Talk:Thriller 25/Archive 1

Extent of new material

The BillBoard source says. There are 4 remixes and new unreleased songs which it names 1 as being "For all time". It also says there will be a bonus cd of Thriller,Billie Jean, Beat it and Motown 25th performance. Therefore with a MINIMUM of 5 new songs and the bonus cd of music videos its definately entitled to its own page. Realist2 (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There are 6 new remixes/covers/unreleased actually, so that gives even more reason for notability. But most importantly, the videos put the nail in the coffin of those who say this is not notable. The videos mean that that argument is no longer valid, per HIStory Volumes I and II. --Paaerduag (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thriller 25

YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, what does everyone think of this article? I haven't been on wiki for ages, and I come back and GOD I miss just sitting and cranking out the words [and citations]!!!! God I miss this. I'm going to make the new album page an FA when Michael releases it. This is so damn fulfilling and fun. And to those who say this ain't a notable album, I think after reading it you will realize that it IS a notable album. Thriller 25 is notable enough to warrant its own individual page. --Paaerduag (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Its excellent sorry I coould do much yesterday afterwards I was absolutalty tired lol. This will be good.Realist2 (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

How does reading this suggest the album warrants it's own page? Seriously? There's lots of great stuff in here, but it would be more effective merged into the original Thriller page. A lot of stuff about the album (tracklist, music videos, statements about the original album) could be cut out, and everything would be easier to access.

My argument is not that this is not NOTABLE for a new page, but that having it on a new page rather than the Thriller one does not add anything. All it does is make sure more space on Wikipedia is dedicated to Michael Jackson. Which does no one any favours. One thing Wikipedia aims to be is INFORMATION EFFICIENT.

Music videos and stuff make it special? Then go make a new page for every visionary single. Pointless, yes?(The Elfoid (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

No thats a brilliant idea, im gonna get right to it. Realist2 (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is an album notable in its own right. The RIAA and other sales compilers will count it as a new album. The rules around special additions says that if there are anymore than 3 new songs on the new edition it counts as a new release and its sales figures are not added on to the original. However well this album sells its sales will not be added to the 104 million of Thriller it will have its own sales. Its a new release in the eyes of RIAA and the rest, so enough said. Realist2 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I was joking about the Visionary singles...single re-releases, regardless of the B-sides and other content never, EVER EVER get multiple pages. It's just not done. It requires repeating information already findable elsewhere far more often than Wikipedia policy allows. I'm not aware of where I recall reading it, but they really discourage that kind of thing.

The RIAA are not the final authority. It'll count as a new release, but cover versions of singles all stay on one page. So why not this?

Poison (Alice Cooper song). Bring the Noise. All Along the Watchtower. See, multiple versions of the same song all go on one page, so multiple releases of the same version really REALLY need to stay on one.

My view on Thriller 25 is, yes it's a new release, but life would be much easier for everyone if it went on the Thriller page. (The Elfoid (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

If we dont mind going out of our way to do it then its not an issue. If people want to find out about Thriller 25 they will either search Thriller 25 or Thriller re release over Thriller as the would expect to go to the original recording. Realist2 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I thin we should remove the tracklist because someone told me (here in wikipedia) that its is not the final list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.74.58 (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Promotion

Just wondering, this section might better suit the main MJ article. My thinking is...this year he's got a new single, a new album, possibly a new tour, Thriller 25, possibly a Jackson 5 reunion tour, possibly a Jackson 5 greatest hits...it seems like this year Epic are promoting Michael Jackson in general - not Thriller specifically. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

Yes but there all just possibilities and rumours unlike this, when we see it actually hapen then we can start adding things to the main article. Im feed up of removing rumours when they never materialise. Realist2 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I just put it in the history, since press releases etc. are part of the history of the album. What they ACTUALLY do and the results might go elsewhere, but that is another matter. (The Elfoid (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

The "significantly younger" thing

OK, my two other editors of this page. You don't like saying that? OK, I admit I don't like the phrasing. But I think somehow we need to make it clear that it's not common for a 49 year old to collaborate with three people aged 30, 32 and 34 (I might be wrong on those ages, think I'm right), and just saying 'younger' isn't enough. Any other suggestions, since "significantly" clearly isn't working?

(The Elfoid (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

Something like "They were only children when the original album was released? Realist2 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That might work, yeah. We could perhaps say they grew up as fans or something. If we can verify that.

I just think it's worth noting since it's odd anyone's considered 'current' at his age, and capable of working with that kinda crowd (The Elfoid (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

Its shows Jacksons diversity to work with rock and rap artists and shows that he has a heavy importance on todays music. Maybe reports on Jackson always mention how mot his fans are younger than his most successful album thriller. The fact they were little nippers when Thriller was made and how they respect it and Jackson is note worthy. Realist2 (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think age is an issue at old. I mean, you say that 49 is old for a sar, and then a second later you flick on the TV and see the Eagles, the Rolling Stones, Billy Joel, Elton John... the list goes ON AND ON AND ON. Please don't say MJ is unusually old for a pop star, because he's NOT. there's ample evidence of that.--Paaerduag (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Age is an issue for a pop star. The Eagles, The Rolling Stones...they're rock 'n' roll not pop.

He's old to have hit singles, and get regular rotation on MTV and mainstream radio. Which he did on his last releases, and most likely will again. I don't think I've heard a Rolling Stones song on the radio that came after 1978.

And there was a LOT of comments on Elton John trying too hard to be modern when he worked with rappers, a lot of negative feedback. Again though...he's not really pop.

Realist2 and I have come to a compromise, I think it's fair. Very few people his age have the status among youths he does, and fewer collaborate with people that much younger(The Elfoid (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

well don't word it like 'significantly'... I mean, I don't care how unbias you claim to be, that's just rude!--Paaerduag (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The oldest of them is 34. He's 49. That's 15 years. Is 15 years not a significant age-gap? (The Elfoid (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

No not really maybe if they were getting married I would call it significant. Just say that they were children when it was released, its a correct statment with no ambiguety (lol so cant spell that word). Realist2 (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you Realist, I was just making it clear to Paaerduag that we cannot ignore his age. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

Promotion

Good point, it's not history. But we should put it in there when the album's been out about a month I'd say. Good compromise? It'll become historical information by then. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

I agree. We'll have to be on our toes when things start to come out.--Paaerduag (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

logo

I think that the Thriller 25 logo should stay for these reasons:

1. 1. This isn't just an ordinary album. This is a re-release of THE MOST significant album, and for that alone I think the logo is important.

