# Talk:Wasting Light

According to WP:Writing better articles, the language used in articles should be formal and practical, which this version does so more efficiently than this version. The latter seems to embellish with words such as "only" and sales of another album that are not relevant. Opening the section with that the album "became the first Foo Fighters' album to reach number one" is giving too much importance to a charting, which is less significant than what the Billboard 200 actually charts, the sales. It is more formal to introduce the album's performance, chart and sales, and then anything extra about that performance, what they are on another level, "second-highest" and "first number-one". Putting both things together, as the latter version does, is more efficient as a summary style and would fit better in the article's lead. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the big deal here is. You seem to be upset that information was added to what you had previously written. All of the pertinent information was kept present, and added embellishment by stating Wasting Lights first week sales to In Your Honors first week sales which itself was included in the reference. I fail to see how adding In Your Honors first week sales is any different than stating that this is the group's first album with Pat Smear since 1996. Information that's stated at least twice in the article. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The issue here is about diction and style, which contributes to the tone. I don't about that other information about Smear, but my version of the reception section seems to suit the guidelines about encyclopedic style better. Dan56 (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you, but I don't agree with you either. "Better" is a subjective term and you're obviously going to be biased to your preferences. Regardless, could you please include the information regarding the sales figures of IYH since you're so much "better" than I? Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Dan56 (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I was asked to comment here—my only previous edit was to remove a hidden personal attack.  Both versions seem to communicate the same information, and it doesn't look worth arguing over. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Should we mention their performance of the album Live on Letterman, with Beatles inspired instruments and clothing?--Mrjeeee (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking the 'recorded' section should just be the dates the band were in the garage with instruments and recording material to tape for the record? Because if so the current dates are wrong. 
Recording for the album in Dave's garage began on Labor Day 2010, as shown in the twitter post by Dave - http://twitter.com/#!/foofighters/status/23169977345 That is Taylors kit in the garage. All pictures tweeted up to then were from 606.
The current date of August 16 2010 was when they began pre-production in Studio 606. Again, look at the tweets - http://twitter.com/#!/foofighters/status/21359323431, http://twitter.com/#!/foofighters/status/21427611996 - That is Studio 606, not Dave's garage studio where they actually recorded the album.
Again the finish date is wrong, January 3 2011 is when Dave tweeted that the record was officially finished, including mixing and mastering. Recording however was complete on the day of the Paladino's show, December 21 2010. Dave said to the audience that night they finished the record a few hours previous. So, which dates should it be? If you want to go with pre-production dates and dates post mixing and mastering all of the other dates need changing. For example the S/T record wasn't mixed until a few weeks after Dave recorded it in a week.
As far as I'm concerned the album was RECORDED between September 6, 2010 - December 21, 2010. Skilmore (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As long as it's cited in the article... Dan56 (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I was watching the Foo Fighters documentary Back and Forth (Foo Fighters documentary). During the documentary around the 93 minute mark you can see a chart with all the songs that were recorded for the album. Every song is on the album except for the song titled "To No End". Shouldn't that be included in the article?--SportsMaster (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That song should not be included in this article because it never appeared on any releases worldwide. Alcohkid (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen the deluxe edition as a double CD physical release on some retailers, so it's not only an iTunes exclusive. --BrowndRemastered (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasting Light World Tour was to be merged here per consensus in March.  But the tour information here was deleted in September.  I was not part of the initial discussion, so I have restored the original tour article with its merge tags.  Take whatever action you think necessary. JimVC3 (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I listen a lot to wasting light, and it's a very raw record, it's not pop-influenced like There Is Nothing Left to Lose, and it will clasify as Grunge, alternative rock and hard rock. --Julianserpa (talk) 09:46, 9 november 2011 (UTC)

Well, are these assertions supported by sources? You can't just edit pages to certain genres under your reasoning that "it's a very raw record... not pop-influenced" and so on. The type of genre changing that you have performed is not encouraged on Wikipedia; if you want to assign a genre to a song, band, or album, then a reliabe source needs to be found, and the reasoning thereof should not be based on original research. Besides, the music itself is exceedingly more important than the genre tags assigned to it. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 09:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I contested this change to the article and need some clarification on whether or not country of release can be specified in the singles template. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wasting Light/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) 23:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article. In cases where I am suggesting a change to a sentence, changes are marked in bold font. Toa Nidhiki05 23:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Overall good prose, with only a few minor issues in the whole article:
I would change the portion "the Foo Fighters went to Grand Master Studios in Hollywood to record 14 compositions written during the tours, to possibly release a new album without much promotion and touring." to ""the Foo Fighters went to Grand Master Studios in Hollywood to record 14 compositions written during the tours so as to possibly release a new album without much promotion and touring." The only real change I would require is to remove the comma, but you can reconfigure however you like.
I would change "Grohl also used the Vultures tour" to "Grohl also used the tour with the Vultures", consistent with the above sentence. Not absolutely vital to change though.
Change "The recordings started with Grohl's rhythm guitar and Taylor Hawkins' drumming to provide the foundations and see if both can "lock in." to "The recordings started with Grohl's rhythm guitar and Taylor Hawkins' drumming, to provide the foundations and see if both could "lock in". I think this keeps the tense more consistent.
Change "After the guitar and drum track, Mendel would play his bassline," to "After the guitar and drum track, Mendel would play his basslines"; the use of singular for 'bassline' contradicts the plural use of 'where' later in the sentence.
The sentence portion "as Grohl felt Vig was "trying to make this into a radio single" when he wanted it "to sound really raw and primal"." might need to be changed, as the use of 'he' might confuse the reader as to whether it is referring to Vig or Grohl.
Change "Grohl declared that the while the demos that prompted him to say the album would be the heaviest yet were not used in the album, Vig took the declarations to heart," by removing the bolded 'the'. I think that is just a typo.
Done them all. igordebraga ≠ 21:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Alright, all clear there.
Going ahead and confirming that 1b is good.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
All three of these are clear.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
While 3b is fine, 3a is not. There is a major gap in coverage as there is no section for singles and no table listing them. This is a serious flaw, but can be easily corrected by adding about a paragraph of charting information for each major, international single (which would be Rope, Walk, and These Days). A suitable table would contain at least the major international charts, with perhaps the Rock Songs and UK Rock Chart added in.
Added a short sentence on Release and promotion (where Rope being the leadoff was already discussed) and transplanted the performance table on the discography page. igordebraga ≠ 00:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Alright, that should do - but if this is to get to FA status, it will certainly need expansion. For GA purposes, however, it is suitable
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
No issues.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
No issues.
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): 
No issues.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
All issues are resolved, good job!

Per the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One By One Tour, the concert information from Wasting Light World Tour into this article.  It has been added a couple of times and simply deleting without a discussion.  I propose that the information stay here until there is some sort of consensus whether the information should either be here or deleted from Wikipedia completely. Aspects (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for a UK certification for Wasting Light. According to one news source it sold 114,000 copies in its first week in the UK. Only 100,000 copies have to be sold for it to be certified Gold in the UK. But for some reason on the BPI website there is no mention of it.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)