jslicer (talk • contribs) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It says here --->http://www.metallica.com/index.asp?item=601116 that the first single will be released to radios as well as the internet on August 21st, which is tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gma4567 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

ITS THE 10TH (today!) in the UK - i just baught it from zavvi! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.68.51 (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ALBUM states that "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified, using a single occurrence of  (), for example July 31, 2007 (2007-07-31) (or July 2007 (2007-07) or 2007 (2007) if the exact date isn't known). Later release dates can be mentioned in a Release history section." The earliest known release date for the album is not September 12, contrary to what Metallica's website suggests, as the album is now officially on sale in the United Kingdom. Technically, September 10 isn't even the earliest known release date, as that retailer in France began selling the album on September 2, but because that was unauthorized and sales of the album were ceased shortly after, that release date isn't notable (not as the one to be reflected in the Infobox, anyways). So... Stop changing the release date to the 12th, as we now have physical and non-speculative proof that this album was officially released somewhere in the world before September 12. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the United States... but every music store in Canada were letting go. Most places have it on for half price. It's all over the news today that the premature leak from last weak forced most distributors to push their store dates up because of all the pirate copies drifting around. Perhaps distributors in the US are holding on... but the rest of the world seems to have it available to them. Go ahead and change the release date info. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Empik stores started to sell the album today (11 september) in Poland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.84 (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Instrumental

I was thinkin of putting the little blurb about the instrumental as kind of a footnote in the tracklisting section rather than having it in the recording process section, to me it makes more sense.....thoughts?.... Arch_stanton1138 (talk)

Genre

I think we should add "Thrash Metal" or "Speed Metal" to the genre. From what the reviews say, it has Slayer qualities and is back to their roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgardner1123 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre-predictions for St. Anger said the same thing and it ended up but just a straight forward heavy metal album without any thrash/speed revisits to their early day style. The genre should be blank until its released. Several "future slbum" articles are on the AfD block because they push WP:CRYSTAL to the limit. This article is pretty close to joining them. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that sounds almost too good to be true. The hype about "St. Anger" was much unfounded... -MetalKommandant (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Chronology

WP:ALBUM says only studio albums, usually excluding live albums, compilations, singles and EPs should be included in the chronology. However it does use the subjective word "usually," and the verdict as discussed on WP:ALBUM's talk page is to let the editors decide the chronology on a "per band" basis, meaning it is not a concrete rule, but that it really varies between bands, since it is inaccurate to suggest that no band has released a significant EP, live album, etc, throughout their history. Anyways Some Kind of Monster, while an EP, still performed on record charts and was a released accompanying the Some Kind of Monster documentary which, being a sanctioned documentary film of the band, is rather significant itself. I wasn't even aware WP:ALBUM suggested to use that "only studio albums" rule, considering I've never seen it in chronologies before, and I've seen a lot of instances where it should according to WP:ALBUMS be used, but isn't, lol. Ironically the album they use as an Infobox example, Alice in Chains' Dirt, has two EPs in its chronology, Sap (Last album) and Jar of Flies (Next album). Vixen Windstorm (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind Some Kind of Monster is essentially an expanded single for that song. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

'Usually' would apply for something like Peter Frampton's next album after his 1975 "Frampton" release should be/and is "Frampton Comes Alive". One of the biggest selling live albums of all time can be an exception to the rule. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Kinda hard to discern if Some Kind of Monster should be listed in the chronology. The $5.98 EP is listed before Justice. But, that being said, the Some Kind of Monster EP is basically a North American re-release of the Unnamed Feeling single. Im kinda leaning towards not including it. Arch_stanton1138 (talk)

Tenth

Why does it say ninth studio album. It's their tenth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thpackmack (talk • contribs) 03:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed quite some time ago, on the archived talk page, and the answer was simple. Their first studio album is Kill 'Em All, their second is Ride the Lightning, their third is Master of Puppets, fourth is ...And Justice for All, fifth is Metallica, sixth is Load, seventh is ReLoad, eighth is St. Anger, and the ninth is Death Magnetic. Garage Days and Some Kind of Monster were EPs, Live Shit and S&M were live albums, and Garage Inc. is a cover album. Furthermore, since people have been so faithful in Metallica's website lately, then it goes without saying the update on the band's website referring to it as Metallica's ninth original album cannot be disputed. Let's not get into this again, lol. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ozzfest

Shouldnt someone put something about the new song 'Cyanide' played at Ozzfest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex533 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

i agree, someone that knows how to change it should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.33.106 (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It mentions this at the end of the lead, "On August 9, at Ozzfest, Metallica performed the song "Cyanide"." Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I edited it AFTER SineBot posted this.(Deathmagnetic08 (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

Lol, okay. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

new song

just thought i'd point out it says under first new songs played it still says no new matierial has surfaced, but last night they played the new song "Cyanide", can someone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.33.106 (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it(Deathmagnetic08 (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

The New Song is called The End Of The Line if you check # 2 in this http://metallica.com/index.asp?item=601104 you could see it's the same riff, someone could add it?

