Talk:Systematic Chaos/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Systematic Chaos. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Resemblance With Pink Floyd??

I really didn't understand the connection with Pink Floyd's Syncopated Pandemonium. Can someone please explain it to me?

"Syncopated" sounds similar to "systematic" and "chaos" means roughly the same thing as "pandemonium". Adamravenscroft 10:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

References A link to roadrunner's webpage: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/news/story.aspx?newsitemID=14998

Picture

I'm removing the picture for the album. It is not official and far from worth being in this article. Steviedpeele 02:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this one ok?--E tac 10:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

:) Steviedpeele 04:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does do you guys insist on having a pseudo-cover in the box? Just be patient... Petergee1 15:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

:)--E tac 07:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

i just put on the correct one - the previous one was a draft from the artist's website - the one i uploaded is from RoadRunner Records.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrjazzguitar (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Prophets of War?

Where did this come from exactly?

"The track listing has not been released yet, but there will be seven tracks: one will be titled "Prophets of War", another has the working title "Pumpkin King", and one of them will be a 25-minute Dream Theater epic. Mike Portnoy's AA saga is also to be continued on this album.[citation needed]

Fifty Dream Theater fans from the New York area were given the opportunity to perform on the new album in January 2007 through Portnoy's Internet forum, and have provided chants for at least one of the songs."

Well where did this entire chunk come from? My guess is probably the DT forums so if somone could put a link to the posts as a source it would help validate the info, otherwise it should be removed as it is just speculation.--E tac 03:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.mikeportnoy.com/mpblog/ 68.33.185.185 08:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

They also mention it in the documentary that comes with the CD's special edition.

Track lengths/cover art

Both have been confirmed here: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=69850 Flamingwuzzle23 22:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Album postpone

Is it true that Systematic Chaos is postponed to July 23? http://www.dprp.net/news/index.php?i=2007_121. Can somebody confirm this? --ΛэтєяиuS 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Porntoy? Haha. This combined with the fact that it was posted on April 1st leads me to think that it was a joke. Adamravenscroft 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy hell you're probably right! I haven't seen the post date... --ΛэтєяиuS 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, thay have revealed it http://www.dprp.net/news/index.php?i=2007_121%20http://www.dprp.net/news/index.php?i=2007_121. APRIL FOOL!!!!!! --ΛэтєяиuS 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Leaked

The album has leaked. I have the torrent link available for a reference, but that may be illegal, so ask me if you want it. BrainRotMenacer 02:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a torrent containing the first seven tracks at torrentportal, but I don't believe they're from SC, since all 7 files are between 17,36 MB and 19,63 MB in size, in spite of the difference in their official lengths. I didn't download it (specially because I plan to buy it when it's released), so I ask anyone who doesn't mind (possibly) getting spoiled to confirm if there is any possibility that those files are from the official album. Hetcenus 01:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they appear to be fake. They all sound like Dream Theater, but all the songs are more than 10 minutes long (no vocals either). BrainRotMenacer 02:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The tracks in question are the submissions from the Stream of Consciousness Fan contest mislabled to the Systematic Chaos tracklist. The album has not leaked. Kyrandia 16:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's right. See Stream of Consciousness (song), and look at the contest winners. There are 7 songs, all of them instrumental. --ΛэтєяиuS 09:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was leaked, does that really count as notable news? It's obviously going to happen to any major release at some point before the album is released so I don't see why it should be stated on here. Offski 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a notable news. It's all about this album. We need to know if the album we're listening to is actally Systematic Chaos. Last time, I had listened to Superior's Younique for 6 months thinking that is Train of Thought. --ΛэтєяиuS 14:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A [joke]leak surfaced on 4chan's /mu/ - Music board. It is also a fake. But i do not know if it is notable. But here are what the tracks are or sound like:

In the Presence of Enemies Pt. 1 is a Dream Theater song or possibly a Liquid Tension Experiment tack. Forsaken is Will Smith's "Bel Air." Constant Motion is Linkin Park's "Crawling." The Dark Eternal Night is a Dragon Force song. Repentance is The Aqua Teen Hunger Force theme song. Prophets of War is "Survivalism" by Nine Inch Nails from their as of yet unreleased Year Zero album. The Ministry of Lost Souls is Linkin Park's "In the End."

