Jump to content

Talk:Do or Die (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Single? What single? I see no single...." (The Promotional Single dispute)

[edit]

When Contactmusic published an article about the then-upcoming release of "Do or Die" in late July 2013, they stated: "Following their gravity-defying, Radio 1 A-listed single 'Up In The Air' Thirty Seconds To Mars drop another killer track; 'Do or Die', out September 9th on Polydor Records.". I am writing this on the 15th of September, and still no single release exists. Sure, a promo CD had circulated around in August, and officially impacted the UK airwaves on this particular day of Monday the 9th of September, but it only gave false hope for the rest of us waiting for the single itself. For the past week we have been searching. It's not on iTunes in the UK or any of the many iTunes Stores there are! It's not on any of the international editions of Amazon.com either! The Thirty Seconds to Mars Store still only sells the Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams album, and all the second-grade sellers like HMV, JB Hi-Fi and the Virgin Records Store don't have it either! No "Do or Die" single in sight! After our vigorous search lasting a treacherous week without prevail, we began to ponder to ourselves: Could Contactmusic be wrong? Were they only referring to the radio release of "Do or Die" instead? None of us could believe it! How could someone like Contactmusic get it all wrong? But it was at that moment, one of my also-astonished friends reminded me of a certain Billboard article years back...

Coldplay's Mylo Xyloto had just been released in October 2011, and we were all aboard the train of glory! After the heavily-anticipated "Princess of China" featuring Rihanna was leaked, people were going nuts over the song! It was around the time of the single's release that Billboard told us that "Princess of China" would be released as the third single from the album on October 25! It was estaticlingly interesting! A third single so soon? Why not wait until a few months pass? It all turned out to be, however, one big miscall fired by Billboard, who are supposed to be the most professional music media source United States! They are the chartholders in the United States, after all! Billboard, of all sources, got it all wrong!. In a surprising matter of fact, "Charlie Brown" was released as the third single in January 2012, and "Princess of China", unfortunately, did not see a single release until April! It was there that we learned a valuable lesson our mothers and colleagues have been trying to teach us for years: "Don't believe everything you read on the internet."

As I sit here, after my week-long journey to find the legendary "Do or Die" single had drawn to a bitter and disappointing close, I realized to myself that they had it all wrong again. But luckily it wasn't Billboard this time. It was some music website that does get attention, but only has, according to the resident wikipedia article, should we believe that or not, 12 full-time employees and, should we quote, many freelance contributors from across the globe, with their only professional association being the United Kingdom's Channel 4, of all things a music website could have a deal with. Not any record companies, no SoundScan equivalents, no actual ties with musical acts. What separates this particular website from all the other websites? The question may be left unanswered for years to come. If they are the website others claim them to be, how come I was unable to locate what they and other minor blogs and such claim to be a release of "Do or Die" as a single? Are we too numb in our minds to accept that internet websites can get it wrong sometimes, and do get it wrong sometimes? Why is it that we, as wikipedians, trust the word of a particular website, who may or my not be just relaying already-known information, yet are not diligent enough to make sure this word is one of truth? Shouldn't we, as wikipedians, question all sources first? Why must we accept the word of major websites without, at very least, scrutinizing the source first? Is the fact that a user, attacking me with the exact words "Stop doing vandalisms", complete with incorrect spelling, final proof that we, the editors, have descended to a level that we are now attacking people just because they dare to scrutinize the source? Is Wikipedia slowly, but surely, reversing itself back to being the unreliable source that it was 4-5 years ago? Asking these questions scare me sometimes. But that's what an editor must do to proceed. We must ask questions.

