Talk:This Is War

Speedy deletion?

I used speedy deletion because I used the layout of the band's A Beautiful Lie page to start this one.

I do not understand. Are you asking for this article to be deleted? I am not clear on how this article is a copyright violation, although it does need reliable sources to verify that it is accurate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Song credits

The article states that all the songs on the new album are written and performed solely by 30 Seconds to Mars. While I do believe this will turn out true, how do we know right now that there will not be any guest performers on the album, or that there were no other writers involved? Shouldn't this be removed from the article until we know for sure? Ryziun (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you should delete it until any word from the band. Story V (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is War: Dragon Age

Their song This Is War is featured in a video promo for EA's Dragon Age: Origins http://dragonage.bioware.com/gallery/videos/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.236.228 (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tracklist References

Where's the proof that the songs like "Kings & Queens", and the others will be on the new album? Just wondering. Story V (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fall release date

Now confirmed on the official website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.236.228 (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

US release date

Where are the sources that say the release date for 23rd November for the US and the UK?--Loverdrive (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

I requested that this page be protected, and I was granted three days. The issues being that (a) several IPs and editors were copying and pasting this blog into the article which is considered a copyright violation and (b) several IPs and editors were continuing to mention that this image might be the cover art. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and speculating about future events should be well sourced. A rumor from a blog-like website is not considered a reliable source. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reception

The Spin rating is based on the rating of the user that are log in in the site and The Guardian is a community, so they violate the wikipedia criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.183.29 (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Guardian and Spin reviews

There is currently a dispute and ongoing edit war concerning the addition of two (negative) reviews to the article. One is from The Guardian [1] and the other from Spin [2]. It is being alleged that because you can login and register for these sites, that you can actually edit and influence the nature of the review and the overall rating. Whilst this is partially true for Spin, the rating that is altered is not the rating that is displayed on the article. Reviews from these sites have been used on multiple other articles. It seems clear that the IP user is intent on removing them due to their negative nature. However, wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, which means representing both negative and positive view points. There is no valid reason to remove these reviews, yet the IP seems unable to understand what is being explained to them. In essence, the debate is should these reviews be included in the article or not? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The design of the Spin webpage having an invitation to "Login or Register to rate this item" RIGHT INSIDE of the box with the 'reviewer's'? rating makes it appear to be a 'floating' rating dependent upon the users' votes instead. Even if this is UNtrue, the online reviews could easily remain a matter of contention. One only has to look at the page, that's basically what it says [Login and rate] to be reflected here, even if that is NOT what they mean. In my opinion, this lack of clarity should be sufficient to reject it's use as a 'good' reference. Perhaps, you can convince Spin to reformat their webpages?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not a reason to reject it. The fact is that the rating and review are reliable and not influenced by users. The appearance that this may be possible is irrelevant - who would actually believe that you can influence the rating a published review has given the album... Nouse4aname (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is possible for a review to consist of only text without a rating given and for users only to give a rating. A valid reference should not give even the impression of being otherwise. It should be able to stand on its own, without anyone having to conduct research to confirm what it really says. It does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence "must clearly support the material as presented in the article." The fact that research is necessary means it is UNclear.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm it is quite clear that that is the correct rating. It took hundreds of people for one to come along and raise alarm to the rather trivial issue. You're going crazy if you think it is necessary to go through the thousands of Spin reviews on Wikipedia and remove the rating based on the fact their website is a little unclear. I wouldn't mind just requesting an admin come here and block them. kiac. (talk-contrib) 01:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to be sorry that I even looked at this, but since I have...It can't possibly be "quite clear" when research was necessary to tell what they really mean. One should be able to check (view) a reference if they so chose, and it should "clearly support the material as presented in the article." as per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. It is even unacceptable to place a hidden comment with the reference, explaining that 'all you have to do to confirm is to do [this research].' No one should have to go through all that. It is reasonable to assume because of the placement of the invitation to "Login or Register to rate this item" RIGHT INSIDE of the box with the rating itself, that such activity contributes to the rating.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. No one with the even the smallest amount of common sense would expect to be able to affect the rating a reliable source has awarded a particular album. Particularly as you are invited to "rate this item" - referring to the the review, not the actual album. Further, no one seems to be addressing the Guardian review... Nouse4aname (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You are also misrepresenting the “Burden of Evidence” requirement. This states only that a reliable source needs to be provided for statements that may be questioned. This has been done. Spin is a reliable source. It is used throughout wikipedia to provide reliable reviews for albums and songs. The fact that one person seems to think you can actually alter the rating is irrelevant. This would clearly never be the case. Let’s not pretend that this is something it isn’t. This has nothing to do with whether the reviews are reliable or not, it is simply one editor that doesn’t like the fact their new favourite CD has been given few dodgy reviews.

