Talk:Minutes to Midnight (Linkin Park album)/Archive 1

message: The name of the new CD has no where been confirmed to be Trials and Tribulations, that was just what the interviewer guessed, so people need to stop putting that it is the official title. Also "QWERTY" has not been confirmed as "Lies", "Behind Your Lies", or anything else, as far as I know of. It may not even be on the final cut of the album, so until someone can link a source that says otherwise, "QWERTY" is still "QWERTY".WIKI-GUY-16, 9 December(UTC)
:"QWERTY" is "QWERTY", and it will not be on the album  --SayCheese 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it really necessary to change the article to T and T? It would be more appropriate to keep it as Linkin Park's third studio album and then when the entire title is released change it to the name. --SayCheese 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: u_u ... now someone changed the start of the article to read "T_____ and T________ is an upcoming album by Linkin Park. The record, whose title is currently provvisory, is set for a February 2007 release."--R-Tiztik 20:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This talk page is whack, who said "QWERTY" isn't gonna be on the album, they never confirmed or denied it.
And of course the albums gonna be released....unless they all die... APACOlypse27 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "QWERTY" is not going to be on the album. "The six-track EP features two songs from the band's current studio session for their upcoming album and some unreleased live tracks. "Over the last year we have written so many new songs and really wanted to give some of the early ideas to our hardcore fans that will not be on the new album," said LP's Rob Bourdon. "Other tracks include a live version of an old track from back when our band was called XERO, and some special live tracks we played at the Japan shows this past August." --SayCheese 11:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "The Morning After" is the title of a song that Chester performed in 2001 and is not going to be the name of the album. "Giving In" is a song by Adema and has been mistakingly credited as Linkin Park for years. --SayCheese 06:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: SayCheese, the title of the album could be The Morning After. But no one has confirmed nor denied it. It remains a possibility. It is a song of Chester's, but so many albums have names that also the name is from a song.RichV 22:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Funny how instead of Trials and Tribulations (T and T) its Minutes to Midnight (M to M). -- Riffsyphon1024 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: QWERTY is actually part of the linkin park underground albums. erm LPU 0.6 i think, and therefore it has already been released, hence the reason it came out like 6 months ago. And QWERTY is the same as LP's old sound (wich in my opinion was very good, and should really be changed) but yer the single What i've done is very good, and hopefully the rest fo the album will be like it. --168.224.1.14 12:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO told! 71.206.136.69 01:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Trials and Tribulations'' and "QWERTY" 

message: What happened to the February 20, 2007 release date?  Was it not true?--R-Tiztik 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linkin Park's third studio album is set for a April 2007 release. The vocals have been confirmed as completed and the album will be 100% and in the bands hands sometime in January. A video will be filmed shortly after and the video will hit the airwaves in February. The title has yet to be announced.
OFFICIAL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.45.201.68 (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don't edit the page with that information until you have a website source which proves it. As of right now, the band has only said that they are almost done with vocals and that the album will be released in the spring. --SayCheese 19:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Who added June 26, 2007 as the release date, and whoever it is, please provide proof from a reliable source. Hello2112 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, since when did "us Yanks" not understand what 'Autumn' meant? I mean sure, I'd wager it's not used as often as 'Fall' here, but it's still a VERY common word. --Foot Dragoon 04:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm ticked now first they say Summer 06 then Fall 06 then Febuary 07 then March and now Summer. Just pick 18 songs and put the rest in under ground CD's.Sam ov the blue sand 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Some articles say summer, some say spring. It's only definite once the band actually sets a date. --SayCheese 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What were you saying? -- Riffsyphon1024 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Now I wish this was a lie. R-Tiztik 21:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I wish it is just as it is now. The best debut of this year, great album, wonderful songs...
=== Release date pattern? ===
What is this supposed to be? Does anyone object to deleting this section? It seems like complete original research to me, not to mention you can't determine patterns from just two dates. bob rulz 22:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How about putting an infamous TBA? Catatonic89 23:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It has been officially announced as 14th May outside the USA and Canada, and the 15th May in USA and Canada.--Au revoir!008xtreme 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The Herald Sun in Australia first reported the release date, or so i believe. This date is also backed up by Australian retail websites such as www.sainity.com.au which all list the release as the 12th. - D.Kelly, Melbourne, AU 203.28.244.254 15:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: LP's timer counts down to the official North American release date. If the album is in fact being imported to other countries prior to May 14 then that isn't information that should be completely disregarded. R-Tiztik 05:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Was it actually out EU-wide (barring the UK) on the 11th? Ireland is pretty much the only country with the weird Friday->Thursday chart (thank you, Evening Herald...) so all albums are released on Fridays here - which the 11th was. It makes no financial sense to release an album on the 'wrong' day for the charts to start though. --85.134.141.187 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date 