Not something that would go on the page itself, but possibly notable here.--209.193.10.143 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Relaese date November?

Why is the release date mentioned in this article November 2007, while all other sources, including the official website dreamtheater.net mention June 2007? 195.37.209.180 16:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No idea, but it was already changed back. Hetcenus 17:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

June 4th

Why does someone keep editing out the June 4th release date? Yes, it hasn't exactly been confirmed by the band, but it seems to be a persistent date around the internet and there are places like Play.com are listing it as June 4th. Rather than turning this into an edit war, can't there just be something like "the album is tentatively scheduled for June 4th"? Adamravenscroft 08:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope its definitely June 5th, only I dunno how to edit the page to say that, but official press release says both CD and DVD will be released June 5th.

June 4th will be the UK date, as CDs are out on Mondays here and it will be June 5th in the US, so I'm guessing that date was right, but since Play was the primary source, it was the UK equivalent. Well, there's an official announcement now so it doesn't matter anyway. Adamravenscroft 16:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The album has been released today, June 4th in the UK. I know because I bought it today at HMV (one of the biggest music retailers in the UK) (with a bonus DVD)! Kidburla2002 13:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It was June 1th in germany, June 4th in the rest of Europe and June 5th in USA --wilhel1812 21:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Writing Credits

I'm removing the writing credits for each song, as they are not sourced and have not been officially announced.

Constant Motion

I thought it was an instrumental, since no writing credit has been announced, but supposedly it's going to be a single, which makes that less likely. Has there been any word on this? What's commonly believed right now? Adamravenscroft 13:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Presence of Leaking Pt. 2

http://rapidshare.com/files/27732899/Dream_Theater_-_Systematic_Chaos_2007_promo_1.mp3.html I don't want to hear it because I don't wanna spoil the surprise. But can anyone check if this is real or fake? People at Orkut.com say it's from "The Dark Eternal Night"...

It's a promo clip with excerpts from several/all Systematic Chaos songs. It's a working Mp3 file. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fluffy89 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

A version of "The Dark Eternal Night" with inferior quality has indeed leaked, but it's not the file mentioned above. The leaked file matches the DEN excerpts present in the promo video clip, but mixing is unusual and it may not be the final version. Fbergo 00:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

Someone need to clean up this article and make sub sections instead of only having an introduction. Fluffy 16:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Violask81976 21:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Redundant articles

Hi guys. It looks like there are two articles: the "Systematic Chaos" one (with a capital "C") and the "Systematic chaos" one. It may look like the "chaos" page redirects to "Chaos" at first (there's a "redirected from..." on the top of page, and the discussions page are the same), but the "chaos" one misses a link in the tracklist (the link to the "Repentance" article). I don't know how to fix this since I'm quite new in editing Wikipedia, so I just wanted to post this warning.

Writing "Systematic chaos" will redirect you to "Systematic Chaos", and the page you are redirected to will display the exact same things as the page you get when writing "Systematic Chaos", because they ARE the same. Please sign everything you write on talk-pages in the future. You can sign by writing ~ ~ ~ ~ (without the spaces). Fluffy 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Specific Song Articles

It seems that a bunch of articles are being made on individual songs, even on those not released. Should there really be an article on every DT song? I admit many have a lot of stuff behind them, but not all of them, and especially not those that haven't been released yet (because they are unknown) --Russoc4 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I definately say that there is no reason to have an article on some of them. The ones wit hthe chanting, sure. Constant Motion, sure. The ones that have leaked..not so much...the others? No. I love DT and would never want then to be put down, but seriously. The album isn't even out. Violask81976 02:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the pages should probably have waited til the album at least comes out so they can say more than "this is a song on Dream Theater's Systematic Chaos and the lyrics are by so and so" but they can always have more info added to them once the album is released.--E tac 06:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong time lenght.