1. 2. ... it makes the article look nice!!!

oh shit, I just had an epiphany. wait... I know what we can replace the logo with!!! everyone hold on for like one minute --Paaerduag (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need to see it? It's just Thriller with 25 written behind it. It takes up un-necessary space, and teaches me nothing I didn't know before. Find me an album other than this that has the logo listed separately and I will re-consider.

Making a page look nice is not what Wikipedia is about. It is an Encyclopedia, not a picture book.

How is the fact that this is the best selling album ever important in this context? I have never heard any major praise towards the artwork, or specifically the logo. Sure it's nice and all, but it's not well known art. It's well known BECAUSE of the album's sales, not for any reasons of it's own.(The Elfoid (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

hi, I just threw the logo idea out. "oh shit, I just had an epiphany. wait... I know what we can replace the logo with!!! everyone hold on for like one minute" --Paaerduag (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it, because I think it's pointless. As with the logo...what does it add to an article on an album? It shows us what Michael Jackson looks like - we don't go to this page for that, we go to the Michael Jackson page.

HOWEVER, I do think that picture, as Jackson's latest public appearance, and a decent one, should find a place on the main MJ page. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

I disagree. It shows an important part of the conception of the idea for the anniversary edition.--Paaerduag (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What does the picture teach us, show us, help us understand, that we do not already from reading the text? It SHOWS it yes, but that doesn't mean anything. You are forgetting that Wikipedia is not a guidebook, or a compendium of any sort. It's an Encyclopaedia.

For instance on the Van Halen page, there's numerous instances where they said incredibly important things in interviews. But a picture of the interview does not teach us anything - even if it is a reunion with their first singer for the first time in 23 years. An image teaches the user nothing, nor does it make it clearer or easier to understand.

You behave as if Wikipedia is here to document historical events in every means possible. It's just an Encyclopaedia (The Elfoid (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

Release Date

There is'nt an actual certain release date yet, many people and fansites have told me different things, one told me November 19 2007, one told me February 9, one told me February 12 and someone else told me Febroary 12 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.137.150 (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

GA On Hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Good job with the article, but it could still be improved.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose (i.e. sentence 1 of history) and punctuation (i.e. sentence 1 of Content and collaborations) seem to be a bit of a problem, check WP:MoS if needed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Promotion either should be expanded for removed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am putting this article on hold for seven days, good luck on improving the article

Pbroks13 (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Pbroks13 (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

INTERNE's edits to tracklist

I much prefer listing all the tracks in one go like that. So even if we decide to re-jig it to include the 2001 re-issue tracks, we should stick to that format I think. As with much of the content I edited on this article, the previous method was just too flowery and though nice visually, less efficient from a practical point of view. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

I think it might be better 2 split them up because we know they will be split when released. With the outtakes and someone in the dark there are 19 songs, they wont all fit on 1 cd. They will be split. Im not panicking to much though. Realist2 (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't know what will happen when they are released. I imagine it will be the original CD on one, with bonus tracks in the forms of the out-takes. The Billie Jean demo and new stuff on the other. But we really can't tell. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

Original Thriller album cover

Someone should add that to the page perhaps. I'm not sure where, but I like the idea.(The Elfoid (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

GA Fail

Just because #1 of the the good article criteria fails miserably, I have deceided to fail this nomination. Check WP:MoS, WP:DATE, and WP:FOOT

• "In late 2006 Jackson did an interview with Billy Bush for Access Hollywood" needs a comma after 2006.
• "We [Jackson and will.i.am] haven't really discussed it yet" -- the brackets should be parethesis
• References should be after the punctuations.
• Fix dates per WP:DATE
• Is it Will.i.am or will.i.am?? Try to keep it consistent.
• "There will be 'a multi-faceted global marketing campaign featuring high-profile poster, radio, online adverts as well as 30 second Television adverts that will begin on February 11th 2008[7]" The parenthesis doesnt end??
• "Also included are a DVD and a booklet." - It should be the subject first, then the predicate
• "Tracks 1-12 and 18 produced by Quincy Jones. Tracks 14-17 produced by will.i.am. Tracks 1-9 from original release, tracks 10-13 from Special Edition 2001 re-release and tracks 14-18 newly released with Thriller 25." - Lets try complete sentences.

Feel free to nominate this article again. Pbroks13 (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

do not change the tracklist please - the remixes have been leaked

if anyone removes the real and confirmed info, here you'll still find it:

Track listing

Tracks 1-10 and 16 are produced by Quincy Jones. Tracks 11-15 are produced by Michael Jackson and will.i.am. Tracks 1-9 are from the original release and tracks 11-16 are newly released with Thriller 25.

1. "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" (6:03) (Michael Jackson)
2. "Baby Be Mine" (4:20) (Rod Temperton)
3. "The Girl Is Mine" (3:42) (Jackson)
4. "Thriller" (5:58) (Temperton)
5. "Beat It" (4:18) (Jackson)
6. "Billie Jean" (4:54) (Jackson)
7. "Human Nature" (4:06) (Steve Porcaro & John Bettis)
8. "P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)" (3:59) (James Ingram, Quincy Jones)
9. "The Lady in My Life" (4:59) (Temperton)
10. Vincent Price voice-over session (2:53)
11. "The Girl Is Mine" (2008) (3:11) (featuring will.i.am)
12. "P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)" (2008) (4:17) (featuring will.i.am)
13. "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" (2008) (4:11) (featuring Akon and will.i.am)
14. "Billie Jean" (2008) (4:34) (featuring Kanye West)
15. "Beat It" (2008) (4:10) (featuring Fergie)
16. "For All Time" (4:08)

DVD contents

Music videos:

• "Thriller"
• "Beat It"
• "Billie Jean"

Live performance:

• "Billie Jean" (from Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever)

Are the remixes real?

There's alleged full remixes on certain sites. However, are these even real? They match the song length mentioned in the article, but those are unsourced. I'm gonna add a citation needed sign.

By the way, many people don't seem to like the alleged remixes very much. Frankyboy5 (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have heard some of them, the billie jean remix is amazing and the P.Y.T WITH WILL.I.AM IS very good. I wasn`t fussed on the Beat It remix. That said these didnt sound like the polished final copies . Realist2 (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people found the Billie Jean remix far too slow. I think it's ok. However, the question is that are these remixes real? These couldn't have been final because Billie Jean 2008 ends with a sudden pause and not with a fade-away. Frankyboy5 (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

oh defo they aren`t all real thats for sure, the billie jean remix aint real even though i like it. The girl is Mine song is real and I think its v good. very Old fans wont like this stuff but people who have never liked him will enjoy it. Realist2 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For All Time: Not Thriller-era?

