Talk:I'm with You (album)

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

Red Hot Chili Peppers (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Red Hot Chili PeppersWikipedia:WikiProject Red Hot Chili PeppersTemplate:WikiProject Red Hot Chili PeppersRed Hot Chili Peppers articles

review

Whomever wrote this article did an amazing job....I know some insiders and this stuff is accurate...right on the money. Kudos! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gutscutter (talk • contribs) 21:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date

The first thing the entire world sees when they go to www.redhotchilipeppers.com is 8/30/11 NOT 8/26/11 NOT 8/29/11. The U.S. date is always the main release date for all U.S. artists and pretty much every band's article on wikipedia. Albums are always released days in advance of the U.S. date but the home country release date of the band is normally used. Go check out the RHCP discography page. All release dates are the U.S.. Reguardless of the new album being released 8/26 in the Netherlands and parts of Europe it's not the official release date, which again is the release date in a band's home country. If the Peppers were from the UK the release date would officially be 8/29. Jason1978 (talk 12:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the person who keeps changing the release date please stop! If you look at the band's discography or articles on their albums, every album has the U.S. release date NOT the first date released (example: Californication was released June 8 in the US but June 7 and earlier elsewhere though the US date is the one used for US artists) It's the same for UK artists like The Cure. The UK date is used despite being released days earler. German artists such as Rammstein use the German date. Before you edit again please join the discussion or you will be reported! Jason1978 (talk 12:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cover

RHPC announced a new cover today, does this need to be discussed before it can be edited in? since there is one "official" one already.

https://www.facebook.com/ChiliPeppers

Jsteidl (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with You (album) → I'm_With_You_(album) –

Capitalize album title Toblerone07 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested WP:CAPS —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CAPS, where "with" is given as an example of a short preposition that should be lowercase in the title of a work. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CAPS. Jenks24 (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Red Hot Chili Peppers release date edit war

The new Red Hot Chili Peppers album will be released to the U.S. Aug 30. With all band releated album articles/discography the U.S dates has always been used however someone continues to change the new album article to the European release date because it comes out there before the U.S. and they also completly ignore the other articles the U.S. date for this album is used in. Just wanted to keep this article consistant with the other band releated articles/discography. Jason1978 (talk 12:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really require an RfC...it is pretty clear the article should use U.S dates. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it did require an RFC because there has been a edit war between myself and z33k who feels the date should be Aug 26, which is the date currently in the artcle. If you look at this person's discussion page, which I advise you to do since you agree with me, we have both been warned about the edits and to possibly seek an RFC to help resolve the problem. This person has constantly changed the date over and over (and has been warned/blocked before for other edits to other articles). Can you please change the date because like I said, I have been warned about our edit war and anytime I change it this person will change it back. Now that someone else agrees hopefully this person will see they were wrong again on their edits. Jason1978 (talk 10:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great...but it wont be like that for long. It will be edited back to 8/26 most likely next time you look at it and the same person will be behind the edit. Jason1978 (talk 02:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep an eye on it. If it continues I will report them for edit warring, particularly if they refuse to discuss the issue. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first date of release should be used. This is an international encyclopedia - why should we say it was released 30/8 when it was first released four days earlier?--Michig (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this article has American ties. If the album was called one thing in the U.S. and something else outside of the U.S., we would use the American name. Same thing holds for spelling and date formats. I see no reason why it shouldn't hold for release dates. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'American ties' doesn't trump every other standard we have here. We would use the title of the original release unless there was a good reason not to. Can you not understand how ridiculous it would for someone in Ireland who purchased the album on the 26th to then come here and find out that the album they have in their hands won't be released for another 4 days? The different release dates can be covered within the article - the infobox should only state the first release date per the instructions at Template:Infobox_album#Released.--Michig (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much like the surprise for somebody in the U.S. who purchases the album on the 30th, thinking it was the first day it was released, only to find out from Wikipedia it had been released 4 days earlier? –CWenger (^ • @) 18:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First date only This is very straightforward: Template:Infobox_album#Released. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See what bugs me with all this constant date changing is that you all completly ignore the fact that the Aug 30 date is elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is in the band's main article, discography, single article, band member articles, Rick Rubin's article etc. You all also know the Peppers have released nine previous albums and in all of those Wiki articles and discography and main band article they feature the U.S. DATE ONLY. Not the first release, no mention of other countries.