message: What is this supposed to be? Does anyone object to deleting this section? It seems like complete original research to me, not to mention you can't determine patterns from just two dates. bob rulz 22:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about putting an infamous TBA? Catatonic89 23:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It has been officially announced as 14th May outside the USA and Canada, and the 15th May in USA and Canada.--Au revoir!008xtreme 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date pattern? 

message: Since when is this coming out in EU on the 11th and AU on the 12th?  Source or it's getting changed back to the 14th. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeamOverload (talk • contribs) 12:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Herald Sun in Australia first reported the release date, or so i believe. This date is also backed up by Australian retail websites such as www.sainity.com.au which all list the release as the 12th. - D.Kelly, Melbourne, AU 203.28.244.254 15:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: LP's timer counts down to the official North American release date. If the album is in fact being imported to other countries prior to May 14 then that isn't information that should be completely disregarded. R-Tiztik 05:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Was it actually out EU-wide (barring the UK) on the 11th? Ireland is pretty much the only country with the weird Friday->Thursday chart (thank you, Evening Herald...) so all albums are released on Fridays here - which the 11th was. It makes no financial sense to release an album on the 'wrong' day for the charts to start though. --85.134.141.187 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date Changes? 

message: We have a world release date for the 14 May 2007 and then a release date for every country where it differs. I don't see why we need United Kingdom release date and Philippines release date because it is already covered by the world release date. I will wait day or two before removing it from the menu if their is any objections? Openhazel 06:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom and Philippines release date, Why? 

message: Why does the release date in the first sentence keep getting erroneously changed to the 15th May when it was available in many parts of the world before this, and the first release date is 9th May in Cyprus. It should reflect the first release date, not the US release date. Ben W Bell talk 14:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence release date. 

message: === Working Titles ===
Uhh, duz working titles mean working album names or working track namez, thanx - NJ Rock
:Track names RichV 22:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the questions answered by the band to one of the questioners in the talk to the band thing.
So isn't the confirmed track listing
In the Club
Wangsta
Nuthin' but a g thang?
--59.183.137.239 14:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sarcasm is golden.  Expecially to Joe Hahn.  Hello2112 23:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you think LP would write a song called "My December"? Oh wait they fucking did. The track listing is not wrong. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 4, Source 5, Source 6, Source 7, Source 8, Source 9, and Source 10. Don't say stupid shit, if it wasn't sourced it wouldn't appear on Wikipedia. And on a side note, "In Da Club" and "Wanksta" are 50 Cent songs and "Nuthin' But A "G" Thang" is a Dr. Dre song. R-Tiztik 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just saying 0:) R-Tiztik 15:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's nothing wrong with your CD. The moderators at windowsmedia.com who set up the track titles and information that gets filled in when you insert a CD tend to make a load of mistakes. If you are intending to rip the CD you'll have to fill out the IDv3 tags yourself to make it correct. R-Tiztik 23:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No it wasn't. No one knows what the pre-order exclusives are. --SayCheese 17:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's NOT a bonus track, the bonus tracks are confirmed as No Roads Left and Grecian. 008'/,treme 17:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thnx for the information. Sharmask7777 08:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually it's more like the solo in the middle of Day of Judgement, the theme of Justice from Guilty Gear XX Reload. It's similar to Silent Scorn, but not noticably..:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. 11:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track listing 

message: Uhh, duz working titles mean working album names or working track namez, thanx - NJ Rock
:Track names RichV 22:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working Titles 