"Burden of evidence" requires clarity. This item is not clear as evidenced by the need to perform a 'test' upon it. On it's face as 'they' present it, it is not "their" rating but a user's rating. Of course user's would not alter a reviewer's rating, but this item doesn't CLEARLY reveal this to be the reviewer's rating. Again, your testing PROVES it to be UNclear. Your argument basically is, "Well, this can't possibly mean what it looks like it means [user rating], could it? So I'm going to perform a test upon it." Again the need to test it means it is UNclear. I ONLY looked at the material as requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Spin ratings?...The methodology of THIS rating is UNclear. It needs to be able to stand on its own. I refuse to conduct 'research' on other of their ratings. It is possible that their other ratings may be presented as such [as actually being their ratings] but this one is not. You are pretending that the material they present, in the fashion they present it, means something different than the way they present it.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that user's rating a 'review' but not the Album itself is 'nonsense'. Or saying that user's are giving a rating of a rating sounds like 'nonsense'.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your argument above is entirely unclear. You do not need to perform any "test" to determine what the rating means. It is basic logic - it is an album review, here is the rating, I as the reviewer, have given it. Quite simple really. You will see that all such Spin reviews are presented in this way [3]. Perhaps you should go around deleting all such reviews from every article in which they appear because you think that you can actually alter the rating? Like I said above, a little common sense goes a long way... Regardless of the actual rating, it is entirely possible to include the review with an "unfavourable" rating rather than a star rating. We are trying to represent all view points and removing a review because it is unfavourable (let's not forget this is the real issue here) is not an option. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have restored this review as I am interested to see how quickly an anon IP will remove it... the Guardian review has already been removed several times despite no valid reason existing for its removal. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Spin ratings? Kiac states that you "logged in and rated the album..." If you read the account prior to that, it sure looks like you were performing a "test". At issue is this SPECIFIC review, the display of perhaps thousands of others they may have doesn't matter. I have no interest in this album, I was just responding to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Spin ratings?. I don't care if this review is positive or negative, it is still UNclearly the rating of the reviewer. Actually, even for me to go that far is being generous. On its face it is a user rating, but due to your 'test' (the results of which I am courteously taking as being correctly reported in that I hope you are acting in good faith) I will say that it may be possible to really be the reviewer's rating, but it sure doesn't CLEARLY state that.
As regards the Guardian review, NO THANK YOU. I am not going to get involved in another issue here.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is resolved. The IP was wrong, you are wrong and Spin's publishing of review ratings is as clear as it needs to be. Quit kicking up a fuss, you are meant to be commenting not involving yourself in what has become vandalism - removing sourced reviews from (let's capitalise) THE TOP publications in the world, because of some flawed accusations? It's foolish. Look at what you're doing, it is dead set foolish. And you remove The Guardian review... Why? I don't see why there's even a problem here anymore, you're just encouraging the IPs to disrupt this article further, and I think I can safely say this whole ordeal has been a huge detriment to the article. I myself would have improve it greatly if i didn't have to deal with this turdwash every time I visit the page. Reconsider your nonsensical stance, and please do not edit the article without any sort of consensus or common sense.