So you want to change this to the FIRST RELEASE DATE you need to go back and change ALL NINE ALBUMS. All nine previous album articles have the U.S. date in the infobox AND discography AND RHCP main article despite always being released days earlier eleswhere. It looks silly and not consistant to have all the other RHCP articles/discography to feature the U.S. date and then the new album article be the only one to have the Euro release date featured. Jason1978 (talk 07:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just put both dates

Date

Date Francium12 14:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, as long as we limit it to major releases so we don't want to clog up the infobox. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Michig and User:Koavf said above, Template:Infobox album#Released. Clearly states: "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section." Putting both dates does not comply with the Template parameters. Putting unnecessary flag icons (as suggested above) does not comply with MOS:FLAG (Avoid flag icons in infoboxes). Yes, this means that several articles would need to be updated with correct information; such is the nature of Wikipedia, it is always being improved. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template says that but if you do some research on Wikipedia you will find that most articles do not follow it on here as I have pointed out many times. Most bands do not use the first date and use the home release date. UK bands use the UK date (go look at The Cure). A German band like Ramstein uses their home date. RHCP in every article have always used the U.S. date. So if you want to update this, go update all of them. Go update The Cure and their entire discography. The Clash and their discography. As for using both dates, I tried that and it was removed. Many articles do that as well. I notice the Clash's London Calling mention the UK and U.S. date at the start of the article.

And while we are on this topic...how about singles...the date used in most articles if the date of the CD SINGLE release, not the radio or digital download. Right now the single for The Adventures of Rain Dance Maggie says July 18, which is the digital download date only. Well that's not the first date since radio got it days earlier on July 15. The proper CD single w/ b'sides will be released July 22. Jason1978 (talk 06:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first paragraph, all that says is that several articles are not following Template:Infobox album. Those articles should be fixed as well. But just because other articles have errors, doesn't mean that error should be copied here. Set an example of proper Infobox Album usage here, and encourage others to fix their articles based on Template:Infobox album as well. You could even be bold and make the changes to other articles yourself! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the first single article removed and it's now redirecting you to the album article? Jason1978 (talk 06:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the article History, you'll see exactly why it was turned into a redirect: "Turned into a redirect. As of now, this page does not meet the requirements of WP:NMUSIC. When it charts on a significant music chart or if more sources are produced, this edit can be reverted." Looks like the other editor thought it needed more sources establishing its notability before being an article. (As an aside, that article also needs some copyedit work.) MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accidently re-added it without seeing why it was turned into a redirect and have since redirected it back after being asked to. When I first saw there was no article I assumed someone who was editing the dates deleted the article. I didn't see the redirect until I got back online a few hours later.Jason1978 (talk 03:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well how is this for irony...minutes ago a Washington DC radio station played the new single and after playing it discussed the alum and said the release date was August 26 and they saw it on Wikipeida. Well they just midlead alot of radio listeners who will be letdown come August 26 unless they are planning on moving to or visiting Europe by then. Jason1978 (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC

Why not just edit the sentence in the lede from "The album will be released on August 26, 2011 on Warner Bros. Records" to "The album will be released by Warner Bros. Records on August 26, 2011 in several countries and on August 30 in the US"? It was probably the lede that confused them.--Michig (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had that before but z33k kept removing it and claiming I was being biased towards the U.S.. I will re-add it but it's likely to be removed. Most people are going to see the Aug 26 date and think that's the world-wide date and while this is a site for everyone the Peppers are still a U.S. band. I know there is a area on the page with all the album releases but if you look at any of the other RHCP album articles there is only one date used in the entire article: the U.S. date.Jason1978 (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an excellent idea, Michig. This way the lead includes information from the article (the "Release History" section), and we can still let people know in the band's home country what their release date will be (was, in the future). The article's infobox will also comply with Template:Infobox album. If z33k has an issue with it, send that user to this section and they can make their case here. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added "European" to that sentence, so that we're mentioning multiple parts of the world, so there is no "bias" (not that I think there was one to begin with, but just in case...) MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That cool. I laughed off the bias stuff because I pointed out UK artists do that too. Anyways...last night Flea and Chad gave a interview to a UK magazine and even they said end of August and wouldn't give the date because people from different countries would hear the interview. Of course these various release dates are noting new. It's like this for almost every major artist but sometimes it goes unnoticed, sometimes it doesn't. For the last nine RHCP albums the U.S. date was added and went unnoticed until now. Oh well. Jason1978 (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, people ignore the ~consensus/other editors' opinions on the talk page a month later. Everyone is now crying WP:CRYSTAL, saying that's proof that the release date (US or any) shouldn't be included. It's turning into an edit/undo war. Most articles with an announced release date have a "release history" section, or at least a date specified in their infoboxes, but both (alternately) keep getting removed. Can this stop? It's sourced, it's confirmed (more than probable), that's really all that is applicable from WP:CRYSTAL here. 220.239.143.154 (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because things are sometimes done wrong on other articles doesn't mean you get to force them to be done wrong here.