The article says that the bonus track "For All Time" is a Thriller-eara track, and accurately cites this. I've seen this quoted in articles, and indeed, in the press release and official information from the record company. However, like many things with Jackson, I believe this to be untrue.

I believe that this song was recorded around 1990, for the Dangerous album. Here's why:

1. U.S. Copyright records show that a song called "For All Time" was copyrighted in March 1991. One of its writers was David Paich, a frequent Jackson collaborator. See this record [1] form the U.S. Copyright Office.

2. This song has been floating around on the Internet for a while, and I have always seen it labeled as an outtake from the Dangerous sessions from around 1990. No definitive proof, but somethigng to keep in mind.

3. The synth sounds do not sound like anything from the Thriller era. To my ear, this sounds like something from the Bad or post-Bad era.

Any thoughts?

I agree entirely i got it off the internet myself and the cite said it was a Dangerous outake. The voice does sound like its from the Dangerous era i have to say. Dangerous is my favourite album and it really does sound like something off that. Another thing I have noticed is all the "Leaks" for Thriller 25 were really easy to get hold of but I still haven`t been able to get hold of the leak of "For All Time". The only "For All Time" I can find is the old 1. Sony are saying that its going to be newer and fresher but I cant find this new "Leak" anywhere. Realist2 (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The song was written and demoed during the Thriller sessions, but recorded later with an eye to inclusion on the Dangerous album.80.56.35.62 (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's possible there were two versions of the song, Jackson tried to bring it back for Dangerous but it still did not make the cut.

If it sounds like Dangerous era, it may well be mis-labelled - this would also explain why it did not end up in the final album. Thriller had to be totally remixed after it was done too...session work might not sound the same. It would also make sense that if that was the direction Jackson wanted to go in, he needed to be famous enough to do his own thing and confidently ignore the advice of his peers - i.e. he was free to make music sounding that way in the Dangerous period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Elfoid (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What you describe is possible, but how to explain the fact that the song was copyrighted in 1991? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.197.34 (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge tag

This needs to be merged with the original Thriller article. The 25 version is part of the history of the album, just as the 2001 version, and should be included within the same article. A separate page is redundant. - eo (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats your opinion we already came to the conclusion that the amount of information this will and has already built up will make that impossible as it will make the original Thriller article way too long. Also may I remind you that this is a brand new album. It contains more than 3 new songs so it classified as new and not a special edition as we all no them to be. Realist2 (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no "we" deciding that it should not be merged, I see you arguing with one other editor about whether or not this deserves its own page. It's just as easy for me to say it is your opinion that it should stay separated. Please do not remove tags from articles until there is at least some kind of consensus reached on its Talk Page. - eo (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should stay as per the reasoning on its notability above. I think it would be rediculose to add an article that is now close to 10,000 bytes to the original thriller article. It is only going to get bigger and will probably end around 17,000 - 21,000 bytes in length. This will completely mess up the original thriller article. Realist2 (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a brand new album , It contains more than 3 new songs so it classified as new by RIAA and the rest. It is not a special edition as we all no them to be. It will have its own sales figures etc. Realist2 (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If we dont mind going out of our way to do it then its not an issue. If people want to find out about Thriller 25 they will either search Thriller 25 or Thriller re release over Thriller as the would expect to go to the original recording.Realist2 (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thriller is certainly notable, but I do not believe that this reissue is notable on its own. There is nothing ridiculous about including it as a new section to the main Thriller article, as this release is part of the history of the album. Additionally, what constitutes a "new album" per the RIAA has nothing to do with how Wikipedia formats its articles. The fact remains that most of Thriller 25 appears on Thriller. It's not a full remix album or a re-recording or a live album or an acoustic version, it is, essentially, the same album with some bonus material. No one is disputing the importance of Thriller... there are lots of albums that are reissued for one reason or another, and placing reissue info in the main album article works very well - I can provide some examples if you really need to see them. - eo (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes but this will be different, there will be singles, possible new music videos, other promotion for it. There will be too much info in the end. Brand new sales and chart positions. The best bet would be to let it play out and once the Thriller 25 thing has died down see exactly what we are left with. How can we make a decision to merge it when we dont no the full extent of whats to come. Realist2 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A number of things before I voice my opinion:

"I think it would be ridiculous to add an article that is now close to 10,000 bytes to the original thriller article" - if we cut out the merge tag, cut out the infobox (other than the chronology), didn't include the full tracklisting, the article would be dramatically shorter. And the Ebony photo is hardly key to the article either - if we're talking about condensing something there is very little justification for keeping it and at present I only endure it to keep people quiet. And there's the fact that the introduction paragraph repeats a lot of information in the main article that could get trimmed down.

Every new release of something has it's own sales figures, that really isn't important. The Special Edition of Dangerous featured a remaster which was barely noticeable since it's a modern-era album (digital recording) and really the only 'special' thing was the new pictures. Sales figures really aren't an important thing Realist.

If someone searches for Thriller 25 and we re-direct them to Thriller and have a Thriller 25 paragraph, what they search for is totally irrelevant. That's the whole point of re-directing.

"Yes but this will be different, there will be singles, possible new music videos, other promotion for it." They have not confirmed any of that. It has been said there will be a new Michael Jackson single of some sort and general promotion for the album which is standard for any new release, whether it's a re-issue or not.

"Brand new sales and chart positions. The best bet would be to let it play out and once the Thriller 25 thing has died down see exactly what we are left with."

At least you're willing to consider our options instead of just sticking to your view :)

Now, my opinion in general:

• If people want to find out about Thriller 25 they will inevitably want plenty of background information on Thriller
• If this was a new album it would not feature 'bonus tracks', it would feature them as actual songs
• A lot of the information on here (half the tracklisting, half the infobox) is repetition of the Thriller article
• Special Edition releases of albums barely ever get a new page; I can't think of any. While Thriller may be a better selling album than others, I doubt Thriller 25 will sell particularly well in comparison.
• Stop going on about this being "notable" enough for a new article. It's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. There is not enough information to justify a new article whether it is notable or not. What we have at present can very easily be trimmed down to look much more minimal - which I shall do at some stage. Perhaps a merge will be accepted when I have done that.

One final note: This is being released on the "Legacy" division of Sony BMG. They exclusively handle RE-ISSUES and not new albums.

