Talk:Thriller 25/Archive 1

message: The BillBoard source says. There are 4 remixes and new unreleased songs which it names 1 as being "For all time". It also says there will be a bonus cd of Thriller,Billie Jean, Beat it and Motown 25th performance. Therefore with a MINIMUM of 5 new songs and the bonus cd of music videos its definately entitled to its own page. Realist2 (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extent of new material 

message: YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, what does everyone think of this article? I haven't been on wiki for ages, and I come back and GOD I miss just sitting and cranking out the words [and citations]!!!! God I miss this. I'm going to make the new album page an FA when Michael releases it. This is so damn fulfilling and fun. And to those who say this ain't a notable album, I think after reading it you will realize that it IS a notable album. Thriller 25 is notable enough to warrant its own individual page. --Paaerduag (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thriller 25 

message: How does reading this suggest the album warrants it's own page? Seriously? There's lots of great stuff in here, but it would be more effective merged into the original Thriller page. A lot of stuff about the album (tracklist, music videos, statements about the original album) could be cut out, and everything would be easier to access.
My argument is not that this is not NOTABLE for a new page, but that having it on a new page rather than the Thriller one does not add anything. All it does is make sure more space on Wikipedia is dedicated to Michael Jackson. Which does no one any favours. One thing Wikipedia aims to be is INFORMATION EFFICIENT.
Music videos and stuff make it special? Then go make a new page for every visionary single. Pointless, yes?(The Elfoid (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thin we should remove the tracklist because someone told me (here in wikipedia) that its is not the final list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.74.58 (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: Just wondering, this section might better suit the main MJ article. My thinking is...this year he's got a new single, a new album, possibly a new tour, Thriller 25, possibly a Jackson 5 reunion tour, possibly a Jackson 5 greatest hits...it seems like this year Epic are promoting Michael Jackson in general - not Thriller specifically. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion 

message: OK, my two other editors of this page. You don't like saying that? OK, I admit I don't like the phrasing. But I think somehow we need to make it clear that it's not common for a 49 year old to collaborate with three people aged 30, 32 and 34 (I might be wrong on those ages, think I'm right), and just saying 'younger' isn't enough. Any other suggestions, since "significantly" clearly isn't working?
(The Elfoid (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "significantly younger" thing 

message: Good point, it's not history. But we should put it in there when the album's been out about a month I'd say. Good compromise? It'll become historical information by then. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion 

message: I think that the Thriller 25 logo should stay for these reasons:
#1. This isn't just an ordinary album. This is a re-release of THE MOST significant album, and for that alone I think the logo is important. 
#2. ... it makes the article look nice!!!
oh shit, I just had an epiphany. wait... I know what we can replace the logo with!!! everyone hold on for like one minute --Paaerduag (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  logo 

message: There is'nt an actual certain release date yet, many people and fansites have told me different things, one told me November 19 2007, one told me February 9, one told me February 12 and someone else told me Febroary 12 2008.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.137.150 (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Date

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#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: 
#:: </div>
Pbroks13 (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA On Hold

message: I much prefer listing all the tracks in one go like that. So even if we decide to re-jig it to include the 2001 re-issue tracks, we should stick to that format I think. As with much of the content I edited on this article, the previous method was just too flowery and though nice visually, less efficient from a practical point of view. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  INTERNE's edits to tracklist 

message: Someone should add that to the page perhaps. I'm not sure where, but I like the idea.(The Elfoid (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Thriller album cover 

message: Just because #1 of the the good article criteria fails miserably, I have deceided to fail this nomination. Check WP:MoS, WP:DATE, and WP:FOOT
* "In late 2006 Jackson did an interview with Billy Bush for Access Hollywood" needs a comma after 2006.
* "We [Jackson and will.i.am] haven't really discussed it yet" -- the brackets should be parethesis
* References should be after the punctuations.
* Fix dates per WP:DATE
* Is it Will.i.am or will.i.am?? Try to keep it consistent.
* "There will be 'a multi-faceted global marketing campaign featuring high-profile poster, radio, online adverts as well as 30 second Television adverts that will begin on February 11th 2008[7]" The parenthesis doesnt end??
* "Also included are a DVD and a booklet." - It should be the subject first, then the predicate
* "Tracks 1-12 and 18 produced by Quincy Jones. Tracks 14-17 produced by will.i.am. Tracks 1-9 from original release, tracks 10-13 from Special Edition 2001 re-release and tracks 14-18 newly released with Thriller 25." - Lets try complete sentences.
Feel free to nominate this article again. Pbroks13 (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Fail 

message: There's alleged full remixes on certain sites. However, are these even real? They match the song length mentioned in the article, but those are unsourced. I'm gonna add a citation needed sign.
By the way, many people don't seem to like the alleged remixes very much. Frankyboy5 (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are the remixes real?