Release dates do not go into the infobox until they have occurred. Expected release dates should not be labelled in a way implying they have already occurred. There is nothing wrong with adding expected release dates to the article text, but they must be presented and discussed as potential future events and may not be changed to "history" until such time as they have become history. You have been the one edit warring and not accepting that this is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball. Yworo (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was accepted before you came along. Why this specific article? Why not go be pedantic on all upcoming albums' articles? As for implying they have already occurred, I can't help what the infobox template says. Also, "release history" is accepted as the general term/heading for the dates the album will be released; maybe changing it to "Release dates" is more prudent. That's not the main issue. You can't accuse me of being wrong or forceful, you are being just as forceful as I am by reverting. Like I said, it was fine until YOU decided "I don't like this". I can accept it's an encyclopedia thanks, don't tell me what I do and don't think from what my actions have been. You are being a hypocrite. Also, I understand WP:CRYSTAL, like I continuously kept editing next to the "Released" section in the infobox. 220.239.143.154 (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please enlighten me as to how Amazon is not a credible source. Also, stop with your little "This is the way it is" edit summaries. You are just as obnoxious as I am, Yworo. 220.239.143.154 (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have objected to the violations of WP:CRYSTAL, some of them IP editors. We don't use commercial sites are sources, because they are not reliable news sources, and also because we are not allowed to promote links to commercial sites. Go read the reliable sources guideline and find sources that comply with it. Yworo (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one IP here, 220.239, which is me. You haven't accused me here, but you did on my talk page. Get your facts straight before you start accusing me. Look at the discussion from July. I see no IPs there. As for referencing, most of the sites on the Internet are "commercial" sites. You might as well not even link to anything if that's the policy. Amazon is a legitimate shopping site, announcing a release date. People can buy and sell, but they can't edit the release date there, can they? I don't think so. 110.33.224.221 (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how 110.33.224.221 says he only edits from "220.239, which is me". Go ahead, pull the other one. Yworo (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that was confusing to even me. My internet just changed my IP address. I would not even know how to do that, but of course, jump onto the "sockpuppet" angle. 220.239 is me, but the edits from that specific IP were all today, and it's not as if I have any control over its process, or am deliberately provoking an edit/revision war. 110.33.224.221 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you legitimately think I'm on two computers or have some IP address-changer flaming you now? Wow, accusations really fly wildly here. You must think I'm desperate to prove a point... but I see you as just as desperate, you just think you can get away with it because you're editing as a registered editor. 110.33.224.221 (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are no more valid than mine. Look at all before August 19; there are no IP edits. 110.33 and 220.239 are me, my Internet connection changed a few minutes ago. You'll accuse me because I have no proof, of course, so I'm getting out of this before you attempt to have me blocked because of your accusations. 110.33.224.221 (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's because you have no control over it that you need to log into your account, which you say you have. If you are not going to log in, please disclose your account name. If you do not, then you may be violating the rule that you cannot edit as an IP simply to prevent scrutiny of some of your edits. See our sockpuppet policy. If you have an account, you should never be intentionally editing without logging in. There's no problem with unintentionally not logging in, then logging in when you realize it, but as you can see, there is no way to tell which IPs might have been you and which were not. Continuing to edit without logging in after acknowledging that you have an account is suspicious. In my experience, this is only done by banned or blocked users. Yworo (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most times I unintentionally do, or I see my edits as not important enough to do on my account. I should, yes, but I have never been warned/banned or accused of sockpuppetry on my account, purely because I don't. As I said above again, the only IPs which edited this page were both today and those were 220.239, and 110.33, which were both me; my Internet unwittingly changed a few minutes ago. That's all there is to that. I don't feel I should have to disclose my account, because this is over as far as I'm concerned. You "got your way". 110.33.224.221 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I now have reason to believe you are Ss112 (talk · contribs), who edited the article just yesterday. Therefore you may be attempting to evade 3RR by alternately using your account and your IP address. Yworo (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't evade anything, that's your opinion (even though you did say "may"). Like I said to you, I just can't be bothered logging in. No one accusing another in any regard can properly discern what's unintentional not logging in and what is; besides, I don't care for the classification of it. I said I was done with this and I am. You'd keep reverting it regardless, even though it was mostly settled before you came along, and despite the fact the practise of putting in the future release date in the infobox is done everywhere else apart from here. 110.33.224.221 (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As other editors have said to you (in edit comments), why not just be patient? Wikipedia is not a music news service, it's an encyclopedia. It's not our job to announce or predict anything, even if there are sources that do so. A simple statement that's it's expected to be released on the 26th in some locations and the 30th in the US would be plenty until the release actually happens. Normally, encyclopedias don't predict anything. As we are online and editable, we can, but that doesn't mean we should, and there is no reason to go into such detail, because again, we are not a music news site. Especially when even at the beginning of this mess, the release was only a month away. So you're 19 and impatient, bfd. Learn patience, as I'm sure you've heard, it's a virtue. Yworo (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impatient about anything; that was not even the reason I edited the page in the first place. It seemed ludicrous to me it kept getting removed, so I reinstated it, is all. Using my information off my profile to connect me (I didn't deny it before, remember) to being impatient has really no ground. I know plenty of patient people, younger and older than me. I'm not even that big a fan of RHCP. I only have Stadium Arcadium on CD, and a few of their tracks on the computer. That's all. Surely you have nothing to say back to this? 110.33.224.221 (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only that you should be more careful to log in. Even assuming you did't initially edit as an IP intentionally, you didn't correct the problem in order to continue this discussion under your user name. You could easily have done so, and the conversation would have gone somewhat differently. So you must admit that you intentionally did not log in after being made aware that you were editing as an IP. While that may be completely innocent, you must see that it raises questions about all your claims that such activity is accidental. Now, I won't continue this discussion with you as an IP. If you have more to say, log in and say it, otherwise, I'll simply ignore it. Yworo (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen this much of a mess over a release date. So now August 26 is not allowed to be used because it hasn't happened yet? Seriously? Now that we are past the debate of U.S. or first release date it has come to this? Now the infobox cannot contain ANY date because wiki is not a crystal ball or something along those lines? How come other album articles are not going through this and this one has been targeted? I see other upcoming albums using the release date in the infobox. Jason1978 (talk 04:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason both can't be listed? That's what normally happens in these circumstances (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyes_Open ) Alternatively, use the iTunes release date (not sure when that is though...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.77.71 (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raindance Maggie?