(The Elfoid (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

I hope you guys keep this as it is, as a separate article. Many people who already know Thriller inside out will want to be able to access comprehensive information about the new release, and this page serves that purpose very well. 80.56.35.62 (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If it was one article, there would be no reason to split it. Look at it that way. People could access the Thriller page and still get comprehensive information about the new release. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Would an encyclopaedia split this up? (The Elfoid (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

I don't see the need for the main album and its reissue to have two separate articles. The Joshua Tree reissue, which featured a bonus CD and a DVD, was added onto the main album's article and was still able to be informative and comprehensive. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense to merge this article with the main album --Red-Blue-White (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Content

Should it be on it's own with tracklisting and DVD as sub-sections, or should it be a sub-section to history with tracklisting/DVD upped in header size and made separate from 'content'? Only a minor issue but one I am unsure how to deal with. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

Just realised this is a bit confusing. Here is what I mean.

Configuration A:

Track listing

DVD

Configuration B:

Content

Track listing

DVD

(The Elfoid (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

In my opinion there shouldn`t be any size difference between tracklisting and DVD theres no logic in that. Realist2 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's simply because the DVD is a bonus DVD on top of the original release. This is being released as "Thriller with bonus material". Note the "bonus", it's an added extra. Also it's the DVD tracklisting, so still qualifies as part of the tracklisting - it's just a different format. (The Elfoid (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

i dont know maybe its not that big a deal.Realist2 (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The big arguments on Wiki are always these little things, it's sad I guess. I've always been a quibbler for details though. (The Elfoid (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

spelling

hey in the article there is a word "accross" . Is this the correct spelling ? It looks odd to me . Should there be "double c" and "double s". Realist2 (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Should be "across". One 'c'. - eo (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge consensus

Paaerduag and Realist2 don't want a merge. Myself and EO want one. I think that a 50/50 debate means the tag should remain. 4 I will continue to break the information down to bare-bones details in a minimalist way so we can find out what we have left to deal with and once we see if there's really a significant amount of text we can decide. EO I suggest if you want a merge you follow this path too; don't delete less important details, just craft the quality of the English to the finest degree possible. It's the only fair way to prove our point. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

There are a few ip adress on here that contribute who also want it to stay. The balance of consensus is with us slightly, That said there is no problem keeping the merger tag a while longer. Realist2 (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For me it is not the length of this article which justifies its merger, it is the notability of this particular release. I do not believe that this re-issue is notable enough to stand on its own. It belongs in the original Thriller article. Take away the track list alone and it is short enough, if people are worried about length. That magazine image doesn't belong here either, so that should go as well. - eo (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll throw my hat into the ring regarding the Merge discussion;

1. Regarding eo's earlier comment "It's not a full remix album or a re-recording or a live album or an acoustic version", according to this [2] - Quincy Jones (the producer on a number of tracks on Thriller 25) all the songs have been re-recorded.
2. Regarding The Elfoid's "A lot of the information on here (half the tracklisting, half the infobox) is repetition of the Thriller article" (and to continue somewhat on eo's comment above); a subtle clue to this would be that the duration times on the original Triller album does not match the supposed durations on Thriller 25.
3. To counter The Elfoid's "If this was a new album it would not feature 'bonus tracks'", most current albums actually do come with bonus tracks - usually based upon the region in which they're sold in. It's not uncommon to find songs that as listed as 'bonus tracks' released specificially for Japan/Australia/UK. More than likely, because this is a re-recording of a 25 year old album - the extra material would be listed as a 'bonus' to entice more people to purchase the album, whether or not they own the original album or prior re-releases.
4. Lastly, you can't really make such a blanket statement as "If people want to find out about Thriller 25 they will inevitably want plenty of background information on Thriller". In the same way I can't claim that everyone who searches for information about Thriller 25 has knowledge about the original album, you can't argue the opposite. I personally came here looking for a few tid bits of information regarding the new album, and I wouldn't want to have to wade through a bloated article (which is what the Thriller entry could well resemble after a merge) to get it.

Just my 2c, 203.217.77.81 (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Regarding The Elfoid's "A lot of the information on here (half the tracklisting, half the infobox) is repetition of the Thriller article" (and to continue somewhat on eo's comment above); a subtle clue to this would be that the duration times on the original Triller album does not match the supposed durations on Thriller 25."

Well a new infobox would be required obviously, but not all the details would be required. By duration I meant that the duration of the Thriller album tracks is the same as on T25 - I wasn't referring to the remixes.

"For me it is not the length of this article which justifies its merger, it is the notability of this particular release. I do not believe that this re-issue is notable enough to stand on its own." I think it's a mixture of the two. If it was long enough that keeping it in the Thriller article seemed silly it could move to it's own page. If not, no reason to. That's what people need to start realising - if it was on the same page, would we keep it that way or split it? No one could justify a split in an encyclopaedic sense, it's just a re-issue with remixes.

"I personally came here looking for a few tid bits of information regarding the new album, and I wouldn't want to have to wade through a bloated article" I guess what I meant was, it would make a lot more sense blended with the Thriller article.

I'm gonna start cutting down on the text in Thriller sometime soon, and re-organise it. I'll set it up so it has a section on Thriller, then Thriller Special Edition and leave space for Thriller 25 (with a main article link to here). That article's almost as messy as this one was before I started attacking the language on here. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

The thriller article is fine as it is. To cut it down purely to include Thriller 25 is petty and rediculose, if your going to start removing sourced material on the thriller article you will have to reach a consensus in that talk page that it is too big. You edits can rightfully be reverted if you havent got a consensus first. Then so what if you get a consensus on Thriller you could delete all that info only to find that you dont get the consensus on this end to merge. Now you need 2 consensus`s to get what you want... madness. Realist2 (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not madness. The Thriller article is not very long at all. Most of the space is taken up by the elaborate credit listing for each individual track. All songs but one have their own article anyway, so most of that is redundant. There would be no need to repeat any of the track lists again, aside from the new material on Thriller 25. There is no rule stating that articles must be broken up if they reach a certain length. It makes the most sense to have all information about the album in one article. As I said before, Thriller 25 is essentially Thriller. Its 25th anniversary is part of the history of the album. - eo (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

if Thriller isnt that big why would elfoid want to chop it up? It makes more sense in your opinion but then again you havent got that many people on your side on this 1 that agree it makes more sense. Realist2 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read again what Elfoid is saying. No one wants to destroy or tear down either article or make edits to be petty; it just needs to be presented in the most logical and encyclopedic way. Please assume good faith. - eo (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had the chance to read the whole discussion yet, but I personally think that the Thriller 25 album could have its own article, considering that Michael is an established artist, and the Thriller (album) page is sort of long. Funk Junkie (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Realist, I wasn't saying to cut down things for the hell of it. What I'm saying is, lets make this article the tightest, best thing it can be THEN debate what to do with it. My gut tells me it'll be short enough to no longer really warrant it's own page. Similarly I'll be trimming Thriller's page shortly. This way instead of arguing over and over, we can just have the article presented appropriately AFTER the articles are in the best shape they can be in. It makes sense for all of us to just calm down and relax and work on that. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

