Talk:13 (Black Sabbath album)

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

Deluxe track listing[edit]

Could we please stop removing the tracks from the deluxe track listing? There exists no version of this album, with only 3 tracks, that starts at track 9. The entire track listing should be shown, as that is the correct track listing for the deluxe edition. If it's decided that we don't want those tracks shown twice, then we can remove the second track listing template entirely, and use the note parameter to denote that the extra tracks are only available on the deluxe edition (per Template:Track listing). But we should not have a track listing template that only shows 3 tracks. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly acceptable to show the deluxe edition bonus tracks in such a format, a number of album articles do that (such as Reign in Blood, Rust in Peace, Screaming for Vengeance, King Animal and Worship Music, among many many others; it's a very common format). There is just no need to repeat information by posting all those songs twice. As long as there is a heading in the chart showing "Bonus tracks for whatever version", then its perfectly fine to do that. The note parameter is not generally used to denote bonus tracks. This is the more common method.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The note parameter is not generally used to denote bonus tracks." See Template:Track listing, it disagrees with that statement, it specifically suggests that the note parameter be used for exactly that purpose.
Also, your examples don't really help your argument. Three of them aren't even good articles, let alone featured. As for Reign in Blood, when it became a featured article here, it didn't even use the template, and included the bonus tracks as part of the main track listing, and had a note next to them indicating that they were re-release bonus tracks. On the other hand, take a look at Xtort, a GA which shows the bonus track listed in the same track listing, using the note parameter to denote that the track only exists on another version of the album. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of what relevance is the GA status or non status of the articles I listed? I am simply trying to provide a sample, and really, just picked a bunch of random albums. If you want to pick straws though, in the article you linked, the note is not used to denote a "bonus track", but rather a "hidden track"
Template:Track listing only mentions that it can be used, not that it must be. It is still not common, at least among articles I often edit.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with L1A1 FAL, listing only the bonus tracks for the deluxe edition is far more commonly accepted method. Giving the full track list twice seems redundant and also makes it more difficult to immediately tell which tracks are new. I'm also 100% positive no one will believe there exists a three-song version of the album that begins at #9. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with L1A1 FAL and Fezmar9, it is an accepted and commonly used method to list the bonus tracks and not repeat the whole album again, just pointless to do such a thing. Users are perfectly capable of understanding the format and will not believe a 3 song version of the album exists. Jamieh08
Pointing to other random articles and saying "well they do it this way" is meaningless. I could point to some article that spells a word wrong and say "well this article uses that spelling, so should this one". As for Xtort, it shows a bonus track (that was included on the original version as a hidden track). The re-release contains the track as a separate bonus track. So I picked my straws rather well, thank you.
Too all those who agree with L1A1 FAL, why? Please provide specific references to MOS, Templates or policies that support your positions, as I have done. Just saying "other articles do it like that" is not sufficient reason for doing it that way on this article. Furthermore, why do people want to remove complete information? What is the benefit to not showing those tracks? I am 100% positive no one would have difficulty immediately telling which tracks are new. Or, what is wrong with showing the tracks in the main track listing, such as L1A1 FAL's example of Reign in Blood? This is supported by Template:Track listing, and is easy to read and easy to immediately discern which tracks are bonus and which are not. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this little sentence at MOS:ALBUM is new to me since the last time I read (and also wrote) this MOS: "Some albums come with deluxe editions, bonus tracks, or extra discs in re-releases. These bonus tracks can be formatted in a similar way to the example above. The track listing for the R.E.M. album Accelerate gives an example of adding bonus tracks to a track listing." Had I known about it, I would have mentioned it earlier. It seems WP:ALBUM supports not repeating the full track listing twice—just the bonus tracks. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. While I disagree with their choice of example (or in general their support of separate track lists for just bonus tracks), for now that seems reasonable. Thanks for sharing that! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Zeitgeist' Reference[edit]

The song 'Zeitgeist' has been linked to the Zeitgeist Movement, not only by the nature of the title's of the songs in the setlist ('Age Of Reason', 'End Of The Beginning', 'God Is Dead?') bearing strong similarity with the train of thought proposed by the movement, but also by the following comment appearing on Peter Joseph's official facebook page:

'Interesting World. So, I was contacted by Black Sabbath's management a while back about a possible video project... but they never followed through and I didn't think much of it. However, they have posted their new Album tracks back with Ozzy Osbourne... and guess what Track 4 is called? "Zeitgeist" ;)