I have requested page protections, sick of the continuous copycat vandals repeating the same edits to remove negative reviews. kiac. (talk-contrib) 02:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't you just find some 'clearly' stated unfavorable reviews and use them?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe Kiac might be confusing Nouse for myself when I preformed this edit on the talk page of the IP that has an issue with the Spin review. After feeling that lately I was having some issues with WP:BITE, and that feeling that shoving policy down new editor's throats isn't really an effective method of communication, I would try something different by performing this "test" you keep referring to while keeping WP:CIVIL in mind. I tried to level with him and explain in detail why he was incorrect. I explained the steps I took so he could replicate them for verification. Given his response, I regret going that far. Not at any point did I actually believe any user could alter a star rating from Spin, and my "test" only confirmed that. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Metacritic believes that This Is War received 30/100 – the equivalent of 1.5 stars – from Spin. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that I have suffered the misfortune of contributing to an issue that has had ongoing 'bad blood'.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In the article, can you use that link to Metacritic, instead of a link directly to Spin?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it was User:Fezmar9 that performed the "test". Although I attempted to register to do the same, I have not received a password so cannot repeat it. However, I see no need to. The reliability of the review has been clearly established (not that it was ever really in doubt). Again, applying a little common sense shows there is nothing unclear about the review. It is an album review, by a legitimate, reliable, published source. Why would they put a user rating alongside the critics review? It is simply illogical. Further, there is no "bad blood" involved. This is simply a fan of the band trying to remove any negative reviews from the article. By the way, statements such as "I hope you are acting in good faith" do not exactly help matters, and ignoring the Guardian review because you don't want "to get involved in another issue here" is rather odd considering it is one of the two issues that we are meant to be dealing with here (take a look at the section heading). Nouse4aname (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, you cannot remove the the Spin review from this article and expect it to remain in others as the same issues apply - your alleged unclarity. However, as there is no logical issue here, the review should remain. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here there isn't any rating. The Spin rating is based on the rating of the user. Both unreliable.--Loverdrive (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. I apologize to Nouse for stating that they conducted the 'test'. I see above that Fezmar9 says that they did it. I was only repeating information (as I stated above) from another that said that Nouse did the test. Once again, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Spin ratings?.
2. It is possible for a review to be 'text only' and then invite user's to give their own 'rating' of an Album, song, etc. In this case the 'text' of the review is reliable. However the 'rating' is not.
3. 'Common sense' tells me when observing the commingling of the album artwork + a rating + "Login or Register to rate this item." all enclosed within a box, that those whom perform such actions are contributing to the 'rating' that is displayed.
4. Again, I have only looked at the review requested. I do not 'expect' Spin reviews to remain OR to be deleted upon this ONE review. Each would need to be looked at individually. If others appear as this one, challenges should occur. It doesn't matter how many people do not click a link to a review (or any reference). Just one is sufficient. But when someone does, it must "clearly support the material as presented in the article." as per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence.
5. This issue has degraded into namecalling. I say that indeed qualifies as having 'bad blood'. (See above usage by another of the term, "turdwash".)
6. Yes, I choose to ignore the Guardian issue. I have pointed several times to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Spin ratings?. That is the ONLY reason I came here. Once arriving here, I am not obligated to participate in any additional issues.
   