Someone has redirected the page for the Adventures of Raindance Maggie to this one, would be appreciated if someone could sort this out. Thevas (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was redirected for these reasons: "Turned into a redirect. As of now, this page does not meet the requirements of WP:NMUSIC. When it charts on a significant music chart or if more sources are produced, this edit can be reverted."

I accidently re-added the info back thinking somemone just deleted the page and didn't see the original redirect and was told to undo my edits and place the redirect back. Jason1978 (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It now looks like Rain Dance Maggie is for some reason up for deletion. Please join the discussion in that article to share your opinions on why it shouldn't be deleted. Jason1978 (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vlado Meller

Added a citation needed tag for the info that he's mastering. Gershake (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section

I added the reception section and have since added both the reviews to it. If anyone sees any professional reviews of the album can they please add them to the section? It'd be good to add each review as they are released, so that this article has as much info on that aspect as possible by the time this album is finally released. I'm also planning to add a sales section, then split up Reception into two sections - 'Critical reception' and 'Sales'. I see this on other album pages and just decided to drop by and let people know what I was planning to add to this article, in case anyone objects or wants to help with this. Cross Pollination (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable and commercial sources

We do not promote vendors by "citing" facts to commercial sites. I've removed the unreliable citations to sites selling the product. Also, Twitter is not a reliable source.