The legendary "Do or Die" single, as elusive as it can be, does not exist, to our knowledge. The word of Contactmusic has been broken. As God-like and completely truthful as some users make it out to be, it has not been truthful to us, at least.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 20:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources not on your suppositions. How can you say that no single release exists when you can buy the song through the various digital stores? "Do or Die" is the official international new single; with international I mean that it is released everywhere except in Canada, the United States and Australia, where the single "City of Angels" was released. This was confirmed by the band numerous times on Twitter and Facebook (searching rapidly I found this and this). The European promo for "Do or Die" was released on July 1, 2013 [1]. Contactmusic.com is a British magazine, and its article is a press release for the United Kingdom. "Do or Die" was released as a single prior to September 9, 2013, but the only source founded for a specific release date is the one by Contactmusic.com, and that only one source is cited on Wikipedia. For now the single is available only in digital format, your suppositions are irrelevant; even "Up in the Air" was released as a single but it's not on the iTunes Stores or other sellers. You've been doing edit warring and therefore a vandalism (I also remember that not so long ago, you claimed the same problem for "Edge of the Earth", still without citing any source and still basing your edits on your suppositions, which were untrue).
--Earthh (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off, Source check! Your first source is the band asking us to request "Do or Die on international radio. Unfortunately, it gives us two links to the music video. Not the single. Your second source is Jared Leto asking us to request the "City of Angels" on UK, Canadian and Australian radio, with him giving us a link to the Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams album, not the single. Moving on, Claim check!
"How can you say that no single release exists when you can buy the song through the various digital stores?". Yes, you can buy the song through many sources; through the Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams album. With this claim, you would also be assuming that the other 11 tracks on this album are all singles. "This was confirmed by the band numerous times on Twitter and Facebook". Did you not read my argument above? Unless you have viable proof that a single release exists, you can't rely on second-hand word, even if it is Jared Leto or Contactmusic! They could easily be refering to the radio release instead, since it's a common mistake nowadays to call a radio promo a single. "For now the single is available only in digital format, your suppositions are irrelevant; even "Up in the Air" was released as a single but it's not on the iTunes Stores or other sellers." Um, excuse me? I see a single! I see singles everywhere! "You've been doing edit warring and therefore a vandalism" Wikipedia's Conduct policies, the most important moral guideline on Wikipedia, states No Personal Attacks. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.". I'm pretty sure you know the difference between a vandalist and an editor, and this is just a personal attack you are making to enforce your side of the argument. I've never called you names! Why should you? Also, it's "vandalist", not "vandalism" Get your English right.
Before I close my reply, I want to make one minor comment on the former such: "I also remember that not so long ago, you claimed the same problem for "Edge of the Earth", still without citing any source and still basing your edits on your suppositions, which were untrue." It's called a discussion, mate. The reason "Edge of the Earth" was reverted back was because you managed to provide a source on my talk page to a Digital download single. It was after we had an edit war of course, which is sort of annoying. You could've easily prevented that yourself by just giving me that same source to begin with. The problem is, this time, you don't have a source pointing to a CD single, Digital download single, Maxi single, CT single, Vinyl single; any single at all, so you're on the other side of this argument now.
P.S. You have a customer waiting on Aisle 5.
RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 04:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should wait, also "Closer to the Edge", which was first released in June 2010 in New Zealand, appeared on the iTunes Stores only after its American release in August. I'm sorry that you consider my comment a personal attack, it was not my intention. What I wanted to say is that we should not do edit warring. Sorry for my grammatical error, English is not my first language. You called it a discussion, but you should have written on this talk page before your edits and only after a discussion (there would be no edit war), since Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Oh, that user on the Edge of the Earth talk page has been blocked indefinitely.
--Earthh (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I took your comment to seriously. I do get offended when other editors call me a vandal, but I'm sure you didn't mean to insult me. Just don't write that kind of stuff next time, if you can. Also, I'm one of those who take the three-revert rule to the limit. I think that it's worth it that we should take the least amount of conflict before a resolution. If that conflict is not resolved within the three edits, then we take it to the talk page. It's how I work.
RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 22:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Trailer Song for Movie Trailers

[edit]