Watch out peeps as it looks like Zeitgeist is about to rise once again. I also have a unique surprise for the 2013 Media Festival, speaking of socially aware rock stars. http://www.nme.com/news/black-sabbath/69825

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wVfUimq2KeI'217.41.19.141 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a better reference than someone's facebook post linking the song with this Movement? We don't know that this person was ever contacted by them, just that he has claimed to be contacted by them. The NME reference makes no mention of a link between the song and the Movement that I could find. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of the End[edit]

Has this song actually been clarified as being an official single from the album? I mean I know it is important in the promotion of the album cause of the CSI thing, but has this track actually been released to radio or for download (or a special edition physical CD or vinyl single)? I was under the impression that it hasn't been, at least not for download. If it is not an official single, it should be removed from the singles listing,and the song's page should be changed accordingly. (Disclaimer: I am not saying anything about the notability of the song, just the single/non-single status)--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonica player[edit]

There seems to be a campaign to add a Stanley Behrens as a harmonica player on the album. So far this has not been confirmed by a reliable source. A google search finds no reliable sources confirming this, just a blog, a facebook page, and a forum comment (none of which are reliable sources). On the other hand, Allmusic's credits page for 13 shows that Ozzy played it. I do not have the CD yet, so I cannot check the booklet as a source. Can someone who does have it check and verify who played the harmonica? In the meantime, until a reliable source is provided supporting that this Behrens played the harmonica, it will be removed as an unsourced claim. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this is an actual musician, and he appears to have an account here. Still best to wait for the CD booklet though, cause he definitely looks like an attention seeker.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The credits in the album booklet match those on allmusic. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking that. Until someone can provide a reliable source claiming otherwise, we will keep the Personnel section congruent with the album credits. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a poser or an attention seeker. I am a professional musician with a stellar track record to prove I am a world class harmonica player. How can I get a publication to say it is me when they already put Ozzy's name where mine should have been? I'll say one thing for sure, he will never be able to play what I put down on Damaged Soul.........That is why Rick Rubin hired me. I say give the credit where the credit is due....If it were you, you would feel the same way as I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesbaron (talk • contribs) 08:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"How can I get a publication to say it is me when they already put Ozzy's name where mine should have been?" Call one up and ask to do an interview with them. Ask them to investigate, to contact Rubin and Ozzy/Sabbath, and get someone to admit it, then have the publication print it. Put out a press release publicly questioning why you aren't listed in the album credits. I understand that you want credit where credit is due, but on Wikipedia we can't just take your word for it, we have to have reliable sources stating it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

Alright, so since this album is pretty big, I can see the Album Ratings template becoming a battleground for adding reviews (I just reverted the replacement of two reviews with two others, as no explanation was given for why those reviews should be listed instead of what was previously there). So rather than everyone constantly adding their preferred reviews overtop of other reviews, are there 10 that everyone can agree upon being the most necessary? Keep in mind, eventually the goal should be to not have the template at all (it is only intended as a supplement to prose, which we can source to more than 10 reviews).

My preference is to keep it to sources listed on WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, and that other reliable reviews can be added in prose form only. However, if other editors think that there is a reason to use other reviews not listed on REVSIT, please bring it up for discussion.

So my preferred list would be:

  • Allmusic
  • Consequence of Sound
  • Drowned in Sound
  • Entertainment Weekly
  • Kerrang
  • Metal Hammer
  • NME
  • Pitchfork
  • Rolling Stone
  • Slant Magazine

Some of these haven't been added, some of have been added and removed, and I admit this is a somewhat arbitrary list taken from REVSIT. Something to keep in mind is that we should try to show a representation of the most common scores/reviews. In other words, let's not try to skew it to all positive or all negative, but rather a sample across the board.

Again, this is completely open for discussion, so let's figure out what we want in the template and get a consensus going (which can always be changed in the future if other, better reviews can be found). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and boldly made these changes. I don't have the issue of Kerrang that reviews 13, so instead I (admittedly arbitrarily) left in The Guardian's review. But if anyone disagrees or thinks that another review source is better to use in the template than these 10, please bring it up here and we can figure out what the best 10 to use here are. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Women[edit]