Please find reliable third-party news sources which verify the facts you'd like to keep included in the article, or wait until the events are confirmed in news sources after they occur. Yworo (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is Twitter not a reliable source when the band member is posting the info and then it's even backed up by the band's website? Many articles on Wikipedia use Twitter as a link source. Jason1978 (talk 04:59, 19, August 2011 (UTC)

This is covered at WP:TWITTER. Flea's Twitter may be used only as a source of information about himself. It may not be used as a source of information about any other entity, including other band members, the band as a whole, the record label, or releases by the record label. The band's or label's websites would be perfectly acceptable sources, of course. Yworo (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brickwalling

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=6875169&postcount=32

Feel free to use the graph somewhere in the article. Gershake (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Front cover image

Where's it gone then? Can someone put it back up please? Cross Pollination (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. release date has changed

The U.S. release date has been moved up a day to August 29th rather than August 30th. Flea spoke about it in a MTV article and it's on the band's offical site although they have yet to change all the pages with August 30th. All U.S. online music stores including Amazon, Best Buy etc have changed the date as well to August 29th.

http://redhotchilipeppers.com/2011/08/22/imwithyou-listen-now/ Right now, you can take part in the #ImWithYou global listening party for the new Red Hot Chili Peppers record, I’m With You, before its in stores next Monday the 29th! Join us from 6 spots around the world and on redhotchilipeppers.com. Check it out now!

Jason1978 (talk 12:10, 26, August 2011 (UTC)

Title of album

The official RHCP website capitalizes all three words in the album title. Therefore, the article should be adjusted to reflect this- capitalize the "w" in "with" wherever the album title is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.70.210 (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the only place I have seen "With" uncapitalised is... here. See: http://www.amazon.co.uk/You-Red-Hot-Chili-Peppers/dp/B0054N73EY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314455912&sr=8-1 ; http://itunes.apple.com/gb/preorder/im-with-you/id450779788 ; http://www.play.com/Music/CD/4-/12313830/I-m-With-You/Product.html?searchtype=musicall&searchsource=0&searchstring=i'm+with+you&urlrefer=search&strefer=musicall&searchfilters=s%7bi'm+with+you%7d%2bc%7b34%7d%2b etc. as well as the RHCP website, and if anyone should know, it should be RHCP themselves. It's irrelevant how gramatically correct it is; Wikipedia is not the final statement on the name of an album. If it has been called "I'm With You", it's not "I'm with You". 90.206.77.71 (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completly agree. If it were a song title it might be different but that's how the album title is spelled everywhere. Jason1978 (talk 01:52, 31, August 2011 (UTC)

As weird as it looks, I'm afraid 'with' is almost always de-capitalized on Wikipedia.--Gen. Quon (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean there should not be exceptions. This album is called "I'm With You"; Wikipedia is the only website not to refer to it as such. As I said, it is not a question of grammar; the name of the album is "I'm With You". There is no space in the title of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lostprophets . The title of this song isn't changed to "It Isn't Easy": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Ain%27t_Easy_(song) . These are all non-standard English, but correct in the sense of that is how they are referred to. Therefore, logically, the title of this album (and thinking about it, the Avril Lavigne song of the same name) should be titled, "I'm With You". 90.206.77.71 (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is driving me crazy. Is there anything that can be done? It has something to do with that frigging Avril Lavigne song, which I haven't even seen evidence of being called "I'm with You". This album, however, is *definitely* titled I'm With You. 68.45.223.21 (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could move it... LacsiraxAriscal (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is not even a consistent ban on capitalized withs... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labelled_With_Love LacsiraxAriscal (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved the page today. There is more than enough evidence to show that the album capitalizes the word "With". See the following links: Amazon.com album Album on official RHCP website RHCP YouTube channel video Please do not move it without establishing a clear reason why it should not be capitalized properly on the article's talk page. --coreycubed / talk 18:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The album should be titled as I'm with You per both WP:MOSCAPS and MOS:CT. There was already a prior requested move that was denied in July 2011 up above. There is not a consensus in this section to move it and the last comment prior to the move was seven months prior. This is clearly a controversial move given the prior discussion and this discussion. As such I am going to revert back to the correct title. A WP:Request move should be opened up if it is still felt that the article is in the wrong location. Aspects (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Female Vocalist?

There's some female vocals on Meet Me At The Corner and some backing on a few other tracks, any confirmation of the vocalist so we can add it to the personnel? --I.AM.CASK (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Josh Klinghoffer 77.86.67.194 (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.32.112 (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's how his voice sounds and trust me, this isn't the first or probably last person to think it's a female. Check out Dot Hacker or his vocals on John's solo records especially the song, Omission. Jason1978 (talk 01:54, 31, August 2011 (UTC)

HAHAHA Seriously? I'm glad I am not the only one, hilarious! --I.AM.CASK (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Johnny Skinz's Disproportionately Rambunctious Polar Express Machine-Head

