Talk:Demon Days/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Feel Good Inc.

Shouldn't the detailed information about Feel Good Inc. be moved to a seperate article? Once they release some more singles off the album it would seem a little full, wouldn't it? And is it really necessary to have all the covers for the different releases on the page, even though they're pretty much the same? --Fritz S. 10:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The information presented in the article about the single is nothing more than track listings, so it really isn't that detailed. Creating a seperate article for such limited information would seem like a waste of space. Unless you have more information about the writing/recording process at this time, I'd hold off. Good point about the images. When I uploaded them, it just seemed appropriate. I'll wait to see if there is further agreement before I just remove three of the covers! PlasticBeat 20:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I added an image of the actual picture disc for the 7", so that removes some of the redundancy of the single cover images. PlasticBeat 19:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I obviously moved both singles sections to their own articles. I think they work better that way. Also, thanks for removing the subsections from the "new" singles sections, that also is easier to read I think. Thanks. Cbing01 1 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

Rate Your Music

Mike Garcia, please explain your reinsertion of the Rate Your Music link into this article. I believe it has been pointed out to you by many other users that this site "is a metadata database where musical albums ... are rated and reviewed by users" and that it is "not a professional review". I explained my reason for removing it in my edit summary, but you simply stated "re-add". Please explain. Cbing01 1 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

Who cares if it's not a professional review source? -- Mike Garcia | talk 3 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)

Well, the heading in the infobox is "Professional reviews" so anything that isn't a professional review doesn't belong there. --Fritz S. July 3, 2005 14:48 (UTC)

Search for a Star

Who won the contest? This paragraph is so random.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.6.110.65 (talk • contribs) .

Facts

I don't think this sounds consistant. Read this: At first a March or April 2005 release date was announced but later pushed back to the date it was finally released. It says March or April. Why don't we just give the real fact? Was the announced release date March or April?Newguineafan 17:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Track listing style & infobox

I reverted the changes to the Track listing, so it's the way it's supposed to be done according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums (and is done throughout Wiki). It explicitly states in the guidelines that (especially for Hip hop albums) guest artists should be listed with bullets.

Also, I think we should use Template: Album infobox instead of Template: Album infobox 2 until the legal issues about the use of the small album covers in the Chronology section (see talk on WikiProject Albums) are resloved. --Fritz S. 11:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Template: Album infobox 2 has not been vetoed at all and is of free use. Hundreds of articles have them. BGC 20:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was nomminated for deletion and there's still an ongoing discussion on the WikiProject Albums talk page, so I wouldn't say it "has not been vetoed at all". --Fritz S. 22:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

About guest singers, to put it bluntly the format that we have now is clunky and unwieldy. Just compare the two versions, before [1] and after [2], and honestly just tell me if the old tracklisting looks better than the new one or not?

I have to note that reverting is not always a good idea. If you had seen through the history of the article, my earlier edit does not conflict with the Wikiproject, which also clearly states that en dashes should be used instead of hyphens. That's why I made those edits seperate because I had a hunch that it will be reverted. Revertion of a useful edit without any basis could be seen as vandalism (in the worst case scenario) if any useful edits made in between two versions are not inserted back. That's why my motto on Wikipedia is "edit, not revert".

About the usage of either infoboxes, I am not getting myself involved in the debate too seriously and will not make any choices nor any edits between the two infoboxes until there is a concrete answer. Honestly I'm a bit disgruntled at the petty edit conflicts that I've seen around some album articles, they could seriously drive a person hopping mad. The very foundation of every Wikiproject on Wikipedia is to a be a guide on improving articles. That also means we shouldn't hold back the progress of any articles in the name of the Wikiproject, that would be seriously wrong.

A particularly good point from this page is: "Our primary purpose here is to create an encyclopedia. The rules that exist on Wikipedia exist only to support that purpose. Our policies are meant to be neither straitjacket nor cudgel; they are merely a flexible framework within which we can cope with most common questions and problems. The spirit of our rules is far more important than their letter.

"Wikipedians are expected to use common sense in their actions here. Actions that are reasonable but which contradict a strict reading of the rules should not be penalized, though they may be discussed. Actions that are obnoxious but not expressly forbidden–including the practice of 'rules-lawyering'–will attract censure.

"Ignoring all rules is about cutting through bureaucracy and red tape to construct an encyclopedia; it should never be used to justify actively disruptive or destructive behaviour."--Andylkl ^(talk) 14:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You might be right about the listing according to the guidelines not being particularly nice, (although I personally neither like the use of the small font - it makes it seem as if that information is less important) but I do think it's nice to have some consistency within Wikipedia, and the Project guidelines - while certainly not being strict rules everyone has to follow - help with that and make it easier to find information.