The Elfoid: Either you seem to have misunderstood my earlier point or specifically chosen to overlook it, I'll assume good faith and go with the prior. "By duration I meant that the duration of the Thriller album tracks is the same as on T25 - I wasn't referring to the remixes." I wasn't refering to the remixes myself, either. Taking a few seconds to compare the track listings between the Thriller and Thriller 25 track listings, you can see that there are minor discrepancies across most of the songs, lending weight to the point that the songs have been re-recorded (and as such vary slightly to the originals).

1. T25's "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'", "Thriller", "Beat It", "Human Nature" and "P.Y.T." are all apparently a second longer than the original recordings;
2. T25's "The Lady In My Life" is apparently two seconds longer.
3. T25's "Billie Jean" is now apparently three seconds shorter.

So in order to maintain the integrity of the content regarding this album (wherever it ends up), a full seperate track listing for this album would be required. 203.217.77.81 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A one or two second difference in running times is hardly something that is notable enough to be explained in either article. Even if the full track list was to be listed twice, that still doesn't have anything to do with whether the articles should be merged or separated. - eo (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I was just using the durations as an illustration to disprove both your earlier comment that this is just a re-release and not an actual re-recording and Elfoid's comment that the Thriller and Thriller 25 tracks are of the same length. The point I'm trying to make (and that which you convieniently seem to overlook) is that 15 of the 16 tracks have been especially recorded for this album. That alone should clearly be grounds alone upon which a seperate article can be built. As it stands currently, it's 3 against merger and 2 for. 203.217.77.81 (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Its now Realist2, Paeerduag, Funkie Junkie and 203.217.77.81 against Elfoid and Ericorbit. Thats 4 against 2. As it stands there is no interest in merger.Realist2 (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is merging anything without consensus, so don't worry. It may benefit you to read Wikipedia:Consensus, as building consensus is not about counting votes. - eo (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No but it would be rediculose to do it at the moment when clearly you lack any support or authority on the issue.Realist2 (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is spelled "ridiculous". "No interest in merger" and "lack any support" are both untrue. As far as "authority" - I strongly recommend you read about consensus and assuming good faith; this has nothing to do with "authority". - eo (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Im not being uncivil and dont make fun of my spelling, english is not my first language so dont get me started on that 1, your comment was uncivil. I will correct myself "there is little interest im merger" and you "lack support". Realist2 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Given he didn't learn to speak it when he was born, Realist's English is damn fine. I'm very pick with my language and don't tend to have issues with his speech and certainly can always understand it. Now, on to the subject at hand.

"a subtle clue to this would be that the duration times on the original Triller album does not match the supposed durations on Thriller 25". That doesn't mean much. Regional releases of CDs regularly vary in length slightly, since it's just based on how long the silence is at the end of a song/the beginning lasts. Those songs sound exactly the same, I've seen different versions of the same album with different runtimes; it's nothing special. Being a standard thing, a new page is not required. Megadeth's re-releases have bonus tracks, live tracks, digital remasters AND are entirely remixed (a rare thing to do) with dodgy sound in places having been re-recorded by band leader Dave Mustaine. But his fans aren't creating a new page for each of them like MJ fans insist we should.

"most current albums actually do come with bonus tracks - usually based upon the region in which they're sold in." While that is so, a release of an album with different bonus tracks does not make it a new release. Motley Crue's Red, White and Crue album for instance...the Japanese release had a bonus track. It's very unusual to get bonus tracks outside of Japan and it tends to get noted in an article, as do the Japanese ones (I don't know why but every Japanese album I see has an extra song for some reason).

"More than likely because this is a re-recording of a 25 year old album - the extra material would be listed as a 'bonus' to entice more people" meaning we don't actually know - WP:Crystal ball. That's almost certainly why it's there, but is presented as a bonus nonetheless; extras. Not the focal point of the release. "In the same way I can't claim that everyone who searches for information about Thriller 25 has knowledge about the original album, you can't argue the opposite." - if we have it in the Thriller page, anyone can get the info they want. If we give it it's own, it might make life slightly easier for people who only want info on the new release but it makes it harder for other people. Happy medium works better.

"Most of the space is taken up by the elaborate credit listing for each individual track." Key credits should be retained but minor details can be removed, yes.

"the songs have been re-recorded (and as such vary slightly to the originals)." - the album needed remixing/remastering AT THE TIME OF RECORDING. Quincy Jones worked on it then, not now. The Thriller songs are identical, which is why on the michaeljackson.com website the single chart positions for the original songs is present on the tracklist; if they were new songs this would not be so. The songs are not even digital remasters - the digital remasters were made for the "Special Edition" project that released Jackson's 4 biggest albums as special editions (Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad, Dangerous) in 1991 which featured a digital remastering job.

Anyway, soon I may have something to help convince you all ready. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

Efoid but this is a new release it has more than three bonus tracks on it, it will be counted as a completely new album. Lol i dont think you will sway us on this im afraid. Realist2 (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Three-plus bonus tracks do not make an album "new". - eo (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Record sales groups count sales of every re-release as separate, whatever the bonuses. Dangerous Special Edition is a remaster so sales wise it is counted as separate from Dangerous. (The Elfoid (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

It might not be "new" to you but it will be in the eyes of RIAA and other sales moniters. --Realist2 (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, what the RIAA considers "new" has absolutely nothing to do with how album articles are maintained within Wikipedia. - eo (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous Special Edition was given a bunch of new pictures in a booklet. I'm pretty sure it was already digitally mastered the first time around (it came out in 1991...Iron Maiden digitally mastered an album in 1990), so the remaster's effect would have been minimal. But it counts as a new album. As long as the album's ID number is different it counts as different; The RIAA etc. have no say in this because every single release out there gets a new name even if it's just re-release. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