An addition was made to the article which mentioned the 'Dr. Johnny Skinz...' wroking title. Jason1978 removed it, saying "it was confirmed by Anthony that the working title was never real". What is the source that says the working title wasn't real? The working title was confirmed by Anthony. Even if it wasn't real, it was a title for the album which was announced by a band member and should be mentioned somewhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.179.58 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The album title was made up by Spin magazine. This is one of a few false rumors that have been spread on this band in the past few years. There was one about Flea joining Faces, which was never true and Flea was upset the official site took info from some no-name media source but the biggest false rumor was that Anthony was seriously sick and near death. Anthony's father Blackie, who ran the RHCP fanclub/website had to shoot down those rumors and was pretty unhappy he had to. Just Google Anthony Kiedis sick and you get many articles about how he was on drugs, suffering from Organ failure and near death. Just recently MTV misquoted Anthony as saying they would play the entire new album on tour. He actually was talking about the movie theater performance if you watch the video MTV included in the article.

Blackie squashed the Dr. Johnny rumors right away by saying: April 27th“i’ve been at anthony’s in LA for awhile, but i’m back. much i’d like to reveal but can’t yet. tours and all. had fun.”April 28th“no album name yet”“it is done. saw rick rubin and ak say so.”“and all that baloney about the long temporary funny name was all a lie. there was no old friend who created it after an LSD trip . ak said not to believe rumors.” http://www.stadium-arcadium.com/anthony-kiedis-news-red-hot-chili-peppers-rhcp/latest-news-anthony-kiedis-rhcp-red-hot-chili-peppers.php

Of course according to Wikipedia...Facebook and Twitter links are not allowed to be posted here. Nobody didn't a follow-up article on the title but you will notice that with the current articles the fake working title is never mentioned. Jason1978 (talk 03:02, 5, September 2011 (UTC)

Sales talk

So the article here is pretty down on the album wrt its sales. The citation article for its 800,000 ww sales don't actually mention worldwide sales at all... purely US sales.

Mediatraffic says they sold 1,700,000 copies, which is actually pretty good for an album with three terrible singles.

http://www.mediatraffic.de/year-end-albums.htm

How do we get the actual number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunderscored (talk • contribs) 22:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Votes roughly split, reasonable arguments both for and against. Jenks24 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– The album has received over 52,000 views in the last 90 days, whilst the song has less than a quarter of that, and the disambiguation page just 374.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose primary topic grab when a dozen other songs and albums are listed by the same name. Dicklyon (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that's less than an order of magnitude greater, so not a primary topic -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline actually calls for more than the other topics combined, not "an order of magnitude greater." Dohn joe (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced template yet again, after repeated requests not to do this, this is beginning to look WP:POINTY. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to explain this issue sufficiently. The RM bot put a notice at Talk:I'm_with_You, so pagewatchers and visitors to both talkpages will be aware of this discussion. Dohn joe (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IIO, you're seriously bothering me now. Quit making up BS. I'm contemplating asking an admin to block you. Unreal7 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- And Oppose no absolute topic for a generic phrase in entertainment. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the template is not misplaced. There is no preference in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves to list the dab page first.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. 81% of pageviews for the album means an obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by usage, and no competition for significance. Dohn joe (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The page view stats show this is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - to me this looks like a good example of why page views are not always the best indicator of primary topic. The Avril Lavigne song was top 10 in the UK and US, and features prominently alongside the album on the first page of a standard Google search. No clear primary topic that I can see. — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The nominator's own statistics say that this article shouldn't be moved. When the dab page has very few views, it means that readers are getting to their desired destination without trouble. Removing disambiguation will just result in readers interested in the song ending up here unnecessarily. Please consider the WP:Readers first. Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – generally speaking, albums are more significant than individual songs, so while the level of success of the album among albums is similar to the level of success of the song among songs, they are not directly comparable. Page views are not everything, but they are a useful indicator of what readers are looking for, particularly since neither article is at the base title now. I think, in this case, there is sufficient evidence that the album is the primary topic here. SSTflyer 07:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all the evidence introduced above, which shows the album to be the primary topic by any standard. Calidum ¤ 03:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Flea backing vocal credit

I don't believe that any of the songs on this album actually have Flea on backing vocals because I can't hear his voice and he doesn't sing anything live, except The Adventures of Rain Dance Maggie, which is clearly Josh on the record. If you don't believe me, it is most clear from the vocal track ripped from Rock Band. AddingInstruments (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 220.253.226.89 (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]