Talk:The Second Stage Turbine Blade

message: I was just reading this article and there is a summary from "Sanchez's website, www.evilinkcomics.net"  I was searching for the website, and I can't find it. Is that correct or is something wrong there?  Also, doesn't that summary need a citation? (that's the whole reason I was looking)
Sorry, I'm not too great at this editing stuff yet.
Zatbofhbq (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Website? 

message: Does the characters list really need to include characters that don't even appear in this album? Especially the 10 speed? 66.31.6.101 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No; removed. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters 

message: I seem to have a different version of Time Consumer than my friend. His has a techno sound clip leading into the song from about 0:02 to 0:03, where I do not. I'm assuming this is because of the re-release, but does anyone know which track is the original? Note, the song sounds different and of a bit higher quality on his version. Because of this, I'm guessing his is on the re-release and mine is the original. Can someone confirm this? --- 70.232.59.249 20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the reissue, and I don't hear what you're talking about at all. I've also heard a friend's original (non-reissue) copy of the CD, and her version is the same as mine. C.V. Reynolds (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have both versions of this cd and time consumer is definitely different on the reprint version than it is on the original. The original version sounds cleaner and has more samples in it. the guitar is a bit different (or at least mixed differently) also the chorus has some sort of electronic echo sounding vocal effect on it. Why they changed it on the reprint I don’t know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.240.17 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even remember writing in this subject before, but apparently I did earlier this year. Odd. Anyway, I may have been mistaken or listening to some crap rip. I'll try to compare the two side-by-side and check for differences. C.V. Reynolds (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Consumer 

message: The Personnel list does not mention a pianist or keyboardist, yet the Trivia section mention a piano part on the last track of the album. There is another piano part audible at the end of "everything Evil."
Attys (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personnel 

message: :Image:CoheedAndCambriaSSTB.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CoheedAndCambriaSSTB.jpg

message: Okay, I think I'll go ahead and start the RFC now so that we can solve this disagreement. The question is, are pop punk, emo, post-hardcore and hard rock eligible to be included in the infobox alongside progressive rock? Here a list of sources I've gathered for each genre:
Progressive rock (currently the only genre in the infobox): AllMusic, Melodic.net, SputnikMusic Staff Review
Pop punk: AntiMusic
Emo: Melodic.net, MTV, AntiMusic
Post-hardcore: Mind Equals Blown, RTE
Hard rock: Melodic.net
Be sure to check just what the sources say before giving input. If someone else finds any sources for these or any other genres, feel free to bring them up here too. Also note that some, but not all, of these sources are listed as reliable sources at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES (which naturally won't list every single reliable music source). Kokoro20 (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Melodic.net may not look reliable at first glance, due to their grammar, but the site is listed at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, which is obviously listed there for a reason. Would you support hard rock based on that source? Kokoro20 (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am aware that it is technically a reliable source, I was merely pointing out that I personally thought it didn't look professional and therefore didn't appear reliable. Personal opinion aside then, I'll agree to having hard rock listed as it does come from a reliable source. RHedmi (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. Well, since I now have two people agreeing with me to add emo, post-hardcore and hard rock, and three people against the AntiMusic source, I think I'm going to request closure here soon, if there's no further input from anyone. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I request that it not be closed yet. It's only been open 3 days or so. I would like another couple of days to examine the sourcing & opine. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I guess I can wait a little longer for you to give your own input, if that's what you want. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been 10 more days now. I think it's time to have this closed with the consensus of post-hardcore, emo and hard rock being added. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , I am happy for you to seek an uninvolved close. I would however, not concur with your estimate of where the consensus lies; there are unresolved synthesis & quality of sourcing concerns with emo and hard rock, as described below. I would also encourage editors involved in discussions not to claim a consensus, which may be seen as influencing the close. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

text:  Okay, I guess we'll avoid using that source then, unless we get anymore objections. What do you think of the addition of emo, post-hardcore and hard rock, based on the other sources for them though? Kokoro20 (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would concur that more information is better than less, but would also caution that more data is not the same as more information. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

text:  But why exactly don't you think emo and hard rock are supported by the Melodic.net source? To me, it reads like they are saying the album is emo, hard rock and progressive rock, rather than a progressive rock album influenced by emo and hard rock, because they use the word "sound", rather than saying "progressive rock with emo and hard rock influences", "characteristics" or "elements". This suggests they are also calling it an emo and hard rock album, as opposed to saying it's influenced by those genres. Kokoro20 (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , In the Melodic.Net source,  is a compound adjective, serving to qualify the categorisation "prog rock". I cannot concur that it supports an interpretation that the adjectival terms be given the same weight as the categorical noun; nor to agree that such is a reasonable reading of the source. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe not the same weight, but it still should provide some weight, at least additional weight to emo, since that's supported by another source too. And regarding the MTV source, sci-fi fantasy is not an established music genre (nor does any such term even have a page), but rather a term for an album theme. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be concerned that the entirety of the support for emo is a synthesis of these tiny pieces of weight such as this; as we do not have a singular reliable source which categorises the album as being of this genre, I can, at best, only weakly support such an addition. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Either way, I think it's time for a closure now. This has been up for a whole month now. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , Given that there have been no new voices, I am happy to concur that we should likely close. If you are happy to go with progressive rock, post-hardcore, emo, then I think we can agree a close; failing that, I am happy for you to seek a formal close. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added them now. I didn't do it before, because I've been doing other things lately, and haven't had much time to edit here on Wikipedia. So, I guess that's that. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: I propose merging The Second Stage Turbine Blade (comics) into this article. The comics article is WP:ALLPLOT, written WP:IN-U, and fails GNG for lack of RS. The comics appear to be notable solely as a brand extension for the album and would be best discussed in that context. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: What was the first part? I can't find any mention of the first part anywhere. 68.55.155.6 (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "part two of a tetralogy"