I would also appreciate it if ericorbit would stop calling his wiki friends in to help bulster his point. I have found 2(there my be more) users he has gone off asking help off. This is betting a little out of hand.Realist2 (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for assuming good faith. I've asked several editors that I trust to take a look at this debate and voice their opinions as no one else seems to be contributing except the same people. These are editors who work a lot on music articles... and one of them (Funk Junkie) agrees with you so you can set aside any conspiracy theories. - eo (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I see a massive debate here. I don't think it should be merged; basically the original Thriller article is massive on its own and could use its own improvements. This release is notable enough to stand on its own, especially with the publicity and buzz it's creating. The Special Edition (2001) release didn't even come close to the publicity that Thriller 25 is getting and it's not even out yet! There is also a single being released from it, (with possibly more depending on public interest according to Sony). It shouldn't be merged. Marnifrances (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, but so what about publicity? So what about notability? People are STILL MISSING THE POINT OF WIKIPEDIA ENTIRELY. You do not say "it is notable enough to get a page, so it will". Every single one of the seven dwarves in snow white are damn famous and noteworthy, fictional celebrities. But there isn't enough to say about any of them for them to deserve an article of their own. Notability is far from the only thing that matters and going on and bloody on about it will not get anyone anywhere. And when the two articles have been fine tuned, length won't matter either. (The Elfoid (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Temper temper elfoid. :-> Realist2 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's just a recurring theme on here that people claim if something is notable then it deserves a page and anytime there's a debate they hold their ground on that single point as if it actually matters. If it's notable it deserves to be on Wikipedia in a relevant place.

(The Elfoid (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC))

Lol when this debate started off your argument was that it wasnt notable enough now that you`ve lost that argument your saying notability should have nothing to do with it. Hum....Realist2 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It was more to do with how much size it would take up on the Thriller page, I got sucked into that argument since it's a very easy way to argue about pages on Wikipedia. It's clearly notable enough for a detailed account of the album to be recorded; I just don't believe a new page appropriate. Whether it deserves one or not is irrelevant. I WILL make it short enough to fit into Thriller gradually and I will make Thriller short enough to accommodate it.

(The Elfoid (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC))

Oh you reluctantly got dragged into that did you lol. Also you WILL NOT make Thriller 25 small enough to merge and you WILL NOT make Thriller smaller without a consensus that it actually needs to be.Realist2 (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well everything I intend to do is legitimate, fair, and by the books. Making an article more concise, and easier to read quickly is not a bad thing to do. That's my only intention - and if both become short enough, I think you will see a merge as a much better idea. (The Elfoid (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC))

Legitimate and by the book please dont make me laugh. This is not about Thriller being too long it is about you trying too make space to merge Thriller 25. You and no1 else have any concerns about thrillers lengh as it has never been mentioned on the talk page before. Frankly the time has come for you to see defeat on this 1.Realist2 (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I put on the Thriller talk page (details there), the only reason why people are saying to keep them separate is because text wise, they're bloated. If I hadn't been editing Thriller 25, it would be about double the length is is now. (The Elfoid (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

That is far from the only reason people dont agree with you. Realist2 (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is, if they are made the length they should be (while retaining all content and left completely understandable but made more concise), people will see the idea of a merge in a much more positive light. Now go and check the Talk:Thriller (album) page again. Unless you can come up with a convincing reason to fault any of the edits I made, I see no reason why I shouldn't put some of them back in. I've said what I did, tell me which ones you object to and I'll avoid making those edits and see what I can do while appeasing you. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

No I don't want a Merge.. this's a whole new album with new tracks and stuff.. ofcourse it must have it's own page.. Sai2020 02:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

side note: merge tag should not be removed

There is no consensus at this time - FOR nor AGAINST - a merge. If work is going to be done on the Thriller (album) article in the meantime, that is fine. But merge tag is in place to allow other users to see it and voice their thoughts here. Do not remove it please. - eo (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No there is a consensus, the consensus being that at the moment merger is simply not an option, me and elfoid want to see the tag removed and the debate reignited later when both articles are at there peaks, there is no point talking about merger now when in a months time both pages will look completely different and people will have ifferent opinions. The consensus is that now is not the time to be talking about merger. There is blatantly at the moment a serious concern that merger will not be of benefit. Elfoid would you please reiterate your feelings on merger at this moment.Realist2 (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Realist, I responded on your talk page. There is not a consensus here, neither FOR nor AGAINST. It is not hurting anything to keep the merge tag on the page while you, or whomever else, works on the main Thriller album. I've seen arguments for both options here. There is no reason to "re-ignite" the debate later, when the tag can remain the whole time. The more editors who contribute, the better, whether it is for or against a merge. - eo (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No hello are you serious?, there is a serious consensus not to merge at all let alone in a month!!! There is a consensus its just not in your favour. The tag should be dropped and readded later. Why talk about it now when these opinions wil be irrelavant or have changed in a months time because of the alterations to Thriller and Thriller 25. We are talking about it now when these articles will both look radically different later, its madness to waste time talking about it now. The tag must and will go, you have not convinced enough people that merger is possible. Realist2 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Explain how and why any comments now would be irrelevant later. As I have stated all along, it is not about the length of either article, but about the nobility of the 25 version. I don't feel that you understand the concept of finding a consensus. The only reason these are separated now is because the 25 article just so happened to be created first. It could have easily been a debate about "splitting" them, if 25 info was put inside the Thriller article first. You do not own this article, Realist, nor do you own the Thriller article nor any other Michael Jackson related page. If you feel that all of this conversation will be meaningless later, then you should have no problem keeping the merge tag in place until this upcoming, magical time in the future will make everyone's opinions valid. - eo (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No your right I dont own wiki or any page but you seem to thing you do, even though hardly any1 is echoing the same opinion as you , you still think you can do as you please, There is no way that tag can stay in place for another month when only you and 1 other user want to keep it up that long, every1 else be it me , elfoid or 5 other editors want it either completely or at least temparily removed. You should really look into what consensus means , Engish isnt my first language but i still no 1 have it and understand it. Stop insulting my language and interlect as well its patronising and insulting. Stop saying im editing this way because im a michael jackson fan, ive read your comments on elfoids page and dont like it.Realist2 (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think I own this or any page - if I really felt that way I would have gone ahead and merged this without any discussion at all. I am not deleting information, I am not attempting to destroy or sabotage either article, I'm not just "doing what I please" without thinking about others or the good of Wikipedia. My only point here is to keep the tag on the page because there is no deadline or hurry to remove it. The tag is there to invite contributions; it is not there to ruin the article or to make it look sloppy or discredit it. - eo (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets drop the merge tag for now. Right now, Thriller is in a mess and a horrible state. It's not right to merge it yet. You're on your own for now eo - I'm gonna sort out that article THEN get back into a merge debate. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

