Talk:Valley of the Damned

message: Is there a source for this statement? Otherwise it's just down to opinion. --Jeff24 12:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, it would be nice to have a source verifying as such. --Dayn 03:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed it would. If I manage to find a solid reference I'll put it up here Cloudy 23:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Double Dragon

message: ...Is a very short keyboard swell that segues into Valley of the Damned, it's no-where near seven odd minutes, not even 15 seconds. --Dayn 12:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invocation of Apocalyptic Evil 

message: I removed an anonymous user's contribution about the chorus to Valley of the Damned using the same chord progression (as I understood it meant) as Pachelbel's Canon in D. I removed it because it said that it needed citation, which is pretty much an indication it doesn't belong, because it isn't cited. Besides, even on Canon in D it says it's a widely used chord progression... so unless an actual citation can be found (without original research) it shouldn't be there. I might investigate some of the other trivia things in other DragonForce related articles. --Dayn 12:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pachelbels Canon miscellanea 

message: I've renamed "miscellanea" to "trivia", and reworded things. For example, I removed "some say..." and "has been interpreted..." from the trivia; weasel words, and no citation. I reworded the third one about Invocation of Apocalyptic Evil so it doesn't require a citation... y'know, made it to the point and self-evident instead of making unverified claims. People'll get the idea it's sort of a joke track. --Dayn 10:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I'm curious...  why are the "Valley of the Damned" demo and the "Valley of the Damned" studio album sharing the same page?  Considering that they were released in different years, under different names, by different labels, and feature different band lineups, why not give them different pages? - - StormDrake (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they the demo alone is not notable enough to have its own page and was nom'd for deletion and because they share the same title, engineer, graphic designer and have most of the same band members, guest musicians and tracks. It makes far more sense to include the demo in the same article than nowhere at all if consider all those factors. — Balthazar (T|C) 14:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Demo and Album on the Same Page?

message: The 2010 release of this album was a full on remaster&remix, and that is how it was advertised. I have both releases, and on top of that, both are Japanese versions. 
Should a separate page be made for the remix&remaster, as this one was released in February 2010.
They both sound notably different, and there are rerecorded parts which Fred and Dave did.
As for the Valley of the Damned demo, I agree and I genuinely think that we could make a separate page for it. -TRMNTR 13:07, 11/8/2017 (GMT)
:I don't see why a separate page for the re-release is necessary, but a separate page for the demo is definitely valid in my opinion, as I don't particularly agree with the preceding argument on this subject, which is nine years old and probably has little bearing on the current landscape. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have misinterpreted what I said – I'm referring to the previous section (from 2008), where the more experienced user suggested that it was best not to create a separate page for the demo, which I disagreed with. I care because they're one of my favourite bands, as they are yours. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 23:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Then don't say "it has little to no bearing" if you care. Booklets are are great source of information. Do you need me to provide source that the 2010 version Remixed&Remastered? Because that's more than just a rerelease, in fact many other artists who remaster something, their stuff get called "remasters" on wikipedia pages, raw rereleases just called reissues. There is nothing wrong with calling it a remaster. Sonic Firestorm 2010 is just a reissue and the mastering is the same.  The 2010 version has slightly different song lengths from the 2003 release as well - the original page can contain information on the original release, the 2010 can contain the story how it was made et cetera. Both have a different story. As a matter of fact, remasters get their own tracklistings on the same page if not separate pages. What's wrong with doing the same for DragonForce? It's also important to note that the 2 demos are only on the Japanese 2010 Remix&Remaster, not on the original release. I'd be fine if we incorporated both original and remaster in one page as well. TerminatorZXY 10:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You have still misinterpreted what I said earlier... that doesn't matter now. What matters is, it's still a re-release, and it would be both easier and tidier to call it as such. Putting in the separate track list is fine and probably causes less issues, but that's it. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, that's how the band calls it "Valley of the Damned Remixed&Remastered" (and on spotify it's called 2010 version IIRC). Re-release isn't wrong, but remaster is a bit more specific (since re-release can refer to both reissue and remaster). Sonic Firestorm was a reissue, but the songs weren't touched and just released as is. Maybe I could add a note before the tracklist itself about it (The album was re-recorded, remastered and remixed in 2007 and re-released in 2010) or something along these lines. Can we agree to that? 188.2.100.166 (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I even respond to that, why are you editing while logged out? And also, why do you keep changing the dates and times on your signatures? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant. Regardless: I didn't notice I was logged out as I use multiple browsers. Just fairly new to wikipedia code editing itself as I'm not every familiar to it. TerminatorZXY 15:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to make sure that you're logged in everywhere, as that can be used as an excuse more than anything – and if you just click "~~~~", that will put your signature in without you having to do it manually (which is what I think you're saying). Anyway – it doesn't matter what the band calls it, because if we generally referred to a lot of things as their bands called them, Wikipedia would be in disarray. "Re-release" is not only accurate, but tidier, and it is more than perfectly acceptable to refer to the 2010 release as such. There's not even a need for a note beneath the track listing, as it is well enough described in the lead section alone. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 01:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, why do so many bands get to call their remasters as "remasters" and not just "re-releases"? Why can't DragonForce either? "Wikipedia would be in disarray" Source? TerminatorZXY 10:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you see it in other articles, doesn't make it right. Did you seriously just ask for a source for a Wikipedia (site)-related issue? I think you've now proven that there's nothing more to discuss – the way that it is currently set out is fine. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But your link does does not cover different (and in this case more accurate) naming/labeling and whatnot, which isn't misinformation in the first place -- that link just generally covers why certain articles exist, and most importantly, you were the first person to bring up wikipedia as a whole and that argument can be used against you "because if we generally referred to a lot of things as their bands called them, Wikipedia would be in disarray". What's wrong with calling it a remaster, especially when it is more accurate? How does calling it re-release make it any tidier? Every other platform calls the 2010 versions either remasters or just "2010 versions". Also, what you've said in the last sentence is not an argument. You directly referred to Wikipedia as a whole, and as a matter of fact, Wikipedia generally does name releases the way the band calls it, and I haven't seen that get challenged. Calling it differently can cause confusion, E.g. "Wait, is the re-armed edition the 2014 re-release wikipedia talks about?" TerminatorZXY 22:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 re-release 

message: The title & title track of this DVD, "Valley of the Damned©" were originally Copyrighted as Song Lyrics April 6, 1998 by Gary B. George & may be considered confusingly similar to a previously obtained copyright filing # PAu002286243 as Date of Filing sets a precedent.
Noise/EMI might want to consider contacting me about this potential conflict to clear it. 
/s/
Gary George 
Bad5150@gmail.com Bad5150 (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Infringement