11th track and "Death Magnetic" lyric

One of the 4horsemensite.com members have read in a magazine an interview with lars, lars says there that the 11th track that didn't make on the album is called "Shine", and "Death Magnetic" is mentioned in "My Apocalypse". i asked the admin for a website source of the interview.if it has a website source i'll add the info here.(Deathmagnetic08 (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

I don't believe it was an actual interview, but fans asking questions at meet and greets before shows. Lars stated simply the reason 'shine' didn't make it on the album was due to there not being enough room on the cd for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jksiii (talk • contribs) 06:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Judas Kiss is a single too now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.126.164 (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Shine

Despite lacking a source at all, there's no reason to think this song was even recorded in any real sense, never mind whether or not it'll ever see the light of day. It could be mentioned in the development section (when a source is produced), but as there's no evidence to it being a real recorded song with any prospect of release there's no place in the track listing section. Rehevkor ✉ 18:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

All the tracks have been written by everyone on the band, this is the first time in Metallica history.

Every member of the band have contributed their writing to all the songs on the album, this is the first time this has happened in the history of Metallica. Refrence: http://www.metallica.com/Media/Albums/albums.asp?album_id=12

Also, the studios have been mentioned there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.201.102 (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's now been noted. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Insrtumental(Suicide & Redemption)

A review in the kerrang! magazine says that "Suicide & Redemption" is the instrumental track. so i added in the tracklist. (Deathmagnetic08 (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

Track listing sections don't usually note instrumental songs as (Instrumental) (see articles for Metallica albums which contain instrumentals, especially). "Suicide & Redemption" being the instrumental has still been noted though, in the last sentence of the Recording process section, replacing what originally said the instrumental appearing on the album was unknown. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Vinyl Release

On amazon, there is a 2-LP set, and a 5-LP set. Does anyone know what the difference is here? I'm a little confused by the article where it says the 5-LP set is "A set of Death Magnetic on five vinyl LP albums", if the non-special vinyl release is on 2 LPs (a set not currently in the article). What material is on the rest of the records for the big set? JoeD80 (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My guess, the 2-LP set has half the tracks on each and the 5-LP one has two tracks on each LP, but I dont really know. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The 5-LP set is probably a better quality transfer, hence only 2 songs per side.....Arch stanton1138 (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that would make sense. JoeD80 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The album will be sold 2 ways on vinyl, the 2 record 33 1/3 normal version and a 5 album 45 rpm version. According to http://www.encycmet.com/news/2008-08-18f.shtml : As with most Metallica releases they also do some different limited editions for us collectors. The new album Death Magnetic comes in 4 different formats: Compact Disc (special digipack), Vinyl (2 discs, 33.3 RPM), Deluxe 45 RPM Vinyl (5 discs), and a unique Coffin Box set. The deluxe vinyl version is 5 discs in a special box. Just like the current vinyl re-issues, this version comes on 180 gram vinyl and was half speed mastered. Which is odd cause both the 33 1/3 and 45 rpm re-issues are both half-speed mastered.24.68.50.33 (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell needs citations to verify that this album is going to be heavy metal?

Is it not fucking obvious by the band's name that they are metal already? What the fuck kind of retard needs a citation for this album being heavy metal? Damn some people really are anal on wikipedia, demanding citations for fucking asinine, self evident things. Its so stupid.

agreed, that being said, you MIGHT want to be a little less combative next time...Arch stanton1138 (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Track 9 - Suicide & Redemption

Track 9 is the instrumental track of the album as described in the newest Kerrang magazine http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn133/speedyham123/Metallica3.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.201.102 (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This already appears in the article, in the last sentence of the Recording process section. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Arch Enemy song