—Iknow23 (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who said the test was done by NoUse, my bad. @2 Yes, "it is possible", but it is not the case here. The rating published on the review page is clearly the reviewer's rating. It is not affected at all by the user. Just because one editor has a cry because their new favourite album was given a bad review, is no reason to attempt to remove all Spin ratings. Which brings me to: @4 All online Spin reviews are the same, have fun enforcing the removal of thousands of ratings on the basis of this flawed argument *haha*. @5 My humblest apologies, I was not aware the common person would be offended if I called their minority, nonsensical argument, "turdwash". kiac. (talk-contrib) 04:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have replaced the formerly used article by The Guardian with another one by the publisher - the first appeared to refer to the leaked version (mentioned West's vocals), this other one is the 2/5 review and is completely and utterly reliable in every way - except probably not in the eyes of some editors. kiac. (talk-contrib) 04:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Spin is giving a 'good' or 'bad' review.
'Common sense' tells me when observing the commingling of the album artwork + a rating + "Login or Register to rate this item." all enclosed within a box, that those whom perform such actions are contributing to the 'rating' that is displayed.
I do not know how ALL the other Spin reviews are presented. I find it quite unlikely that you have viewed them all.
I was not offended, it was a reply to an earlier comment.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fezmar9, the person who conducted the 'test' provided this link (see above) to a reply he left at the IP, "...I understand your confusion for the Spin review. Right next to the star rating is a note saying 'Log in to rate' or something along those lines..."
NOTE the word confusion. If there is 'confusion' the material is unclear.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint is not about the good or bad part, but the IP(s) who raised the 'issue' were clearly only doing it as an excuse to remove the negative reviews. It was removed several times before a reason was given, then I raised the question at the project page, as should have been done, now the issue to me, is resolved. By all, I meant the website obviously has a template - meaning all of the reviews are published in the same format. There is no reason to remove the rating from this page unless you want to remove all ratings because of this quite measly issue. I don't see how you can still see it as confusing, at first yes, but after it has been confirmed to be legit, it's obvious. Their coincidental placement of the login link is clearly a marketing tool to lure users in to sign up. kiac. (talk-contrib) 05:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't support the IP(s)' action of removing sourced material without explanation.
Ok, that is great if Spin has a template. That makes it possible for them to disambiguate their pages by just changing it and not having to edit each article.
Well, their 'marketing tool' is misleading. I accept in good faith that the 'test' has been performed and reported properly. I personally believe that it is the reviewer's rating NOW. But just viewing it the way that they persent it still appears otherwise. You recognize that it can be seen "as confusing, at first yes, but after it has been confirmed to be legit, it's obvious." If it is clear then a 'test' to confirm it would not have been required. It should be 'obvious' to a casual viewer of the review that the rating is given by the reviewer and not those invited RIGHT there with it ("Login or Register to rate this item.") A reader of this article (and every wiki article) should expect to have reviews, ratings and other material supported with references perWikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence that "must clearly support the material as presented in the article." The rating is being reported at this article as being that of the reviewer. The reference url does not clearly support this [without the test]. It is not proper to use a source with a notice, 'to confirm just perform [this test].' References must not require reader's research to prove their validity. If they are indeed clear, research is unnecessary. We should strive to write articles [and use references] that are clear upon first viewing as all will not be familiar with all the intricacies of the article subject and/or its references.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A lot is always being mentioned about this being an 'unfavorable' rating. I would say that to include a disparaging rating or other negative material about a person, group of people, or other entity one should rise to the strictest and highest standards of verifiability and clarity. To do otherwise, as seen here, only leaves one open for attack by supporters of those the article is about. They may be looking for loopholes, but if they find them, the loopholes should be closed.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your comment. Removing a Guardian review is outright censorship. The official rating they give has nothing to do with user input on the web site.

I've suffered the same problem myself on other pages. With fans of the subject in question doing their best to keep poor reviews off of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmooney9 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Print edition of Spin

My god, this just never ends. With this edit I changed the Spin review source from citing the web to directly citing the physical print magazine, hoping it would put an end to this never-ending argument. However, a discussion took place here on my talk page shortly thereafter about the inclusion of both the magazine AND url within the citation. I can already tell that the discussion between myself and User:IKnow23 will go nowhere on my talk page, so I am moving the discussion here to involve the This Is War community to help reach a consensus. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the use of the PRINT edition only. If it showed (confirmed) the same display of 1.5 out of 5 stars that the online version shows, then both would be fine. But since the PRINT edition has a different rating system (out of 10 stars), I wouldn't want to combine those two rating systems together in one reference citation. As long as the link to the online review is in the ref it is also still being cited.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: the ref citation of ISSN 0886-3032. Is that directly from the actual print edition?
If it is only from the Spin (magazine) wiki, see the TALK there.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the ISSN directly from the actual print edition. I don't know anything about worldcat.org, so I cannot comment on the discussion you started at Talk:Spin (magazine). Fezmar9 (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank You. I reported it RESOLVED at Talk:Spin (magazine)—Iknow23 (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

First album in 4 years

The article states the following in its lead: It is the first studio album by the band in four years, since A Beautiful Lie was released in 2005.