When you press on the link to the page on the song Prophets of War, it says on the info to the right the wrong time lenght. That time length is actually the time length for the song The Dark Eternal Night. Can anyone fix that? Suppers Ready 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --ΛэтєяиuS 18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

clips/leakage

Just FYI - the whole album has been leaked. About 3 or so hours ago from what I can gather. 211.30.173.135 08:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Crashvirus 08:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC) This was me sorry. Forgot to log in.

I can't find any torrent. Can you tell us where did you get it? --ΛэтєяиuS 16:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's here. Man, it's so difficult not to get spoiled these days... (post-signing)Hetcenus 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I owe you one!!! --ΛэтєяиuS 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. But I've already ordered mine, so if you ruin the surprise, then YES, YOU OWE ME THAT!! (j/k) Hetcenus 17:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure that being a mouthpiece for the illegal download community is a good idea? Anyone with access to Google can now find a Bittorrent site and get this early copy. I don't have strong feelings about this, but I nontheless suggest we remove references to this leak to protect Wikipedia and also the guys that worked so hard on this album Docta247 20:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't put a link reference, but do put the fact that it leaked outearly. That's standard info for an album. Violask81976 20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think mentioning Bittorrent is too much? It may not be a URL, but it's only one Google away... Docta247 20:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is the fact that the album was leaked early "standard info"? Every major label album is leaked these days and I don't think it's noteworthy. One of my Wikipedia peeves is reading "the album was leaked blah blah blah" on every entry on an album released in the last few years. To me, it makes Wikipedia appear to advocate piracy - as if to say, "psst! I can't tell you where to get it, but you can steal this album now!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.71.240.116 (talk • contribs).

See this is kind of what I was thinking. I appreciate that in cases such as Train of Thought being confused with Superior's Younique then perhaps it should get a brief mention, but any release as anticipated as this one is obviously going to leak some time before it comes out. I certainly feel that this talk page, let alone the article, is not the place to be passing around links and names. Offski 08:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I didn't like for the very reason that I am not interested in particularly advocating this kind of thing. I just noticed there was a section mentioning leaks... And thought it should be mentioned.

Also it seemed to start on rapidshare, not bittorrent - though it was quickly removed. And, interestingly enough features as a 128kbps m4a - just like octavarium did. Funky. (damn i'm a n00b, forgot to sign again) Crashvirus 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

One last thing about the leaked album: DO NOT remove the future album tag, and avoid writing articles about the songs before the official album is released. While the leaked songs may be close enough to the official release, there are some cues indicating that at least some songs are not the final versions. The same thing happenned to Octavarium, so refrain from writing anything impling that the contents of the release will be the same as the leaked songs. Fbergo 17:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with putting this up on the site. 24.13.95.228 02:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses can't think, agree or disagree with anything. Fbergo 23:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

pre-order info?

should the pre-order info be put in? Like, how F.Y.E pre-orders come with a signed lithograph?

Violask81976 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Repentance connected to Disappear and Vacant?

The article says that they may all relate to Mike Portnoy's personal life but the lyrics to Disappear and Vacant are James LaBrie's. I thought they related to his personal life (particularly to his daughter's coma, or so I heard on dreamtheater.net forums).

Sixtease 09:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard the song, but given we already know it's the fourth song from the AA Saga, I don't believe it has anything to do with Disappear and Vacant... Hetcenus 02:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he means "The Ministry of Lost Souls". The Slurpee Man 10:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Ministry of Lost Souls" does not seem connected to Disappear (except by the general topic). There are some interesting parallels to "Scenes from a Memory" , but it does not fit well with lyrics of SFAM either.