Does anyone else know about the Arch Enemy song that's also entitled My Apocalypse? I have it on a Metal for the Masses CD, just thought I would point it out.--James92326 (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Bands who have songs that are titled the same as other bands' isn't notable. "My Apocalypse" isn't the only known title of a song that is used by multiple bands. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What about if they have like 5 on the same album of the same band?--E tac (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I understand bands have identical song names sometimes, but I don't think Metallica has ever ripped off someone else's song name before, so I figured it was somewhat notable for this particular instance.--James92326 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not notable because bands who have songs of identical titles aren't generally trying to "rip off" each other in the first place. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok so that was a bad choice of words, but anyway you are right and that's why i brought it up on the discussion page instead of editing it into the article. Like I said, I was just throwin it out there.--James92326 (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I understand, no problem. There's just so many common song titles used by bands that it's hard to make that statement relevant. Similarly, Deathstars has a song called "Cyanide" and DevilDriver has one titled "End of the Line," so it isn't just "My Apocalypse" that has a common title. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and there are like 15 different songs in existence that are titled "One" haha.--James92326 (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Day That Never Comes Live

It wasnt played live first at Reading. It was played at the Leeds festival Last Night Welshy0 (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Major

From what I have gathered "Death Magnetic" is released on Universal, not Warner. Alfredo99 (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Says Warner Bros. on Billboard's site. JoeD80 (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That, and Metallica was signed to Warner Bros. Records last year. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Because Warner Bros. bought out Elektra, Metallica's previous label. That being said, Universal is the distributor for some of the European releases.Arch stanton1138 (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Warner is the label in the US and Canada, and it's Mercury/Universal everywhere else. I have to delete Sony for Japan, since it's not them releasing it there, as they have the past albums (I checked HMV Japan).
Also, Warner bought Elektra forty years ago. It's just that Elektra is no longer a full-fledged label (just check the articles).Sposato (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In the UK its universal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.68.51 (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction To Article; regarding album art work

On June 14, 2008 (2008-06-14), the album's official title was announced, followed by the revealing of its cover art on July 17, 2008 (2008-07-17), which depicts a metallic coffin with a black and white design around it (representing iron filings in a magnetic field)

Is the art work representing iron filings in a magnetic field, or is it actually iron filings? I can't tell very well since it's only 500x500 pixels, but it looks like it may actually be iron filings, rather than just computer graphics. Anyone know for sure? 24.7.188.210 (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if it's a photograph, it still represents iron filings, unless there are real iron filings on the cover of each copy of the album... --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  12:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the whole album art intro constitute original research? It needs to be dropped or referenced if this article is to attain GA status. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if it's a photograph, it still represents iron filings, unless there are real iron filings on the cover of each copy of the album... That's not the same usage as "represents" in the original article. Your point is clever, but logically it fails because you're arguing an additional definition of "represent", not the definition as used in the article that I quoted above.24.7.188.210 (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

no its not metal its ink , i baught it today (for some reason some shops in the uk sold it early?

My Apocalypse

why aren't you adding to the article that my apocalypse was released today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.230.212 (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I ditto that. Its released as a single too now on itunes! --118.92.166.180 (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

its up on their site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.216.39 (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I was about to add a comment to that effect as well ; someone needs to update the article.

They have released a new song (incidentally, if that's not great trash metal then the Pope ain't catholic) and apparently they plan to do so every Monday night until the twelfth. I say, woohoo! 85.28.87.67 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say their doing that but last time I checked (Friday, 9/5/08) they had 6 of the 10 songs up on their website. And iTunes plans to release a 4th song on Tuesday, then the album will be avaible on Friday. Not sure what song it is yet, and it doesn't really matter anyways. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My Apocalypse is not an official single

Just because a song is made available for download, it does not mean it is an official single. If this was the case, then each song they are premiering on the website every Monday until the release date would be a single, which is most likely NOT the case. Arch stanton1138 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