This Features in trailers of The Book of Life and will be in the Trailers of Kung Fu Panda 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.164.254 (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Do or Die (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to offer a review. It's a real shame you've had to wait so long. J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Written and produced by lead vocalist Jared Leto, the lyrics" Poor writing- the song was written and produced, but "the lyrics" is the subject of the sentence
  • Fixed.
  • "The song, which is imbued with elements of arena rock, is styled in electronic rock." A little clumsy
  • Reworded, please check if it is ok.
  • "John Hanes engineered it for mixing at Mixstar Studios in Virginia Beach, Virginia." What does this mean? The whole paragraph is a little choppy.
  • That's what the liner notes say [2]; Engineered for mix by John Hanes", how should I put that?
  • Per WP:SAMPLE, the music sample should not be more than about 64kbps.
  • Reduced.
  • "a female voiceover proclaiming the song's title in the Chinese language," Proclaiming? This is a very weird sentence.
  • I've changed "proclaiming" with "introducing", please check if it is ok.
  • "The full-throated chorus" ??
  • "The song includes the contribution from the band's fans, credited as Knights of the White Shadow, captured singing a chorus over the band's recording studio." This doesn't make any sense
  • Reworded, please check if it is ok.
  • Fixed.
  • The lead implicitly suggests that the song wasn't released as a single (it charted due to album downloads, no single release is mentioned) but, in the article, it is claimed that it was released
  • Fixed.
  • "On August 30, 2013, it debuted at number 75 on the Ö3 Austria Top 40." How can something debut at #75 on a top 40?
  • Ö3 Austria Top 40 is the name of the chart, but it actually ranks 75 songs.
  • ""Do or Die" was used by Major League Baseball as the theme song for the 2013 Major League Baseball Postseason." Reference?
  • The caption "Dutch music producer Afrojack remixed "Do or Die" for the song's digital release" seems to contradict what's written in the main article. It wasn't remixed for a particular release?
  • It was remixed for one of the two digital releases of the single.
  • "entered the Dutch Top 40 at number 53" again
  • That is the name of the chart, but it actually ranks 70 songs.
  • "deemed the song as an album highlight" Clumsy
  • Fixed.
  • "John Watt from Drowned in Sound was more mixed" No he wasn't- his comments about the song were
  • Fixed.
  • You've got two sections called "Background". This isn't ideal. I'd just remove the second one and leave it under the level 2 heading.
  • I've renamed and reorganized the first Background section.
  • "Leto conceived its concept" Clumsy
  • Reworded, please check if it is ok.
  • "with a German guy whom ... ran into the" Much too colloquial
  • Reworded, please check if it is ok.
  • The music video background section is very quote-heavy. Same with the two review sections.
  • I've paraphrased most of the quotes in those sections, please check if it is ok.
  • "The song later became a signature part of the opening stages of the Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams Tour which followed, usually appearing as the penultimate song before "Up in the Air"." This really needs to be made clearer
  • Clarified.
  • "ared Leto swung a flag carrying social messages and invited the audience to join the band on stage towards the finale" Unclear
  • Clarified.
  • "A writer of Digital Journal" Bad writing, overlinking
  • Fixed.
  • I'm seeing a lot of questionable sources. The Stampede (which is also a deadlink), Prysm, Stature, Lowdown, Half Full, Recapo... What makes you think these are good sources?
  • I've removed The Stampede (school newspaper), Half Full and Recapo (unreliable). I left Prysm, Stature and Lowdown which seem to meet WP:RS.
  • Reduced.

This feels some way below the bar for GA status right now- the writing is fairly poor in places, the sample needs sorting and some of the sources are questionable. However, I'm happy to see if you can make the fixes necessary. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, J Milburn, I'm working on the article. Since I'm not a native English speaker, I'd greatly appreciate more clear and definite comments about the prose and any help with copyediting.--Earthh (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apologies if I have been too harsh in my comments about wording- I have full respect for anyone who can write an article like this in a language that is not their own! If any of my comments are not clear or you aren't sure how to fix them, reply inline and I'll clarify if I can. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have answers to my questions or any further concerns. Thanks, Earthh (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll aim to get to this over the weekend. J Milburn (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second read through

[edit]

This is looking loads better.