My question is how is this even worthy of mention? Four years is not an abnormally long period between album releases. I fail to see why it should even be mentioned in the lead. Enfestid (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Kanye West and Brandon Flowers

There seems to be some edit warring over this Kanye West's and Brandon Flowers' involvement with This Is War. According to the sources, West provided vocals on "Hurricane", specifically the lyric "I need a heartbeat".[4] All of the original news posts of West's collaboration only recognized him as a vocalist.[5] After being told that West would appear on the album, and after not publicly announcing his absence, it would seem that people assumed the beats on "Hurricane" were programmed by West. The only source I could find supporting West providing beat programming was Wikipedia, and few blogs that likely got their information here. This collaboration had to be removed from the final version of the album due to legal reasons and label disputes.[6] The band also hopes to release this version of the song someday.[7] As for Brandon Flowers, I cannot find anything on his involvement since it was originally announced earlier this year. Does anyone have a physical copy of the album? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever listen to Hurricane album version?--Matthew Riva (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the retail version doesn't feature Kanye West. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.236.228 (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this not the definition of disruptive editing?

An editor repeatedly undertaking ignorant edits like this is not helping anyone. You are so dearly misinformed, as much as I've tried my best to help, you continue to ignore and you continue with the idiotic edits. Am i the only one seeing the complete and utter stupidity in this edit and others (obviously same editor)? A Copyright violation... what? Here is a brief excerpt from Wikipedia:Non-free content (yes, content which is NOT violating copyright): "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." The arrogance in this editor is blinding. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There may be too many quotes in the article but yes, attributed quotes are allowed. Also, relax a bit. Using words like "idiotic", "stupidity", and "arrogance" only serves to inflame the situation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There are many quotes, and now you want to add other. Read the top of the page.--79.52.176.152 (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please suggest wording that would convey the points of the quotes without actually using them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, there are 22 quotes in this page. Wow, it is a record.--79.46.176.26 (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The amount of quotes is not the issue. It was the fact that 90% of the prose was just someone's copy and paste job of quotes. Looks better now, but the Writing and recording section still needs a rewrite. May also mention, that reception section you wrote will be removed because it is simply reiterating what is in the table or stating disregarded charts such as Digital Albums or iTunes which fail WP:CHARTS. kiac. (talk-contrib) 01:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

E sti cazzi cogliò. I say that the quotes that you add are insignificant.--87.21.186.242 (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I think they are significant. They are quotes from reliable sources relating to musical style and themes of the band's record - you're edits are disruptive and really quite pointless. Continually removing something is not helping anyone, in fact it's probably annoying a lot of people who want to edit the article in good faith, but can't because someone's edits appear to persistently attempt to get the page protected. kiac. (talk-contrib) 08:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Professional reviews

Melodic.net published a review on their website [8]. A very positive one. Add it.--79.46.176.26 (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What makes Melodic a reliable source? A professional source?

There's dozens of reviews by much more notable sources, I see no reason to add this simply because is is very positive. kiac. (talk-contrib) 01:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please Help.