On iTunes it's released as "My Apocalypse - Single." Singles are defined as songs that are released prior to an album to promote the album. Does this not fit that description? --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Directly from iTunes: "We've got two hard-driving singles -- 'The Day That Never Comes' and'My Apocalypse'". Even if these aren't technically "singles" in the strictest sense where they won't be played on the radio, that only means that they won't warrant an article. They are still, by definition, a single, or a song released ahead of an album to promote that album. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are radio singles and promo singles. My Apocalypse is looking to fit the title of a promo. If there's official artwork, the deal is usually sealed. —Vanishdoom (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out the article, artwork and all. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the single discography up to this point, only has singles listed that were available in some sort of physical capacity, it doesn't have all of the promo singles listed. A couple cases of this, Holier Than Thou was the first song played from the Black Album, but its not listed. Sweet Amber was played before St. Anger came out, neither is it listed. Arch stanton1138 (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but were they released as singles? Or just played as promotion on the radio? In this day and age, singles don't have to be released in physical capacity to be a single. Perfect Insanity was the first single from Indestructible, but it was never released in a physical capacity. Same with Kiss from Untitled. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, it was just released TODAY. Just give it a little while before you say it wasn't released in a physical capacity, because neither was The Day That Never Comes to my knowledge. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Still a long way to go to pass WP:MUSIC#Songs. Rehevkor ✉ 02:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Give the article a few days. I believe there was a Wikipedia standard titled "Don't destroy the house while its being built" or something? Give it a few days. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It says its a single on iTunes, but iTunes also had All Hope Is Gone (song) from All Hope Is Gone (album) listed as one, despite Psychosocial techinally being the first single. And from what I hear, iTunes is not a reliable resource... Disturbedfan24 (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Psychosocial" was the album's first commercial single, but "All Hope Is Gone" was technically a digital single before "Psychosocial" was released. But that case is different as "Psychosocial" went on to be released in physical format (like most commercial singles), whereas while there is a music video for "The Day That Never Comes", its only format is digital, which means "My Apocalypse" is no less a single than "The Day That Never Comes" (being limited to digital release as well). Vixen Windstorm (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm agreeing that it is a single, even if its not released physically. Other singles haven't been released physically either. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the best approach here would be to give the articles time to develop and if they fail to reach a keepable standard (As per policies such as WP:MUSIC#Songs we can take them to AfD. Personally I don't believe we should consider Cyanide and as Apocalypse singles in the traditional sense. It seems they've only been given covers and thrown onto iTunes as single songs, but not singles. At best they're pre-release promotional singles but nothing more. Will, for example, they ever receive videos? But.. we'll see. Rehevkor ✉ 15:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The First Time?

"Death Magnetic also marks the first time in the band's history in which all band members contributed to each song on an album."

Didn't all members contribute to all of the songs on St. Anger as well? TheSickBehemoth (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)TheSickBehemoth

Well James, Kirk and Lars wrote all the songs on St. Anger with Bob Rock, but he wasn't an actual band member, just the band's producer and session bassist. Death Magnetic marks the first time a Metallica album had all four members of the band (vocalist, guitarist, bassist, drummer) be given credit for writing every song featured. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

also tujillo didnt play bass on st. anger it was already recorded by the previous guy before he left —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.68.51 (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No pro tool?

Matt Sorum claimed "they're cutting everything to tape, no fuckin' Pro Tools — live, no clicks", yet, isn't their engineer using Pro Tools in the Mission Metallica videos? Lars is frequently seen asking him to use different takes and to digitally edit the mistakes (or "bad takes"), obviously something you can't do well in analog as far as I know. It might not be a big deal but it is a little contradictory for the article. —Vanishdoom (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

many DAW programs look alike, so i'm not sure we could be 100% sure the engineer is using Pro Tools unless we get a clear shot of the hardware element. anyway, Matt Sorum probably means that it isn't being assembled cut-and-paste like St Anger was. plus he's not exactly a sound engineer so i wouldn't count him as a reliable source on this... perhaps the quote should be removed though? it's pretty old and less relevant now than it was months ago. Onesecondglance (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is very possible that they are recording directly to analog tape, and then importing each tape into ProTools.... Arch stanton1138 (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

song length

where is this from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.33.106 (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It was taken from AOL Music. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Accidental selling in a French Store

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=103902

Should anything be added about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.71.26 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That is definitely notable. I've added it to the Release section of the article. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but "According to several unconfirmed Internet reports" is hearsay at best, and while I won't remove it myself, I object to its inclusion until a better source is found. Thedarxide (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's hearsay. It provides pictures and a video, and it's a reliable source. I would say it should be added and sourced. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the album actually leaked today. The fact that today the album was reportedly sold by a French retailer, coupled with the fact that the album has indeed surfaced online in recent hours essentially makes the mention far more than objectionable. Especially when we can verify the premature sale which has resulted in the leaking with a credible source. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Newsworthy, as a single line blurb somewhere in the release section, and has an rs. Ulrich's response in light of his past greedy-meanie persona is a curiosity and a short/cited quote would cover it all. secretly he must be counting the money he is losing I doubt anyone can doubt the story at this point. I've had the album for about 24 hours so I don't doubt that it is true. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add the German Version