message: what are some of the new song names?
in the club, wangsta, nuthin' but a g thang. -joe
:This is one of the questions answered by the band to one of the questioners in the talk to the band thing.
So isn't the confirmed track listing
In the Club
Wangsta
Nuthin' but a g thang?
--59.183.137.239 14:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarcasm is golden.  Expecially to Joe Hahn.  Hello2112 23:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you think LP would write a song called "My December"? Oh wait they fucking did. The track listing is not wrong. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 4, Source 5, Source 6, Source 7, Source 8, Source 9, and Source 10. Don't say stupid shit, if it wasn't sourced it wouldn't appear on Wikipedia. And on a side note, "In Da Club" and "Wanksta" are 50 Cent songs and "Nuthin' But A "G" Thang" is a Dr. Dre song. R-Tiztik 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just saying 0:) R-Tiztik 15:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's nothing wrong with your CD. The moderators at windowsmedia.com who set up the track titles and information that gets filled in when you insert a CD tend to make a load of mistakes. If you are intending to rip the CD you'll have to fill out the IDv3 tags yourself to make it correct. R-Tiztik 23:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song listing wrong? 

message: Where is it confirmed that the band recorded a title track called "Minutes to Midnight", and that it's an iTunes Pre-Order exclusive? I can understand why they could have pre-order exclusive tracks since it's nothing new, but for a title track to be one of them? It should have been on the album if it exists at all. R-Tiztik 16:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it wasn't. No one knows what the pre-order exclusives are. --SayCheese 17:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's NOT a bonus track, the bonus tracks are confirmed as No Roads Left and Grecian. 008'/,treme 17:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thnx for the information. Sharmask7777 08:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title track? 

message: The song "No More Sorrow" seems to have a very similar riff and drumming style to the end of Megadeth's "Silent Scorn".
:Actually it's more like the solo in the middle of Day of Judgement, the theme of Justice from Guilty Gear XX Reload. It's similar to Silent Scorn, but not noticably..:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. 11:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No More Sorrow" 

message: === AOL Review ===
When did AOL review Minutes to Midnight? Unless there is a link to verify this the starred review needs to be taken off. --SayCheese 23:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably came from this review of What I've Done. ErleGrey 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How can users rate the album? It isn't out nor has it leaked hahahaha. It's just silly. R-Tiztik 04:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia standards are that all general information be sourced to prove its authenticity. You could write anything but sources help to denote true information from vandalism and mistakes. R-Tiztik 16:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Rolling Stone fixed that error, it's on the review page also as a 4 STAR review.
=== NY Times Review ===
Didn't seem "unfavorable". Not high praise, but not low blows. Tcardone05 06:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The NY Times review is favourable.
Seems pretty unfavorable to me. Curtainly not favorable. Rehevkor 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Plz remove the NOW magazine review, it is so unprofessional and childish. Bad reviews should be acceptable to put up on here, but that review is pathetic. You can tell the reviewer who reviewed it, hated HT and Meteora. Therefore it seems like a pointless review.PlayingTheAngel 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know who did, but I don't think it matters, because you will not always have a balance.  For example, what about songs that are considered the best ever that have more positive than negative reviews?Closetoeuphoria 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think you should choose reviews based on whether they're positive or negative.  Choose them based on their reliability.  If a couple reliable websites outweigh the positives/negatives, then that's how it truly was received.  Whether or not it's more positive or negative should be determined by the reviews, not by users who add or remove reviews in order to prove their own opinion. Closetoeuphoria 21:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: When did AOL review Minutes to Midnight? Unless there is a link to verify this the starred review needs to be taken off. --SayCheese 23:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably came from this review of What I've Done. ErleGrey 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How can users rate the album? It isn't out nor has it leaked hahahaha. It's just silly. R-Tiztik 04:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia standards are that all general information be sourced to prove its authenticity. You could write anything but sources help to denote true information from vandalism and mistakes. R-Tiztik 16:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AOL Review 

