Talk:Monster (R.E.M. album)

message: I wouldn't call it "gradual" in any way. The group went from three consecutive 4X platinum albums to one that merely went platinum and then the next album was gold. This album had two top 25 songs; New Adventures and all subsequent albums failed to have any top 45 songs!
In the U.S., they lost most commercial standing with New Adventures and the rest with Up and the subsequent albums. I think "gradual" is the wrong word to use. Bsd987 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - looking at the charts, it would seem to be less overwhelming, in the way a 15,000 foot mountain has less standing than a 22,000 foot mountain. Fantailfan 19:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "its radical artistic change is generally believed to have instigated R.E.M.'s gradual loss of commercial standing in their homeland, the United States." is really funny and without any source it should be removed. NAHIFI was a chart success. I would say that Up was the record when their sales in the USA started their "gradual loss". --Tbonefin 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Gradual loss of commerical standing"?

message: I disagree - I believe it was for River Phoenix, not Cobain. Stipe is kind of ambivalent on it but the "For River" note seems to make this clearer.Fantailfan 17:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. David Buckley's "REM: Fiction" biography states it's for Kurt Cobain, and I've always thought so too - but I suppose we should have some kind of further backup. Wezzo 17:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to concede.Fantailfan 16:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most of REM books refer to Cobain, eg. Marcus Gray ICFTS pp. 258. --Tbonefin 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Let Me In" for Kurt Cobain? 

message: I have merged this article into here - individual tracks do not merit their own article. BlueValour 22:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But why are so many Warner-era R.E.M. albums/songs so heavily NPOV? --Fantailfan 00:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of Comedy 

message: While I think that "Personnel" is kind of impersonal, it is a standard used for Wikialbums; Guests for Additional personnel follow under the same argument (I would prefer Additional contributors or something like that). Until the standard is changed, I'd prefer keeping to it. --Fantailfan 01:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band members vs. Personnel; Guests vs. Addiional Personnel 

message: Please do not remove professional reviews that are deemed acceptable by WikiProject Album standards. --Fantailfan 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing reviews 

message: No comments on why this was massively reverted? Please explain. --Fantailfan 01:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive reversion 

message: Hey! Between the two of you, you have edited over 10,000 pages; I have edited over 3500. As a disinterested observer, I am citing the unofficial "way too much time on our hands" doctrine: Let's 
compromise!
(a) Dudesleeper is correct on the dating. The reason for this is very simple: for many years now release dates have standardized on Tuesdays in America and Mondays in other places. The difference of a single day is not worth this craziness.
*Proposed:  We can use (as as has been the case elsewhere) one date with the UK release date and the second with the US one. You can even use cute little flag icons for them.
(b) There are no explicit guidelines on how to incorporate an album article in a discography.
*Proposed: We add a second discography using this format, with the albums discography taking top spot, the chronological one the second:
| Misc         = 
Discuss, please. -- Fantailfan (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. I'm just amused at the American(s) being offended that they have to wait an extra day for the album. - Dudesleeper /  Talk 09:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe it is because we have this Monday holiday thing here, so new releases of books, CDs, etc., are standardized on Tuesdays. --Fantailfan (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop the revert wars! 

message: I've been trying to clean this article up a bit, and then it was massively reverted recently by a user i am ignorant to know of, and i think the article is good material for a 'Good Article'.  Any thoughts? RedParakeet28 (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article? 

message: Michael's sister features on the album, why is she not mentioned on the page? 84.92.140.217 (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lynda Stipe 

message: I remember I had the album on a cassette and the two sides were called "C side" and 'D side". I don't know if that is relevant to point out, but I thought I'd do so anyway.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.235.147 (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Head/Tail sides or C/D sides?

message: I seem to recall that, at time of release, this album was being touted as a spiritual follow-up to the band's debut album, Murmur. Hence both albums being two-syllable words beginning with M and ending with R. This also explains the 'Side C' and 'Side D' thing; essentially this was the second part of a double-album. Anyone else remember this?--81.151.136.14 (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequel to Murmur?

message: This album was not sold 4 million times. It was sold 2,9 million copies. But here I see 4,000,000. It was shipped 4 million times.
But what hurts me. This album was overshipped. Meaning retailers ordered it and thought they will sell it but as a result the album was sold only 2,9 million times
in the 90s club sales had been popular. This album may have been sold 200000 copies via this way but not in total 4,000,000 times
please stop claiming false things. And this link 
 Let's R.E.M.-ember: 31 Billboard Chart Milestones Over The Band's 31-Year Career". billboard.com. Billboard. Retrieved 2011-09-24.
is error. Some cannot see numbers or so. Just photographs. But years ago when they broke up there were numbers. No idea why removed `?
And then I saw 2,9 million   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.57.236 (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Again false Sales Numbers

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Monster (R.E.M. album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823161445/http://australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=R%2EE%2EM%2E&titel=Monster&cat=a to http://australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=R.E.M.&titel=Monster&cat=a
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110921015824/http://austriancharts.at/showitem.asp?interpret=R%2EE%2EM%2E&titel=Monster&cat=a to http://austriancharts.at/showitem.asp?interpret=R.E.M.&titel=Monster&cat=a
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013042734/http://dutchcharts.nl/showitem.asp?interpret=R.E.M.&titel=Monster&cat=a to http://dutchcharts.nl/showitem.asp?interpret=R.E.M.&titel=Monster&cat=a
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160126084927/http://infodisc.fr/Album_R.php to http://infodisc.fr/Album_R.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021132813/http://charts.org.nz/showitem.asp?interpret=R.E.M.&titel=Monster&cat=a to http://charts.org.nz/showitem.asp?interpret=R.E.M.&titel=Monster&cat=a
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026150102/http://norwegiancharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=R.E.M.&titel=Monster&cat=a to http://norwegiancharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=R.E.M.&titel=Monster&cat=a
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100212051140/http://swisscharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=R%2EE%2EM%2E&titel=Monster&cat=a to http://swisscharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=R.E.M.&titel=Monster&cat=a
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105111425/http://hitparade.ch/year.asp?key=1993 to http://hitparade.ch/year.asp?key=1993
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monster (R.E.M. album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111012022455/http://austriancharts.at/1994_album.asp to http://austriancharts.at/1994_album.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Monster (R.E.M. album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715053900/http://www.guitarworld.com/superunknown-50-iconic-albums-defined-1994 to http://www.guitarworld.com/superunknown-50-iconic-albums-defined-1994
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110024146/http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O2.php?debut=650 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O2.php?debut=650
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monster (R.E.M. album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160311083738/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?brws_s=1&file_num=nlc008388.2686&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=mhe12pta2k83e08udtq66ot062 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?brws_s=1&file_num=nlc008388.2686&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=mhe12pta2k83e08udtq66ot062
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: removed the standard cover entirely and replaced it with the re-release cover. When I asked him why he did this, he just removed the thread. Is there some reason this happened or a consensus to remove the actual album cover that I'm missing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained change to cover