Hey folks, the German Wikipedia finally created a DM-Article (I argued for ages, since every major wikipedia had that article already) Please add that one to the language menu on the left, thanks! (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Magnetic) --Yodokus (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Clipping/Distortion

How come there is no entry on what is the post-recording mastering error that causes all copies of this CD to clip? 69.255.249.205 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

because there's not really anything to say? there's no "error" as such; the first versions of The Day That Never Comes were just mastered too loudly - it appears that this caused excessive intersample clipping when down-converting to mp3. clipping isn't an error (except in the strictly technical sense), it's an (unfortunate) feature of most modern records (see Loudness wars for more detail). the engineer just cut it a bit too hot - it's been withdrawn, and, according to the only statement released regarding it, the record has been remastered. so it's not that "all copies of the CD clip", because that's true of the vast majority of modern records, it's that the early release of one song clipped a bit too much, and so it was re-done. bit of a non-event so hence not mentioned. Onesecondglance (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The single was re-released; all the clipping errors show up on it still. The album was already released in France and it is full of clipping and distortion errors. In any case, if the US retail version has the same errors, I think a section on sound quality is warranted. Ok I'm done bye.

I havent noticed it on the UK version, apart from possibly at the end of a song, where the drums do that fast&heavy thing like in One —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.68.51 (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

they're there all right - but calling them clipping "errors" isn't accurate. that would mean they were mistakes - and we don't know that for sure. if a notable source were to comment on it (as in, point out the sound quality), it could go in the article? Onesecondglance (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

there isn´t even a UK version, UK sold cds are german presses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.162.221 (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It suits there style too. I mean, justice was wierdly mixed too but it just worked, you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.68.51 (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that the album has been released, it's inevitable that the mainstream media will pick up on the sound issues - once some official commentary on the matter becomes available, I think a mention in the article would be justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.221.145 (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The clipping issue has caused the fans to sign a petition requesting a remastered version of the album here is the link : http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/re-mix-or-remaster-death-magnetic.html Apparently one of the members of the production team (named Ted Jensen) has contacted the author of this petition claiming that the issue was present on the raw material even before the mastering process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.217.122 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/blog-death-magnetic-sounds-better-in-guitar-hero-173961

The above article (written by Chris Vinnicombe of Musicradar.com) summarizes the recent developments regarding the audio issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.192.3 (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/09/does-metallicas.html - Follow up to Chris Vinnicombe's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.192.3 (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

http://uk.music.ign.com/articles/910/910469p1.html - Another article on the sound issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.192.3 (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

http://mastering-media.blogspot.com/2008/09/metallica-death-magnetic-stop-loudness.html - Mastering Engineer Ian Shepherd comments on Death Magnetic and the "loudness war". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.192.3 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/sep/17/metallica.guitar.hero.loudness.war - An article from the official website of UK based newspaper, "The Guardian". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.30.237 (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to add a section about the horrible clipping and distortion in 24 hours. It's a really messed up CD. Barely listenable due to this. Funny thing is how the GHIII version is so much better. We really need a section on this, maybe even in the Metallica page as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.6.87 (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

!!!more new songs.!.!.!

Following the releases of "The Day that Never Comes", "My Apocalypse" and "Cyanide", 3 more new songs, all of which studio quality can be heard on metallica.com. The songs are "All nightmare Long", "The Judas Kiss" and "Broken, Beat and Scarred" heres the link if anyone cares http://metallica.com/index.asp?item=601197

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.69.37 (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 

The Unforgiven III

Please link the song in the list The Unforgiven III to its article. Thank you. 24.46.123.59 (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This article fails WP:MUSIC#Songs (among other failings) so I have redirected it to Death Magnetic. Maybe in the future if it's released as a single it could have it's own article, otherwise no. Rehevkor ✉ 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I didn't make, I just found it so I thought we could link. I would suggest making a article for it in the future because the Unforgiven is a major song trilogy thing of Metallica's and it would make sense for it have its own article, etc. 24.46.123.59 (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Who plays the piano at the beginning of the song? Foxless (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Early release in the UK

HMV and Zavvi (UK music retailers) both released the album today (although it seems HMV have released their mistake). Could someone add something about this if appropriate? 82.11.235.238 (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah i just baught it in Zavii in dundee for £10 today! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.68.51 (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

