Talk:Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 17, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Alternative music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace Tour was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 March 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Album leak inclusion

This is an article designed to inform encyclopedic information about the album. The fact that the album was leaked to the internet is a no brainer, but to note this sort of information where no public response is made by the band, producers or other notable sources is considered original research and based on the nature of information, original research about that sort of thing is potentially libelous, which is one of the few actual rules of wikipedia, otherwise wp is predominatly driven by guidelines, not rules. The article is subject to the wikiproject WP:ALBUM, which clearly states that leaked album information is unacceptable except in extreme circumstances (such as with Linkin Park's new album or RHCP's new one, because both bands publicly responded, which the Foos haven't, nor anybody on their management side). --linca ^linca 02:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

linca ^linca 03:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Foos-ESPG.jpg

Image:Foos-ESPG.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Foos-ESPG.jpg

Image:Foos-ESPG.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheer Up, Boys?

Why is it that one day it says that "Cheer Up Boys" will be the next single and there is even an article for it and the next day there is no mention of it being a single at all and the article is deleted, even though the fact it has a cover means that it will be released as a single soon if it hasn't been already? Sherlock32 (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every indication is that the single has been cancelled. All of the major retailers (Amazon.co.uk, etc) have taken it down. Normally, I would say, "We need a source for this," but we were using exactly the same sites to claim that it was being released in the first place.

The existence of a cover doesn't mean that a single is definitely being released, and is also not enough to justify the existence of an article. (If the single was never released, we lose fair use justification for posting the artwork anyway.) If you read the last version of the single's article before it was merged to this one, all it said was that it was apparently scheduled for release and then apparently cancelled. There wasn't anything about the song itself. Bad sources and no content equals no reason for a separate article. -- ChrisB (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clearing this up for me. Sherlock32 (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that the article for this song keeps getting reverted. I think it deserves its own articel. I will list the points to my arguement:

It has unique artwork
It was or possibly will be a single
It was deleted, making it interesting
The song itself deserves some looking into

I think we need to keep the article up, even if it was deleted, it was still a single. We have articles for plenty of deleted singles, why not this one!--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question but...

That bit about this album beginning a commercial downfall for the band seems to be a POV issue. How does Billboard even work now that so many people download music from say, iTunes? In light of that, is it fair to say this album is undersuccessful at all? CSZero (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that RIAA sales certifcation and Billboard's charts are not related at all. So, my point stands. The dinosaur that is RIAA seems to be missing that more and more music sales are going digital, making their system useless for comparing album sales going back a decade... CSZero (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other songs?

Could somebody please make it clearer what this section is on about? Zazaban (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B Sides

Why has this section been added to this page and most of the other Foo Fighters albums pages? BSides have nothing to do with the album itself, they are on the singles released from the album, not the actual album. If nobody objects i will remove that section and instead just list the bonus tracks found on some versions of the album itself. Skilmore (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Burningclean (talk · contribs) 23:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of the lead, you should probably say critical reception was MOSTLY positive. By just say it was positive, it feels a tad bit misleading.
The first sentence of the Background and recording ("As the tour for the album In Your Honor had both acoustic and electric shows...") this sentence sounds funny to me somehow. Maybe reword it somehow. Something like "Foo Fighter's tour for In Your Honor had both..." Not too big of a deal, but it just sounds kinda funny to me.
Recording begun on March 2007 at the band's own Studio 606 in Northridge, California.[11] During a ten day break in April, Grohl thought that the recorded needed another uptempo song, so he spent his time developing an unfinished song that became "The Pretender".[12] The sessions wrapped in mid-June.[13] It was the first Foo Fighters album where the band did not felt the need to rerecord any songs.[4] Grohl stated that while In Your Honor was a double album because he felt "schizophrenic" to alternate between loud and acoustic songs, Norton helped on creating a sequencing that lead to "an album that makes sense".[6]
- I would re-read this paragraph. There are a number of small errors to be fixed.
In the Composition section: "The songs of the album are noted for its changing dynamics -" That sentence sounds funny. By saying "The songs of the album" you're indicating plural, but by saying "its changing dynamics" you're idicating singular. It should probably be "their changing dynamics".
You mention the start of the promotional tour, but never stated how long it lasted.
"PopMatters' Josh Timmermann was much critical of the overtly serious tone of the record" Saying "much critical" sounds pretty weird, it should probably be "very critical".
"Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace won the 2008 Grammy for Best Rock Album and "The Pretender" won for Best Hard Rock Performance." Probably say ""The Pretender" won the award for Best Hard Rock Performance."

Overall this is a fantastic and informing article. I love the wealth of information. I'd love to see this become an FA. On a side note, "The Pretender" is my favorite Foo Fighter song. Burningclean _[speak] 23:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done them all, though you can tell if what I did for the third bullet point still needs work. (nice to see a fellow fan; don't know if I'll bring to FA any sooner, but the FF albums FT is certainly on the way, if this passes 4/7 will be GAs) igordebraga ≠ 18:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. After reviewing this I went through all there albums and I really enjoyed it. Passing as a GA. If you felt like reviewing anything, I have nominated Alive or Just Breathing Burningclean _[speak] 20:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]