And you're absolutely right about the revert thing... sorry for that.

I personally don't really strongly prefer ether infobox, but - again - I think there should be some consistency and as there seem to be some problems about Template: Album infobox 2, I think it'll be just easier to wait and see how that turns out... --Fritz S. 15:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

In a contract, the smallest text might deal the greatest blow if it's not noticed. :) Actually small text is commonly being used throughout Wikipedia, and can even be seen especially in the infoboxes. I think it's used for it anesthetic looks, doesn't really degrade the importance of the text. We already have italics and bolding for emphasis, smaller text isn't degrading unless it's until the point of being miniscule.

No worries about that part, apology accepted. I just wish more editors would notice it more often. :\ --Andylkl ^(talk) 15:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody know if the song Fire Coming Out of a Monkey's Head is inspired by the song One Tin Soldier? Because I sang One Tin Soldier in a choir and it reminded me of FCOOAMH. So, if anyone knows if FCOOAMH is inspired by One Tin Soldier or if its just a coincedence, please say so. Don't worry, we'll all be dead soon enough...I promise. 18:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) The Bickel

Recording date & Italics

I removed "Late 2003 - 2004" from the Redorded section in the infobox, because there has been no source given, and the only thing I read about the time the album was recorded was - in some article that was on Danger Mouse's official homepage - that the album's release was pushed back from April 2005 because they were not finished recording, which would contradict the "Late 2003 - 2004" claim.

I also removed the italics from All Music Guide, BBC and musicOMH.com, because they are not written in italics according to their articles.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fritz S. (talk • contribs) .

Murdoc... Dead?

Which art work does it show murdock as a zombie? - Anonymous Voice—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.224.246.198 (talk • contribs) .

600,000 units isn't enough for platinum

Per the article, "As of August 2005, Demon Days has sold over 600,000 units in the US and it has been certified platinum there."

An album has to sell at least 1 million copies to go platinum in the US. Therefore, either the album has sold substantially higher than 600,000 units, or it has not been certified platinum. Does anyone have a more accurate sales number? BinaryTed 14:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The RIAA database doesn't list the album, so I guess the claim is false. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Until such time as accurate sales info can be found, I am removing the above sentence. BinaryTed 15:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

RIAA certifications refer to albums shipped to stores, not albums sold to consumers. The album is definitely platinum. here are 2 links for US and UK certifications: [3][4]Crumbsucker 05:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Blur: The Best Of

Well, the cover of Demon Days shows a portrait of each member. The Best of Blur shows the same, of course, with the Blur members. Is this related or just a reference?

Rock Opera?

Could you consider Demon Days a Rock Opera? I mean tracks fade into the other, it reprises themes from other tracks, and has a storyline to it. I mean if you would consider American Idiot a Rock Opera wouldn't you consider this? Sam 02:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider Kid A as a rock opera? If you do, consider Demon Days as a rock opera.

Gorillaz and the Beatles

I think this section is growing outside the Demon Days article, and should either be in the main Gorillaz article or have it's own article. Sam 18:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

MF DOOM

His name is misspelled in the first paragraph; he has stated numerous times that his name is "all caps." (I.e. all capital letters.)

iPod + iTunes

Should there be something in this article abut how Apple has repeatedly used this album and its songs as example screen shots? About a month ago, I was looking at an iPod package and the picture of the ipod on the front was playing Feel Good Inc. SquareShot97 03:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Album Concept/Theme

Shouldn't the contents of the opening paragraph include something about the album concept? I've seen many reviews which allude to a "Last Living Souls" theme. Steveprutz 14:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Music analysis

Shouldn't there be a section looking in detail at the change in Gorillaz style since the first album? I've noticed this sort of analysis in other articles about sequel albums...this one should be no exceptions. Crazy Eddy 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Titles

I read that many of the titles of the names of the tracks on this album refers to the first album. Could anyone point out a title more than "Dirty Harry" and "clint Eastwood"? Marvelrulez 13:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Story

There should be a section elaborating about the story of this album. Zazaban 07:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cee-Lo?

Can anyone confirm that Cee-Lo was in this album? I was listening to it and on track 4, O Green World it sounds like Cee-Lo from Gnarls Barkley preforming. USAFAAres (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Cee-Lo does not appear on this album. I can't hear him on "O Green World" and he isn't listed anywhere on the liner notes. - kollision (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess I was just mistaken then. Thank You.

USAFAAres (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lupe Fiasco/Gorillaz Mixtape

Just wondering whether the Lupe mixtape "A Rhyming Ape" should be mentioned here considering it is entirely a work of Lupe rapping over the beats from this album 71.235.41.187 (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2