L490 uses 2 very different sound concepts in it. At the start there is what sounds like Jem Finer's Longplayer and at the end there is a collection of what sounds like a Monks Hymn. What are these? Please answer. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 14:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a Monk hymn. I'm not sure about the first part, might very well be Longplayer, haven't seen anything reported about that though, so not all that likely. kiac. (talk-contrib) 15:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete positive reviews for negative ones.--ItHysteria (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

We aim for neutrality so if reaction to the album was mixed, the reviews we include should reflect that. Also, why did you remove the Erlewine and Times quotes? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Because those quotes are useless. Erlewine and Times speak about the old 30 STM music style, that in this page is insignificant.--ItHysteria (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

So the section covers the musical style of an album which is categorised as "progressive" rock, and we shouldn't mention the actual progression of the band's style? There is nothing wrong with explaining a little background and giving perspective; remember, it was fine for the cited sources to write about the past in the first place. I would happily support something which is written to sufficiently replace it, but simply removing something for the sake that you think it shouldn't be there (against the opinions of half a dozen other editors), that is just lazy, ignorant and very frustrating. kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kiac. How can you explain in the article that the band has progressed musically over the years, without also giving a description of how the band used to sound? This page should not assume the readers are familiar with every song 30 Seconds to Mars has ever released. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

+1. If reviewers compare this album to prior ones, and state how this album is different stylistically, then that info can go in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Review listing

If you don't think the review listing as of this version doesn't accurately reflect the album's critical reception please explain why below, keeping in mind we strive for a neutral point of view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The spin rating is not verifiable.--95.247.183.68 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Spin rating is entirely reliable and verifiable as has been extensively discussed above. Your only opposition to this review is based on its critical nature. Please read WP:NPOV and learn to contribute constructively. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The others reviews are more reliable. Who write the Spin review?--87.6.155.107 (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Charles Aaron wrote the Spin review, and as you can see from here, he has written quite a few more too... Nouse4aname (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And who is Charles Aaron? --79.47.179.13 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A writer for Spin magazine? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible link/connection on the album cover

Upon downloading the new 30 Seconds to Mars 'Kings And Queens' single from iTunes, I noticed that on the album cover, there is a possible link between the words 'Mars' and 'War'.

Both words seem to be bolded in red on the white stripe, as opposed to in black - like the remainder of the album title and band name.

Mars, being the Roman deity concerning warfare, being linked to the 'War' in the title, is quite significant I believe. It may show the struggle that band has had in making the album, or perhaps is just a teaser of some sort for those who are more observant amongst us?

I believe this little quirk could easily be integrated into the 'Music style and themes' section, or even just above that, after this part: "The CD booklet, as well as the promotional and digital artwork features a roaring tiger. All retail albums include varied sleeves, separate from the booklet, featuring one of the 2,000 different covers." Now, in order for this to fit into the 'Music style and themes section', the section title may have to be changed so as to remove the ambiguity over whether the 'themes' refers to musical themes or general themes.

For reference and also your convenience, here is an embedded file of the album cover I am referring to:

File:30STM_—_This_Is_War.jpg

---

Many thanks, and please be kind; this is my first contribution to Wikipedia

--Patrick Rozendaal (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Patrick Rozendaal

Hi there, please read WP:OR. Unless critics have discussed this possible connection then we cannot include it. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, nice thinking there! Too bad it's OR. :) RichV 09:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Certifications

The album was certified gold by the bpi on April 1.--79.46.183.75 (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Usage

The New Jersey Devils used the song Vox Populi as part of their playoff introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artieb220 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It was also used in a "Victoria's Secret" runway show in 2010. 94.15.207.226 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Space Rock

What do we think about adding Space Rock to the infobox? My overall impression of the album was Space Rock. Not sure what constitutes a reliable source but here's a few links that refer to the album as such:

http://artisticalliance.org/aa/2010/04/30-seconds-to-mars-this-is-war-impression/

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?albumid=42849

http://thesoundtracktolife.com/index.php?blog=2&title=30_seconds_to_mars_this_is_war&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

http://www.reviewbusters.net/game/review.aspx?id=2131

Jh39 (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Faces of Mars

The article currently has a section headed "Faces of Mars", and an accompanying image is captioned "Some covers of the Faces of Mars". Nowhere, however, is any explanation provided for the expression "Faces of Mars". Is this something official the band used? Where? Or is it just something we made up here? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's official and it will be relaunched soon [9]. This should be written in the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.183.44 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Emo