I have noticed you deleted my addition to the recording date of Dirty Women. First of all, if bootlegs are not a reliable source, please remove all record dates from Black Sabbath's Live at Hammersmith. Secondly, "bootlrg", I would rather use a term unauthorised recording. Please listen to yourselves the spotify version of Dirty Women and All endings of God Is Dead and beginnings of Dirty Women from recorded Australian shows, the spoken intro that appears on Spotify appears only, ONLY on the recording from 29th April. I won't give you the links, because it's illegal, but try to use rutracker, they have complied all those recording from various sources, listen AND THEN make a statement, if you have no idea about the subject and did't do the research yourself just don't take a voice. 83.26.32.136 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it (twice now) because a bootleg is not a reliable source. Please click on that link to learn what constitutes a reliable source. On Wikipedia, we report what independent third-party sources say. Listening to a bootleg (unauthorized recording, whatever term you prefer) and then coming up with your own conclusions is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you can find a reliable source that specifically says what concert that track is taken from, then the date and location can be added. Until then, that info should not be re-added to this article. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't believe me, then listen to it yourself and you'll see I'm right.
Is Metal Archives enough?
http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Black_Sabbath/13/373514
Listen to all recordings from the Australian shows, the intro to Women appears only on 29th April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.32.136 (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Metal Archives is not considered a reliable source, as it can be edited by anyone, and there is no editorial oversight. It's not a question of whether you are believed, it's a question of what reliable sources say. On Wikipedia, we report what reliable third-party sources say, we do not do our own original research and report it here. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Metal Archives cannot be edited by anyone, but by moderators, if the informations is included there it means, that somebody reported them the informations and provided a source, mods don't add informations without source thet they can verify.
The wuestion is, where can I publish my original research so it would become reliable?
83.7.75.43 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Metal Archives allows users to submit information, and the information does not appear to have proper editorial oversight. Again, this makes it unreliable according to Wikipedia. To get your research published somewhere where it would be considered reliable, you would have to write about it for a reliable source. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources is a good start, if you can publish an article with one of those sources, there would be a better chance of adding this information to this article. If you do, bring it up on this talk page first, and then if the source is accepted, someone can add it to the article. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have a source, their recent Live album, it's the same version as the one on bonsu disc, from 29.04.2013 Melbourne, Australia, because they didn't play this song on second Melbourne show. Chech their setlist on setlist.fm and put back the date of recording.
SF 83.13.239.255 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Setlist.fm is not a reliable source. Additionally, your own comparison of recordings is not a reliable source either. Find a reliable source which explicitly states this information, and it can be added then. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of sources[edit]

Is it permissable to use sources which have been obtained illegally? I guess one could easily steal a book from a bookshop or library and quote from it, quite "validly". Is an illegal audio download any different? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An audio recording would generally not be a reliable source. However, if a reliable source discussed the contents of an illegally-obtained audio recording, that sort of information could be added and sourced. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Reason[edit]

Has Age of Reason actually been released as a single? I haven't seen any evidence of this... I'll remove it for now, until further discussion. You'reNotMyBrain (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any evidence that it has been released as a single, nor has "End of the Beginning". MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
End of the Beginning reached 38 on the US Mainstream Rock Chart. You'reNotMyBrain (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But was it released as a single? Some sort of evidence specifically showing it to be a single is required. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, any changes to release dates of singles will require a reliable source confirming the release date. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the articles Black Sabbath discography and End of the Beginning (song) contradict what you are saying, as they both say it was a single - please could you alter them to correspond with the correct info? You'reNotMyBrain (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New genre additions/Lack of Musical Style section[edit]

An editor added two genres to the infobox, doom metal and blues rock. Both are sourced, but the number of sources went to one for each genre (as most of the sources the editor added didn't explicitly name said genres, or only mentioned them in relation to specific tracks, and one was not reliable). Is one source for each of these strong enough to keep them in the infobox? I'm also concerned that there is no "Musical style" section in this article. I'm thinking that such a section should be started, and minor genres with limited mention (like doom metal and blues rock) can be mentioned there, without being considered overall genres for the album (and thus not listed in the infobox). What do other editors think? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No actual description of the tracks on the album[edit]

Once again an article that doesn't give any information on the actual subject of the article - the music on the album! There's a lot going on in there, not least details like the final track (Dear Father) referencing the first track on their first album (Black Sabbath/Black Sabbath) and ending with the same bells and storm sounds as that other album starts. Also the obvious cross references between album tracks and earlier Sabbath material. But his all counts as OR is there anyone informed enough to fill the gap.

Neil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stub Mandrel (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 13 (Black Sabbath album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 13 (Black Sabbath album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:13_(Black_Sabbath_album)&oldid=1195675416"