I'd like to throw my own two cents in here: first, I feel it's too early to say whether it's right or wrong to merge the articles, owing to what impact Thriller 25 will make. Stripping away the regulations and rules of Wikipedia for a while, look at the facts. There's no denying that Michael Jackson is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest living entertainer out there. After what's happened in the past few years, this re-release (or whatever you want to call it) is a pivotal moment in his career, a litmus test of his populatity in the public. Even it was a brand new album or just a straight re-release, it deserves significance for such poignancy. Secondly, I hate to make things more complicated than they already are, but here goes: a habit amongst artists these days to release a Greastest Hits with a smattering of new tracks to release as singles (Eminem and Robbie Williams spring to mind). These albums have their own pages. Could be argued that Thriller 25 is no different? The original tracklisting is as well known and recognisable as any greatest hits compilation.86.149.133.136 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about the notability of the article again, like everyone has. Though for now I say don't merge, and later we should, I insist everyone should stop saying "It is notable enough to get it's own page because...". If it is more informative, easier to understand, and fits well into the Thriller article it will go there, got it? Notability isn't important. It's notable enough that if there is a large enough amount of information with no other appropriate place, it should have it's own page. Debating it's notability is not getting anyone anywhere. (82.69.60.98 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

Putting the merits of either "side"'s arguments aside for a moment, there's already precedent on Wikipedia for information about separate editions of the same album to be included in one article, even if one or more editions features new content and packaging—see Thank You (Jamelia album), The Emancipation of Mimi and B'Day, for example. I believe that it would be more beneficial to start a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums and work out some sort of guideline for situations such as this one. For what it's worth, I think that because neither this article nor the Thriller (album) one are very long and are about the same album—albeit one available in more than one edition—a merge should take place. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ebony article transcript

Any of you guys actually read it? It doesn't mention Thriller 25 in any shape or form. Jackson says he's writing and creating music, but that's just music...for the new album is what he implies and it never makes reference to this release at all. And that's when he was asked specifically what he was planning on doing with his career in the near future. The image could perhaps go in the Thriller article since it's about Thriller, but it is not about Thriller 25. (The Elfoid (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Further note: I can see a reason for this to be on the Thriller page, or the MJ page (on the section on his influence etc. since getting on a magazine cover for anniversary when the man hasn't had an album out in 7 years or toured in 11 is pretty good...especially when it isn't even a music magazine, and it's a magazine for black people when he isn't even black (physically, not talking genetics here) anymore). So if anyone wants to use it for them, feel free to, but I'll take it off this page in a day or two I imagine (giving people time to make use of it) and don't want to do so until people have had a chance to make use of it. It's not that hard to find though so it's no great loss to us if it's deleted; it's all over the net on MJ fansites and news sites. (The Elfoid (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

no i think i does have importance on this page, an i wouldn`t make comments like michael jackson is no longer physically black. If you knew anything about black people or their culture you would realise that was at the very least a bold statment.Realist2 (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant physically as in the cosmetic sense; how he looks from the outside. Let me put it another way: It is notable someone with skin that pale is still accepted by the black community so eagerly. It was not an offensive statement. I know a guy who's albino, he's black in origin and has all the right physical traits but was born with white skin. I'm not just someone who knows nothing.

And yeah...how does an article about Thriller have importance in an article about Thriller 25? This is about the Thriller 25 album, NOT the 25th anniversary of Thriller. The reason Thriller 25 is being released is because the 25th anniversary will get lots of attention and be useful in marketing - if this was an article on the 25th anniversary of Thriller the cover would be relevant. Have you read the article itself Realist? There is barely any talk about the 25th anniversary of Thriller really, almost all of the article is general questions. And as I said, it made reference to Jackson's projects in the future (a new album with lots of collaborations and probably no more touring) yet made no mention of Thriller 25 whatsoever.

An article on Thriller 25 would barely classify as relevant of a cover photo being present in an article since it's not a big deal. An article on Thriller has no relevance whatsoever. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

The whole Ebony article was to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Thriller. It is important in this page, because the Ebony article adds to the publicity for the release, which was its intention. They also did an article in their sister publication Jet, which mentions the release. Marnifrances (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a publicity stunt for Thriller 25 would deliberately involve not mentioning it when Jackson was asked what he's doing next. The people who make the magazine intend to make money by selling copies of the magazine, if he gets on the cover if's for THAT reason not because he wants to promote something. And it is to celebrate the anniversary of THRILLER. This article is not about Thriller, it's about THRILLER 25. (The Elfoid (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC))

It's the 6th now...still no one got anything to say? None of you are behaving as if you've read the thing, seen how it has nothing to do with T25 (The Elfoid (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

we have read it and we do believe it has a connection to thriller 25.Realist2 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How? An article about Michael Jackson, organised for the 25th anniversary of Thriller...generally magazines organise photoshoots/interviews like this, inviting a celebrity. There is nothing to suggest Jackson or his large management team instigated this, nor is there ANYTHING suggesting a connection to Thriller 25. Be honest...the 25th anniversary of Thriller was gonna turn some heads, with or without Thriller 25.

actually there is. I have proof it was Michael's team that actually got in contact with Ebony and not the other way around. LOL. I actually asked the question, too. http://www.ebonyjet.com/michael_jackson/ (at the bottom right, click Q &A) This is what it says: "Q: How did you get the interview with Michael? Was it easy?

-- Marni in Australia

A. (Bryan Monroe) | Because of the nearly 40-year relationship between Johnson Publishing Company -- the owner of Ebony and Jet magazines in Chicago -- and the Jackson family, a relationship that began when Michael was part of the Jackson Five, we knew that, when and if Michael was ready to re-emerge back onto the world stage, who better to do it with than Ebony. We had been talking with his team in Washington, D.C. for the past eight months and Michael himself requested that it be Ebony and Jet magazines to have his first U.S. cover and interview in years." Marnifrances (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the US, but in the UK magazines tend to be printed a month ahead of time. That's the December 2007 issue, so was probably released in early-mid November 2007. Now, the world of publishing works several months ahead of time so that things can be checked and printed...it's likely that interview/shoot was done in early October. Even if it was in the first half of November though, it was before anyone had heard of Thriller 25...you can't promote a product that does not exist!