I just thought I'd point out that the reference for Emo in the infobox actually state that the band has moved out of the Emo genre with this album Jh39 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

MEXICAN CHARTS

PEAKED AT 39 IN 2010 <http://mexicancharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Thirty+Seconds+To+Mars&titel=This+Is+War&cat=a/> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.172.207 (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Good catch! Thanks for your note. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane

They're shooting a music video for Hurricane. Is it a single now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.236.228 (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It may not be a single, but we should add a description of the video anyway. 66.32.17.150 (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There's been a load of controversy over the Hurricane video (it being censored heavily for MTV to play it, and even then they wouldn't play the censored version) - surely that's notable enough for a mention? Amzi (Talk To Me) 08:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC) It is the new single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.179.92 (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone turned off the disambiguation for "Hurricane", which I personally thought was a better move. But I come back today and it's back to redirecting to This Is War. Can we go back to having Hurricane have its own page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.64.83 (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"Deluxe edition cover"

According to an OTRS email, and checking [10], this was a fan-made cover and not an official one. I have removed it. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

End of year charts

The album was No. 47 in Germany source--79.216.174.128 (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Bartholomew Cubbins

Due to the fact that the page is locked, I cannot make the most minor of changes, so I ask admins to do so. In the Hurricane controversy section, you have referred to Jared Leto's psuedonym as "Bartholomew Cubbin", when it is, in fact, "Bartholomew Cubbins". An "s" only needs to be added. There are references all over the internet, including an official band t-shirt with "Who the f#%k is Bartholomew Cubbins?" printed on it. Thanks. 94.15.207.226 (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In Popular Culture: Games

"Kings And Queens" is available for download on the SingStore, the online store that you can purchase songs from for the SingStar series. 94.15.207.226 (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Hunter

According to the "Hurricane" page, it says the next single is going to be "Night of the Hunter". Is this true? -- CDK (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Double platinum in Belgium

This Is War is currently certified double platinum in Belgium [11].--Eraser100 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Germany

This Is War is Platinum in Germany. http://www.musikindustrie.de/gold_platin_datenbank/#topSearch

--79.199.42.143 (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The source you provided does not link to anything about this album. Topher385 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because you have to search?--79.37.31.199 (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The reader should not have to do the searching himself to find out if the information is reliable. It is up to the editor to provide that information. Topher385 (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

All German certifications are on this official searchable database. Can't you fill "titel" with "This Is War"? Can't you wrote on a pc keyboard? Here there is a list of all German certifications, so you need to read only, or you can't read?--79.37.31.199 (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

When I just attempted to use the search it did not work properly.... I did figure out how to manipulate the address and find the result but there is nothing that said I had to do that.... If the search works for you then you could've copied the link at that point and given it. Anyways now added in. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

UK

Platinum in the UK source--79.199.25.4 (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

New prog

I think this album must be considered as hard rock and new prog. It have not the musical complexity of progressive rock (like yes, genesis and pink floyd). It have a hard rock and alt-rock sound with some elements of prog. The band is cited as a notable group of new prog, and this genre is cited in the band page, but it isn't in any album. -my english isn't very good, sorry- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.245.183 (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And your sources are? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, five or six songs from the album have their own pages and every single one is decribed there as whether "new prog" or "progressive rock". If individual songs are labeled here as prog, then why the album isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.175.249 (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Certifications

The double platinum award in Belgium is sourced by Gulf News, which is a reliable and authoritative source. The certification was also listed here, but when the band began to use the name "Thirty Seconds to Mars" instead of "30 Seconds to Mars", it disappeared. In New Zealand, the album was certified when it left the chart, that's why it is not here (also From Yesterday, for example, charted in 2007 but was certified only in 2011). Label's press releases such as this are reliable sources, especially when it comes of album certifications or sales of their own artists. Also, on the web there are pictures of the band receiving those awards.--Earthh (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)