BlogCritics.Org Review

Why does this referenced review give a score of 7.5? I have read the article and haven't even noticed a mark out of ten. The reviewer seems to give nothing but praise for the album and a score of 7.5 doesn't reflect this at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Switch024 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

is the review even notable? Onesecondglance (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Doubtful. Reviews must pass WP:RS which blogs almost never do, assuming it is a blog. Rehevkor ✉ 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Full album streamed on Metallica.com

Someone should mention that they've made the whole album available for listen on their website (http://www.metallica.com/index.asp?item=601231). It's quite notable coming from them... Now go listen to the album for free without being a horrible pirate ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.28.87.67 (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

pitchfork review

anyone else think the pitchfork review is a little bit bias towards metallica? the entire review sounds like some guy who is just pissed off at metallica because they don't sound the same, and pretty much uses the review to slam the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.33.106 (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how notable Pitchfork Media is, but if it's a notable source then we would only be being biased towards Metallica by covering it up and not featuring it. There's a similar case to this with Slipknot's All Hope Is Gone. For most of the review, John Doran rips on the band, but the community surrounding that article still allow the review to remain featured. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

alright, but my main problem is how the article is written, similar to the St. Anger review by pitchfork, the writer spends little time really discussing the album, and uses most of the article to bash the bands career since and justice, and the band members themselves. i wouldn't mind including un-favorable reviews, as long as they stayed on topic, and gave a fairly unbiased opinion of the album, and cited legitimate reasons, not "because its not like their old stuff", this review seems hardly worth noting, and seems pretty unproffessionally written. i believe the pitchfork review on this page and the St. Anger page should be removed, simply because of the level of garbage and opinion over fact in the articles, St. anger has plenty of unfavorable reviews without ones from disgruntled "old school Fans". anyone support this other than me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.33.106 (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to read it yet (site is blocked here at my work), but if that is the case, than it should most certainly be removed. The reviews should be those of the album, not a disgruntled fan haphazardly bashing a band because they don't give them the warm fuzzies like they did back in '86.....Arch stanton1138 (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I fucking HATE Pitchfork reviews. I don't even bother to read them.

I agree, the Pitchfork review is a disgrace, it barely touches on the album, focusing instead on bashing Metallica. The bias from the site is too much, and I don't find any of the reviews insightful because of this.Switch024 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree. How professional is it to spend most of a review basing a band for it's history and not the album in question? It's almost like asking David Lee Roth to write a review for 5150. LuvataciousSkull (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All the positive reviews do an overview of Metallica's career. Inc the Rolling Stone ones. Plus the criticism if anything seems more even handed and less biased towards blatant kissing of the collective bands behinds. --90.208.224.168 (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All Nightmare Long

should it be added that this single is the theme song for WWE no Mercy 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.19.186 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean should it have its own page? If so, then I'd say no, since that's not enough information for a article. But if there's a source I dont see why it couldn't be added to the Death Magnetic article somewhere. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It was confirmed on this weeks Monday Night Raw that this single is the theme for No Mercy. It's also confirmed on the site for No Mercy at link title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.213.181 (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we'll need a reliable third party source to establish the notability of this. Rehevkor ✉ 23:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A reliable 3rd party source????? You can't get more reliable then one of the two parties involved. It was confirmed by the WWE themselves on tv this week even using the album cover when advertising. Surely this would not happen if A they did not have permission and B this wasn't fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.213.181 (talk) 07:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Differing Track Lengths

I purchased both the digipack and jewel case versions of Death Magnetic earlier today and noticed that the track lengths listed on the discs were different. The lengths are listed as follows:

Digipack:

• That Was Just Your Life - 7:10
• The End of the Line - 7:50
• Broken, Beat & Scarred - 6:25
• The Day That Never Comes - 7:55
• All Nightmare Long - 8:01
• Cyanide - 6:41
• The Unforgiven III - 7:47
• The Judas Kiss - 8:02
• Suicide & Redemption - 10:02
• My Apocalypse - 5:01

Jewel case:

• That Was Just Your Life - 7:08
• The End of the Line - 7:52
• Broken, Beat & Scarred - 6:25
• The Day That Never Comes - 7:56
• All Nightmare Long - 7:57
• Cyanide - 6:39
• The Unforgiven III - 7:46
• The Judas Kiss - 8:00
• Suicide & Redemption - 9:57
• My Apocalypse - 5:01

My question is, which version is more suitable for the article, or does it even matter at all?--24.46.151.187 (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably doesn't matter at all. If there was something notable about it, like the artists fighting over what length to use, or one of the versions being used for something notable, then it should be added on a paragraph. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Album Reviews

Looking at the review section, let's just hammer this out:

1. AllMusic is a professional music review source, period. While they tend to write a few review for the album, they sometimes don't. There is more than enough evidence of this all over the site, and a rating from AllMusic is, in essence, the same as a fully-written review. I move that, despite it not being spelled out, the AllMusic review is kept without complaint.