  • "It charted in some nations due to digital sales from the parent album" So not from sales of the promotional single? Do you have a source for this claim?
  • A promotional single is made available to radio stations and is not for sale. A commercial single of Do or Die (the remixed version) was released exclusively on Beatport, while a digital single became commercially available around August 2014 (after the the song charted) through the band's official website, so the song should have charted due to digital sales from the parent album.
  • "eclectic experimentation and voiceless soundscapes" Are these quotes? They're not-so-neutral-sounding
  • They're quotes. Fixed.
  • "The music video begins with a German boy who Leto had previously met in Berlin" The source says nothing about German or Berlin
  • Fixed. It is referred by ref 31.
  • "After Leto stumbled upon the German fan" Still too informal
  • Can you help me there?
  • "Karen Bliss of Noisecreep gave the video a positive review and commented that the band never fails to impress with what they can do within the confines of a music video." There's a real close paraphrasing issue here. You can't just deal with overquotation by removing quotemarks- that's the worst thing you can do.
  • I noticed that. I've fixed it, check if it is ok.
  • "Leto swung a flag carrying social messages (such as marriage equality)" This still doesn't work
  • On this flag there were written social messages such as marriage equality, pollution, peace and so on; how should I put that?

I have done a good bit of copyediting- please check my edits. One remaining worry is about the sourcing. I've found an example of information which is not in the cited source, and an example of close paraphrasing. Once you've dealt with the above comments, I'm going to have to look more closely at the sources. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you edits, J Milburn. Do you have any additional comments, questions, or concerns?--Earthh (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I'm still a little concerned about the sourcing.

  • "he song later became a set-fixture of the Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams Tour, usually appearing as the penultimate song before "Up in the Air". However, after the festival tour in June 2013, which saw the band travel to Rock am Ring and Rock im Park as headline act, the song was moved to the middle of the setlist, usually played before Leto's acoustic B-stage set." Is all of that actually supported by http://popcrush.com/30-seconds-to-mars-rock-out-at-2013-rock-am-ring-festival-video/ ?
  • That source supports the headlining spot at the Rock am Ring. I actually thought that the other statements didn't need a source but it can add them if they're needed.
  • Added a source by Kerrang.
  • "Upon its release, the video received general acclaim from critics and fans" What is supporting the claim that it received acclaim from fans?
  • The following sources claim that.
  • Both FN's 33 and 37 could support that.
  • "Writers for MuchMusic noticed the band's tradition for producing unconventional music videos and praised "Do or Die" calling it "another epic" short film" The writers do not call it a short film.
  • The music video is released in the form of a short film (due to its length), and I used the term "short film" to avoid the repetition of "music video".
  • Do you have a source saying that it's a short film? That is not at all obvious, certainly not the kind of claim I'd expect to see in a GA without a source. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both FN'30 and 31 called it a "little film".

My worry is this- I don't really want to go through every source, but when I'm spot-checking, I am seeing a lot of issues. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can check all sources if you want, J Milburn. If the article has some issues, I will swiftly resolve them.--Earthh (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is more that I shouldn't need to. It's not good that I'm finding discrepancies between the sources and the article at this stage of the review. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, check my responses above, I think that the discrepancies about which you're talking can easily be fixed. Thanks, --Earthh (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going to go ahead and promote, but with some advice: please make sure that what you write in articles matches what is claimed in the source. On more than one occasion, I've seen great editors face a lot of heavy criticism (borderline witch-hunts) because they're claiming things in articles which don't quite match what the sources say. Just be careful with it- it is important, especially because (unlike, say, rogue apostrophes) this isn't something that will be quickly fixed by readers. J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for your edits and advice.--Earthh (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Do or Die (Thirty Seconds to Mars song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Do or Die (Thirty Seconds to Mars song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Do_or_Die_(Thirty_Seconds_to_Mars_song)&oldid=1200450224"