I think it's about something else entirely. Probably based on some more-or-less obscure story, like "In the Presence of Enemies". --Itinerant1 09:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Track Listing

ITPOE part one sections are I Prelude II Ressurection

ITPOE part two sections are

III Heretic IV The Slaughter of The Damned V The Reckoning VI Salvation

The whole title is "In the Presence of Enemies - The Heretic And The Dark Master"

And Repentance is divided inm two parts: VIII - Regret IX - Restitution Those are the two next steps in Mike Portnoy's AA Saga. 200.6.165.163 03:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow..how'd you get that already? Violask81976 17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Presence of Enemies Pt. 1 and Pt. 2

Could someone merge those two articles. After all, it's just the same song divided in two parts. (See Shine on You Crazy Diamond) 200.6.179.211 00:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. --ΛэтєяиuS 16:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:For that matter, why does every song have a separate article? I can understand Constant Motion and perhaps Forsaken (if that turns out to be a second single), but not EVERY song, and especially not when we haven't even heard the album so we can say anything more than "(song) is the (number) track on Dream Theater's unreleased album, Systematic Chaos).", or something to that effect. Flamingwuzzle23 01:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC) just saw this comment in the "specific song articles" section above, please disregard this. Flamingwuzzle23 01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, somebody do it then!! 200.6.173.61 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone do it please, I don't know how. Use the information I provided (the tracklisting and the pics). 200.6.165.163 03:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging done. I'm now going to change the links and ask deletion for the two articles. Hetcenus (Talk) 02:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Download links (mp3sugar.com)

For some reason people keep adding download links to the album. The site mp3sugar.com works in a similar fashion as allofmp3.com meaning that they both operate in a legally gray area. Please don't add anymore download links. Petska 16:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. WIkipedia shouldn't support the downloading of an album before it was released. That's different form mentioning that it was leaked of Bittorent. I saythat this sgould be removed. Violask81976 22:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The site mp3sugar.com is different from allofmp3.com. It is a LEGAL mp3 download site, which the album has been released to before being released in the shops. This can be seen by looking at the Legal MP3 Site Comparison Service at [1] and also the terms of service on MP3 Sugar. It's just that DT have decided to release this album online a couple of weeks before releasing it in the shops. Kidburla2002 10:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Without any kind of announcement on the band's official site? That's hard to believe. Also, how can we be sure that the Legal Music Service Guide site is, itself, legal - or that we should trust its content anyway? Hetcenus (Talk) 12:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The band's website just gives the release date for the CD. It doesn't say anything about downloadable versions. And anyway: if MP3 Sugar didn't get the material from Dream Theater then where did they get it from? It is hard to believe that they are selling stolen material, that certainly would be illegal. And as to whether we should trust legal-music.info, well why shouldn't we trust them? They list MP3 Sugar alongside other reputable sites such as iTunes. If we are going to be so paranoid, we could equally well say that we shouldn't trust any website. The BPI and RIAA do not list MP3 Sugar among their known illegal sites such as allofmp3.com and mp3stor.com. Kidburla2002 14:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

They could have got the music anywhere, it has leaked quite some time ago. And I believe there would be some kind of note in DT.net's front page, something like "You can go to MP3Sugar.com and get SC right now"... And if MP3Sugar sells it legally, why doesn't iTunes, which I believe to be the biggest legal MP3 site currently, sell too?

Just for the record, I think that information shouldn't be put on the article, simply because I believe it'll become irrelevant after the album is officially released, and it'll be just taken off. Hetcenus (Talk) 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty evident that this so-called legal music comparison tool is just another method of convincing people to fall into the trap of using these services. They list iTunes and Music Match just to knock them. If you just google for ANY of the four names it lists as five stars, you'll find various complaints across the web. MP3Sugar, for example, is selling one guy's music without his permission, and apparently has a history of poor downloaded file quality. I don't know what you stand to gain from supporting a site that's so clearly illegal (the price alone should say it), but just please don't add the information back on. I would sooner support downloading the album off bittorrent than feeding these people money they don't deserve. GWing02 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the reports you refer to. But such reports cannot alone justify not buying music from somewhere. EVERY major shop has people complaining about it for one thing or another. I myself have used MP3 Sugar a lot. I do not believe I am committing a crime. I think their quality is quite good. The site MP3Sugar.com has to pay royalties for every track it sells. Therefore they do "deserve" the money - it is going straight to the artists. I do not think that the price is too cheap to be legal - certainly it is more expensive than allofmp3.com and some such sites. I don't stand to "gain" anything from "supporting" the site. I do not work for them. I just want to show other people on Wikipedia where they can get the album from as I have, because it is very good. Why is it such a stretch to believe that DT have released the album to MP3Sugar but not to iTunes? I don't think it is very reasonable to expect that MP3 Sugar have just downloaded the album from Bittorrent and then released it online - this would be clearly illegal and they would be closed down. Kidburla2002 00:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not convinced by your arguments. And the album is released on tuesday so by then your link is obsolete anyway. Please stop adding it. This will happen every time. -Petska 19:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just an addition: Do you see links to iTunes on Wikipedia? No, because they are not needed here. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote any kind of commercial companies. -Petska 19:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He's right. In two days it won't matter that it was made available to mp3sugar, whether it was legal or not. That's called Recentism. And forthe argument that if they downloaded it off of Bittorent and sold it that it would be illigal and they'd be shut down: illigal things happen all the time. Do not be misled. Violask81976 20:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tour info?