Also, here is a blog post by AllMusic that is the full review: Death Magnetic: Kirk Hammett Has His Revenge

2. There is a limit on reviews to 10 PROFESSIONAL reviews. Professional reviews include, in this case, Blabbermouth and various other metal websites. I'm open to interpretation on this issue, and I feel we can come to an agreement.

LuvataciousSkull (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple really, Allmusic haven't written a review of the album. Even if they are the absolute authority on music, no review, no link in a review section. And even if they did, Allmusic don't have a right to have their review posted here anyway. I really don't see this as an issue. Rehevkor ✉ 13:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

With no offense, you do see it as an issue sense your so insistent on not having it. AllMusic is pretty much the most trusted source with music reviews and have the most number of review links on this site. Not having it actually adds inconsistency to the entire Metallica discussion. Again, they don't always write a full review but they still give it a rating. In fact, I even posted a written review they did do but it just wasn't added to the album page, at least not yet. I say it stays sense, even if I don't re-add it, it will continue to be. You may as well keep it. LuvataciousSkull (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If and when they do publish the review the link could be added, but as is we have to remain neutral and only link when it contributes something to the article. A rating is just a number, no matter how notable the rater, and until a review is published the link contributes nothing. (The review you linked to is not a reliable source was it was posted on the blog. We have to consider that there is perhaps a reason it was not posted on the website proper.) As I said above, the section is for professional reviews, not ratings. A rating with no review prevents anyone from gaining perspective on it. Rehevkor ✉ 16:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a hidden disclaimer taking Allmusic's place in the Infobox that people should be listening to, who in fact were until you (LuvataciousSkull) replaced it with Allmusic's non-notable rating. This is all the evidence needed to know that if you don't re-add it, chances are there are very few who will. Just relax, it's a Metallica album, obviously Allmusic is going to make their review available on the website itself, and not only on their outside blog. Besides, the documentation of album Infoboxes states "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." Vixen Windstorm (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So I wound up being right and the article is up with the same exact blog posting I had earlier. AllMusic review stays. LuvataciousSkull (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No one ever said the review would never be published. Rehevkor ✉ 17:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There are currently 13 reviews in the Review box, what three should be removed? LuvataciousSkull (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Track list structure.

I've noticed(And probably a lot of other people have noticed as well) that the track list structure has pretty much returned to the same structure as Ride the lightning, Master of puppets, and ...And justice for all.

Like "Fight fire with fire" in "Ride the lightning", and "Battery" in "Master of puppets", the first song is a fast track, with a clean guitar part for about the first minute of the song. Like "Fade to black" on "Ride the lightning", "Welcome home (Sanitarium)" on "Master of puppets", and "One" on "...And justice for all", the 4th song is a melodic track, which ends as a fast pace. And like "The call of Ktulu", "Orion", and "To live is to die" on "Ride the lightning", "Master of puppets", and "...And justice for all", there is an instrumental track near the end of the album.

This aught to be pointed out in the article. However, I don't have any official sources for this, other than my knowledge of these track structures, so it might be useful to this article if someone found some sources and pointed it out in the article itself. Vandalism destroyer (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Metal, NO!

This is flat out Thrash Metal. There are way to many sources to name but when people call it Heavy Metal its a generalization. That being said you can call anyone of metallica's albums from the 80's heavy metal as well.

DO NOT change it back to Heavy Metal, Its plain Thrash. Look at the 4 singles all of them have thrash metal sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgardner1123 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it really boil your skin to see another genre besides thrash metal in the infobox? Are you unable to sleep at night over two words on a Wikipedia page? Can you really see yourself making a valid point with what you've just said? Stop kidding yourself, honestly. Death Magnetic has thrash metal ELEMENTS, but underneath, it's almost in the same categorization as St. Anger. Just because the band plays fast on half the record doesn't mean it's pure thrash metal, and I really find it funny that you consider heavy metal a "generalization" when it's sometimes the only genre to describe many other bands. Take a chill pill, look at the big deal you're making out of this from another perspective, and lose the 'tude. Did I mention that original research on genres isn't allowed? Yeah, we source things now. It pisses the kids off. —Vanishdoom (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

improper release date

Wasn't the album released on sept 12th and not sept 10th like is says in the article. a wednesday release date seems a little weird70.51.55.166 (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)metlicafan70.51.55.166 (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It was released to a different country on the 10th. Protocol says to state ONLY the first release event, which is what we do. --The Guy _complain ^edits 19:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Inline references in Infobox