If anyone can provide me with something in this article that suggested a Thriller 25 connection, a source to cite or something, I will let it stay. At present the connection being made is invalid due to WP:POV, WP:NOT#OR, being purely speculative with no facts whatsoever to support it. What we have: "Michael Jackson did a photoshoot and interview with a magazine commemorating the anniversary of Thriller". What you claim: "Michael Jackson did a photoshoot and interview with a magazine promoting Thriller 25 by commemorating the anniversary of Thriller". Proof or I will delete it, and request third opinions and other help to make my point proven. I guarantee you, your point will not stand in the face of the reasonable. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

Here [[3]] ebony and Jet and too halves off the same magazine. The photo shot for ebony was in November with the article being published in December. Thriller 25 was announced on November 30th so by the time ebony was released to stands people already knew Thriller 25 was coming out even though Jackson wasnt saying anything. Then also in December Jet (the same people) ran a front cover about Thriller 25 with new photos. Ebony and Jet both new there woud be a Thriller 25, this was a promotioal tool for Thriller 25. It might be slightly more relevant to have the jet picture though. --Realist2 (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's still WP:POV/WP:NOT#OR. The best you can say "This is a photoshoot which was PROBABLY in promotion of Thriller 25 since the album was announced shortly after the shoot was done". It really is a huge stretch of the imagination.

I just checked that site by the way. The shoot and interview was SEPTEMBER 24TH, and that was after a failed attempt at meeting in MID AUGUST.

They would not necessarily know there was a Thriller 25, since Jackson did not mention it in the interview and it had not been announced yet. It was definitely not a Thriller-themed shoot, so was hardly helping pick up the retro vibe. The December issue of a magazine is almost always published in November, I imagine this was the same. I doubt a photoshoot set for August, to publish in November, had anything to do with something announced at the end of November and which didn't even begin it's promotional campaign officially until January/February.

It was only a promotional tool if Jackson set up the shoot, they asked him to do it. He chose to say yes. WP:POV WP:NOT#OR (The Elfoid (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

If thats your opinion ok, we can just replace it with the Jet cover.Realist2 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That shoot and anything else in the Jet article were done at the same time. Any connection you draw implying it is related to Thriller 25 goes against WP:POV/WP:NOT#OR, you just can't do it. (82.69.60.98 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

Are you blind its quite easy to see the Jets connection to Thriller 25 when the Jet cover itself says "The 25th anniversary remix of Thriller". The Jet cover is ACTUALLY talking about thriller 25 the album release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

He did a shoot for Ebony in September. Out-takes were used for the Jet album, and given Thriller 25 had just been announced, it makes sense they put it on the cover to attract attention. That's a marketting idea of Jet's, not MJ's. And to be honest, getting on the cover of Jet is not exactly a major achievement either; Michael Jackson does barely any interviews. He could get on any cover he wanted (yes, including Time Magazine). MJ did a shoot and interview linking to Thriller's anniversary, out-takes from it were put in Jet and they altered the front page slightly to keep up with current events. Whether it was a promotional plan of Jackson's for this release to improve sales of Thriller 25 by attraction attention or not is OR.

There is no way in hell to convincingly state a photoshoot planned for August and done in mid September, for a November publication has anything to do with something announced at the END of November when it is not mentioned once in the article in question, or even hinted at. This screams of POV and OR. It's totally unjustified. Give me EVIDENCE and SOURCES that prove Ebony/Jet knew anything about Thriller 25 before the November 30th press release. Given the one printed before then seemed to have no clue what Jackson would do next and the one afterwards mentioned Thriller 25, evidence strongly suggests they had no idea....it is not explicit though, so if you could find evidence you could prove me wrong. But I see no source of it. Find something soon or I will remove the image...it's in direct contradiction of TWO policies on Wikipedia to keep it. Plus it's not a major thing anyway, a magazine cover on an album's page is not really required.

(The Elfoid (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

no im sorry thats rediculose the jet cover is definately about Thriller 25 and there is NO prove that they werent new photos taken, even if going on jet isnt that big a deal, it was still done and could be replaced with something bigger latter. Jet cover s very relevant to this article.Realist2 (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The site does say the photos were being re-used actually, I read it. He's not even interviewed, it's an article talking to people like will.i.am. Most of the information there is taken from press releases. There was no "second interview", they just used some photos from the last shoot

Jackson's been in the magazines numerous times, it's no achievement for him to get in there. After 49 years and millions upon millions of album sales, you think it says a lot about his career he got on the cover of some magazine that's only really circulated in North America? If it was a huge international thing like Rolling Stone or Time we'd have a reasonable debate (though even then it would not really matter).

Look at it this way: What can you learn about the creation, history, content and appearance of the album or NOTEWORTHY promotions? Well it doesn't mention Thriller 25 so promotions are the only possible option. It's not a major publication international, there's no promotional work for Thriller 25 being done by Jackson or his promotional team...stop begging and pleading.

You've got an article about Thriller with new pictures of Michael Jackson and an interview, and an article about Thriller 25 with some archived photos from a recent photoshoot that featured no new information. Neither were in publications which signify much given Jackson's longstanding history with them. It's just a ridiculous joke that people take this seriously.(The Elfoid (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

Even if the pictures for Jet were taken ages ago, they still would have had to ask Jackson to use them in Jet and he agreed, Jet is publizising thriller 25 with Jackson permition.Realist2 (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

For All Time - correct songwriters/composers (with sources)

"For All Time" Written and composed by Michael Sherwood, David Paich and Steve Porcaro

Sources: CMRAA: http://www.cmrra.ca/home4/home4.html - search for Song #: 414155 (CMRRA = Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Ltd.), "For The Record" (book, ISBN: 07552 20678), JacksonVillage (forum) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.85.186 (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this the new album that's been in the pipeline seemingly forever, or is this a separate project? I could see in the chronology that there's a TBA in 2008 too, but I feel as if this issue should be raised in the article too. Maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.133.136 (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Official title

Official title "25th Anniversary of Thriller" - see official MJ site & retailers.

• http://www.michaeljackson.com/music#top
• http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Jackson-25th-Anniversary-Thriller/dp/B001041JKU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1200665902&sr=8-5

Got The Hots

Got The Hots, which is available on Japanese editions, has been added and removed several times now. Please leave it. This can be read on most MJ news pages, discussion boards, can be found on hmv.co.jp (page also available in English) and has been confirmed by Sony Music Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiterallySimon (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Songwriter PYT 2008

P.Y.T. 2008 is based on the original demo written by Michael Jackson and Greg Phillinganes (released in 2004 on The Ultimate Collection) and not on the (rewritten) original Thriller album version by Ingram/Jones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.25.128 (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)