message: The article says that the bonus track "For All Time" is a Thriller-eara track, and accurately cites this. I've seen this quoted in articles, and indeed, in the press release and official information from the record company. However, like many things with Jackson, I believe this to be untrue.
I believe that this song was recorded around 1990, for the Dangerous album. Here's why:
1. U.S. Copyright records show that a song called "For All Time" was  copyrighted in March 1991. One of its writers was David Paich, a frequent Jackson collaborator. See  this record  form the U.S. Copyright Office.
2. This song has been floating around on the Internet for a while, and I have always seen it labeled as an outtake from the Dangerous sessions from around 1990. No definitive proof, but somethigng to keep in mind.
3. The synth sounds do not sound like anything from the  Thriller era. To my ear, this sounds like something from the Bad or post-Bad era.
Any thoughts?
I agree entirely i got it off the internet myself and the cite said it was a Dangerous outake. The voice does sound like its from the Dangerous era i have to say. Dangerous is my favourite album and it really does sound like something off that. Another thing I have noticed is all the "Leaks" for Thriller 25 were really easy to get hold of but I still haven`t been able to get hold of the leak of "For All Time". The only "For All Time" I can find is the old 1. Sony are saying that its going to be newer and fresher but I cant find this new "Leak" anywhere. Realist2 (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For All Time: Not Thriller-era? 

message: Should it be on it's own with tracklisting and DVD as sub-sections, or should it be a sub-section to history with tracklisting/DVD upped in header size and made separate from 'content'? Only a minor issue but one I am unsure how to deal with. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The big arguments on Wiki are always these little things, it's sad I guess. I've always been a quibbler for details though. (The Elfoid (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: ==== Track listing ====
=====DVD=====
(The Elfoid (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The big arguments on Wiki are always these little things, it's sad I guess. I've always been a quibbler for details though. (The Elfoid (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: =====DVD=====
(The Elfoid (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The big arguments on Wiki are always these little things, it's sad I guess. I've always been a quibbler for details though. (The Elfoid (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track listing 

message: (The Elfoid (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The big arguments on Wiki are always these little things, it's sad I guess. I've always been a quibbler for details though. (The Elfoid (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD

message: hey in the article there is a word "accross" . Is this the correct spelling ? It looks odd to me . Should there be  "double c" and  "double s". Realist2 (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be "across".  One 'c'. - eo (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling 

message: There is no consensus at this time - FOR nor AGAINST - a merge.  If work is going to be done on the Thriller (album) article in the meantime, that is fine.  But merge tag is in place to allow other users to see it and voice their thoughts here.  Do not remove it please. - eo (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Realist, I responded on your talk page.  There is not a consensus here, neither FOR nor AGAINST.  It is not hurting anything to keep the merge tag on the page while you, or whomever else, works on the main Thriller album.  I've seen arguments for both options here.  There is no reason to "re-ignite" the debate later, when the tag can remain the whole time.  The more editors who contribute, the better, whether it is for or against a merge. - eo (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Explain how and why any comments now would be irrelevant later.  As I have stated all along, it is not about the length of either article, but about the nobility of the 25 version.  I don't feel that you understand the concept of finding a consensus.  The only reason these are separated now is because the 25 article just so happened to be created first.  It could have easily been a debate about "splitting" them, if 25 info was put inside the Thriller article first.  You do not own this article, Realist, nor do you own the Thriller article nor any other Michael Jackson related page.  If you feel that all of this conversation will be meaningless later, then you should have no problem keeping the merge tag in place until this upcoming, magical time in the future will make everyone's opinions valid. - eo (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I do not think I own this or any page - if I really felt that way I would have gone ahead and merged this without any discussion at all.  I am not deleting information, I am not attempting to destroy or sabotage either article, I'm not just "doing what I please" without thinking about others or the good of Wikipedia.  My only point here is to keep the tag on the page because there is no deadline or hurry to remove it.  The tag is there to invite contributions; it is not there to ruin the article or to make it look sloppy or discredit it. - eo (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You're talking about the notability of the article again, like everyone has. Though for now I say don't merge, and later we should, I insist everyone should stop saying "It is notable enough to get it's own page because...". If it is more informative, easier to understand, and fits well into the Thriller article it will go there, got it? Notability isn't important. It's notable enough that if there is a large enough amount of information with no other appropriate place, it should have it's own page. Debating it's notability is not getting anyone anywhere. (82.69.60.98 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting the merits of either "side"'s arguments aside for a moment, there's already precedent on Wikipedia for information about separate editions of the same album to be included in one article, even if one or more editions features new content and packaging—see Thank You (Jamelia album), The Emancipation of Mimi and B'Day, for example. I believe that it would be more beneficial to start a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums and work out some sort of guideline for situations such as this one. For what it's worth, I think that because neither this article nor the Thriller (album) one are very long and are about the same album—albeit one available in more than one edition—a merge should take place. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: side note: merge tag should not be removed

message: "For All Time"
Written and composed by Michael Sherwood, David Paich and Steve Porcaro
Sources: CMRAA: http://www.cmrra.ca/home4/home4.html - search for Song #: 414155 (CMRRA = Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Ltd.), "For The Record" (book, ISBN: 07552 20678), JacksonVillage (forum)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.85.186 (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For All Time - correct songwriters/composers (with sources) 

message: Got The Hots, which is available on Japanese editions, has been added and removed several times now. Please leave it. This can be read on most MJ news pages, discussion boards, can be found on hmv.co.jp (page also available in English) and has been confirmed by Sony Music Japan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiterallySimon (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Got The Hots 

message: P.Y.T. 2008 is based on the original demo written by Michael Jackson and Greg Phillinganes (released in 2004 on The Ultimate Collection) and not on the (rewritten) original Thriller album version by Ingram/Jones.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.25.128 (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songwriter PYT 2008