Do we need eight references to state that it's thrash metal and two to state it's heavy metal? Wouldn't one for each genre suffice? --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! ! 21:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that notion. --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cited content is supposed to go in the article and not the box. Only for instances where there is dispute should cites go in the box. There seems to be a dispute over this article... although I can see no valid reason for it. There is reference overkill. Perhaps someone can shave out the non-notable refs and keep 1 or 2 for each. But I state again... this is turning into one of the stupidest edit wars I have seen in a while. And as far as the editors who are ignoring the consensus format of WP:ALBUM... just report them to an admin and be done with them. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reported TheSickBehemoth for his violations of the 3RR rule, his falsely using tags on my talk page, and removal of valid tags on his own talk page, and he seems to be the only one who keeps striving away from the format of WP:ALBUM, so we might be good. As for removing references, I again state that I second that notion. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No mention of the distortion?

Even people who aren't audio enthusiasts can hear the brickwalling on this album, and there exists thread after thread on forums alone identifying it. Why is there not even a sentence of mention in the article? .Absolution. (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Because multiple forum threads do not constitute a citable source. If I find a good source I will add it. 24.68.128.218 (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

plus it isn't distortion, and brickwalling has nothing to do with it. it's digital clipping from the waveform being pushed to 0dBFS, and you can get that without using limiting of any kind. this is why without a source we aren't going to put anything in. Onesecondglance (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"it isn't distortion, and brickwalling has nothing to do with it. it's digital clipping from the waveform being pushed to 0dBFS" Which is a form of distortion, dear. Tsk.--90.208.224.168 (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, there's mad sources now (check out all the links in the Distortion discussion above). I'd add them to the article, but it's locked. forkbomb! (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I promised I'd add them when the article became unlocked, so time to put my money where my mouth is. This is my first time editing more than, say, grammatical mistakes, so I sure hope I did it right. forkbomb! (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Article says: "The album is the band's first to feature current bassist Robert Trujillo,"

Trujillo's first was at st. anger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neted82 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 16 September 2008

err... no it wasn't. 216.239.212.187 (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Trujillo did not feature in the studio album St. Anger, only featuring in the later sessions DVD. Rewording slightly to take this into account. haz (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Humble request from an unsigned user

Hi, I added a section above called "Full album streamed on Metallica.com" last week. Does no one think this is significant enough to be mentioned in the article, really?

It's not every day a band streams its new album on their website, and it could probably be considerd a bold move by any famous band, seeing how it might theoretically hurt sales.

But coming from Metallica, with their sordid Napster struggle, it really seems quite surprising that they'll let people listen to the album for free, and definitely notable! Don't you think? 91.177.138.28 (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WWE usage

If there was an All Nightmare Long page, this would be notable. A few songs off Death Magnetic have been used during NFL telecasts, but unless its notable to the album, rather than specific songs like that, it is not notable on this page...Arch stanton1138 (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Even then, we'd still need a reliable third party source to establish the notability of the fact, otherwise it's just trivia. Rehevkor ✉ 01:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed...Arch stanton1138 (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Content like that is just unencylopedic nn trivia. "In popular culture/In other media" related text/sections are the Achilles heel of quality on Wikipedia. Heavy metal articles are already magnets for low-brow cruft. WWE content is scraping down pretty low. The article is better off without it. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Not noteworthy. Maybe could be mentioned in prose, in passing on a "Promotion" section of the article. "In prose" being the keyword, not noteworthy of standard, in-depth mention. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Putting it in Promotion sounds good. LuvataciousSkull (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If we had a promotion section. We need one for it to be a Good Article, I think. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the 'Loudness War'

Should we include one or two other albums that suffer a similiar fate? For instance, in articles that suffer from this too show other albums, for example it'd be "Death Magnetic, along the likes of '___', '____' suffer from the loudness war'. or whatever. Yay or nay? Fourtyearswhat (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant. The most should be to link to a loudness war article rather than list off albums that have virtually nothing to do with Death Magnetic other than brickwall compression. —Vanishdoom (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, seems irrelevant, and unverifiable. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)