Just wondering if this should belong on the band page and not here?--E tac 15:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, when i wrote it i thought it would fit into the Systematic Chaos page, since it's the tour for the album. Maybe make a page called Chaos In Motion? --wilhel1812 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We do not need the tour dates on this article... people can go to Dream Theater's webpage for that. I'm removing it. Kensane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.104.74 (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

More 5 & 8 References?

Counting movements as seperate pieces, you get 13 songs (two in ITPOE pt.1, Forsaken, CM, TDEN, Regret, Restitution, POW, TMOLS, and four in ITPOE pt.2). Oddly enough, this is just like in Octavarium, where the first four songs run together and have 5 parts (two movements in TROAE, two movements in ITPOE pt.1). At least, I think the songs run together really well, only to end the seamless transitions with a fade-out with "The Dark Eternal Night". Then the next four tracks have 8 parts, also just like in Octavarium. This fits the 5-parts-then-8-parts that started with Six Degrees (even though it was tracks and not movements, because otherwise, it'd be 15 counting the 3 parts to "The Glass Prison").
Also, this is the 8th album with James Labrie and the 5th with Jordan Rudess, and they seem to be celebrating James' first album this tour as it is also the 15th Anniversary of Images & Words. Is any of this worth noting in a Trivia section that we have for the other albums? MarkyMarc413 16:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jordan Rudess credits

In the album booklet JR is credited: "Keyboards and Continuum" and on Wiki we also credit him Roland VP-550 and Lap Steel Guitar, is that confirmed information?

This is a good point. I think the credits on this page should match up with the liner notes, namely:

James LaBrie - Vocals
John Myung - Bass
John Petrucci - Guitar and Vocals
Mike Portnoy - Drums, Percussion and Vocals
Jordan Rudess - Keyboards and Continuum

Docta247 17:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry But...

The Section entitled "Professional Reviews" is pretty poor. One review misspelled the name of a song and another named the keyboard player "Kevin Rudess" a combo of Jorden Rudess and Kevin Moore. That was 71.218.68.61, even though it was unsigned.

Ok...that's not our fault. People make mistakes, humans do those reviews. And unlike wikipedia, you can't click the edit utton. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 02:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I've replaced the negative review that was removed without discussion earlier. I may like the album but that doesn't oblige the reviewer to agree. Docta247 07:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed a lot of the excess reviews by less-known publications. Jasonn 22:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also removed SputnikMusic's review as it is simply a user review (not staff). Jasonn 23:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Nuggets" section

Someoene removed the "nuggets" section. While I agree that the 9 and 84 business is speculative, there is no arguing that the "20" on the cover was there. I move that at least that section be replaced. InnocuousFox 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree, not least because it was all original research. This isn't really the place to speculate about what might or might not be important on the front of a CD case. Docta247 15:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not orginal research. File:SC20.PNG. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what source was used that made these observations about the art? Docta247 23:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The common knowledge fact that a twenty looks like a 2 and a 0 next to each other. Duh. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 00:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please keep it civil. It's not common knowledge that the 20 represents anything in particular. Suggesting that it means something without a source is classic original research. Thanks for your input though. Docta247 06:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be mean about anything, I just don't see that. I dunno. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 16:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. All I'm saying is describing what's on the front cover can definitely be called "common knowledge", but making deductions about what they mean by the number of ants or the digits 2 and 0 isn't for us to do even if it's obvious to us both. Encyclopedic content reflects externally established fact as opposed to drawing its own conclusions! Docta247 16:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well then, don't you think it should still be mentioned thast there is a digital 20 on the front cover? -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 16:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "should". It could be mentioned, but I don't know what for. If you feel it should be there, then I certainly won't object. Docta247 16:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

By that same token, it is established fact that this is DT's 20th release. At least pointing out the cooincidence, especially in light of MP's penchant for including numerical nuggets (e.g. Octavarium), would be acceptable. InnocuousFox 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean something along the lines of "The number 20 appears on the album art, possibly in reference to SC being the 20th release by Dream Theater" ? Docta247 17:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is not far from what was there to being with: On the bottom middle of the front cover, just above the right leg of the large ant is a very small "20" in a digital font. If one were to count all of Dream Theater's studio releases, live albums and video/DVDs, this is their 20th release. InnocuousFox 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Tangled paths and ants

The cover strikes me as a bit of an homage to M.C. Escher - has anything been said about whether it's supposed to be one? If so, that could go in a trivia section. Dan 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sytematicchaosdvd2.jpg

Image:Sytematicchaosdvd2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DreamTheaterSystematicChaosFinalCover.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dream Theater - Systematic Chaos Special Edition.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dream Theater - Systematic Chaos.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

An important note!

There is no info on promotion. I believe that is required for GA. Burningclean _[speak] 20:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. I've worked on a few GA albums and never included more than a few sentences at most about promotion. What type of info would you like to see included exactly? The background section covers a wide range of stuff, the music videos are discussed within the songs section, I don't know what else there is to add. Black ngold29 21:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

They've done, and still are doing a lot of touring for the album. Burningclean _[speak] 21:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added info about Chaos in Motion. We should be able to add more info about the tour once Chaos In Motion 2007/2008 is released. Black ngold29 01:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Systematic Chaos/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Lots of solid info in the article, just needs some rearranging:

The lead mentions a few things that don't appear in the rest of the article, such as the release dates, recording dates and location, special edition info and some of the chart info. The last two would fit well in a 'Promotion and release' section, along with the tour information, before 'Reception'. And please describe the special edition a little more if you can.
I understand it's going to be difficult to tell a story with the 'Background' section because many events overlap, but the record label situation should be the first item mentioned, as the band's disillusionment with WB probably existed before they started work on the album. Then talk about either the production or the writing (whichever came first), splitting it into two paragraphs. Then wrap it up with the 'Title' section...and you can probably drop the sub-headings within 'Background'.
The 'Reception' section dives into a collection of quotes from critics. Expand and categorize if you can (see the opening sentences of each paragraph from Lions (album) for an example of how I did it).
'References' and 'Notes' need to be separate sections, with 'Notes' preceding 'References'.
This isn't a big deal, but you can remove the Composer column from the track listing and write "All music composed by Dream Theater." at the top of the section.

WP:ALBUM issues:

Infobox: You can remove the Hugh Syme mention beneath the album cover; it's mentioned in the credits.
Infobox: Drop the flags and the American release date; only the first date should be included, as the details will be mentioned in the text.
Infobox: Write out the recording date months, replace the hyphen with an en dash, replace the break with "at"
Infobox: Unless Portnoy and Petrucci produced tracks separately, replace the break with "and"
Infobox: Don't include compilations in the chronology
Personnel: don't capitalize forms of participation (except Continuum, of course)
Personnel: format the production entries the same way as the DT members, and put them under a 'Production' sub-heading

There are some spelling and grammar issues that I'll take care of later.

Leave a note on my talk page when you're done or to discuss further. —Zeagler (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed your comments, although I did throw the record label info into the "Release and production" section. The band wasn't happy with their old label for a while now, but they did not sign with Roadrunner until after this album was written and recorded. I think it fits in there well enough, because after all the label's job is Releasing and promoting the album. Black ngold29 22:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Will need a copyedit before being nominated for featured article
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.

Cheers, Zeagler (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Systematic Chaos. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1