message: Didn't seem "unfavorable". Not high praise, but not low blows. Tcardone05 06:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NY Times review is favourable.
Seems pretty unfavorable to me. Curtainly not favorable. Rehevkor 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY Times Review 

message: I'm not entirely clear on what wikipedia's definition of "professional reviews" is, but I'm sceptical about whether that term applies to alot of the reviews listed here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for example, aren't the reviews on Twisted Ear and Sputnikmusic just amateur user-submitted content? If so, should they really be included when so many other (and more professional reviews) are available? I dunno... just wondering. 206.248.157.234 18:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plz remove the NOW magazine review, it is so unprofessional and childish. Bad reviews should be acceptable to put up on here, but that review is pathetic. You can tell the reviewer who reviewed it, hated HT and Meteora. Therefore it seems like a pointless review.PlayingTheAngel 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know who did, but I don't think it matters, because you will not always have a balance.  For example, what about songs that are considered the best ever that have more positive than negative reviews?Closetoeuphoria 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think you should choose reviews based on whether they're positive or negative.  Choose them based on their reliability.  If a couple reliable websites outweigh the positives/negatives, then that's how it truly was received.  Whether or not it's more positive or negative should be determined by the reviews, not by users who add or remove reviews in order to prove their own opinion. Closetoeuphoria 21:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional reviews? 

message: It should be of note that both The Herald Sun and Los Angeles Times use four-star scales instead of a five-star. Just giving a heads-up before anybody decides to change it. Tehcrusha 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating Scales 

message: I added this review because people kept adding negative reviews from no-name places, so I thought I would add one from a more reputable source. Trouble is someone seems to disagree with me and keeps changing it to "Favorable". Would this person care to explain themselves? I would like other opinions on this as well.Tehcrusha 23:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billboard Review 

message: This is not the first time Mike will sing lead vocals.
:Songs such as; Step Up, High Voltage, Dedicated, It's Going Down feature Mike having the role of being the lead vocalist.
Please edit that statement in the trivia section as it is false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.108.224.122 (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit it yourself. Why can't you do it?--DannyBoy7783 08:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, you ignorant person
Note the key word SINGS. This won't be the first time he's a lead vocal (rap-wise), but it WILL be his first time SINGING vocals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.110.196.155 (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How do you know that's what he/she meant by "sings." This could just denote that Mike performed the lead vocals in general. Until the album (or the track itself) is heard there's no knowing for sure. R-Tiztik 18:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I wonder why they never seem to have more than 12 songs on major albums. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Metora had 13 tracks, if you count session.71.206.136.69 06:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: hmmm yea i suppose i forgot about it cause it just sounds like the beginning to Don't Stay buy take out the instrumentals and the first two each have 11 tracks, with minutes having 12(counting the instrumental "Wake Up") otherwise its 11 with that two, pattern?? 71.206.136.69 05:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: dude ur daft, if this wasnt the best it was Hybrid Theory hands down!Speakethnow to me! 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: From memory I recall that every Rammstein album has 11 tracks. It's probably coincidence, unless someone can provide a reason for some bands having similar or identical track numbers on multiple CDs? I'm curious. Anyway I don't have any particular preference for which album is "the best"...I find MtM was a nice breath of fresh air, it's good to see the band going in a different direction, despite myself not liking the majority of the end tracks..:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Half of the trivia section is based on "xx" will be the first Link Park song to feature.... so on. You can't source that. If you listen to the leak or buy the album on the 15th (or before depending what country to live in), that's how you source that. R-Tiztik 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly, but the album isn't out yet, it leaked but it isn't out still. You can't exactly link to the song and use that as a reference. If the album were out it would be common knowledge, but it isn't so people just have to believe it. R-Tiztik 17:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: I am adding a  tag to the Trivia section. If someone could find sources for the information please go ahead and add them. --RazorICE 07:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Half of the trivia section is based on "xx" will be the first Link Park song to feature.... so on. You can't source that. If you listen to the leak or buy the album on the 15th (or before depending what country to live in), that's how you source that. R-Tiztik 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly, but the album isn't out yet, it leaked but it isn't out still. You can't exactly link to the song and use that as a reference. If the album were out it would be common knowledge, but it isn't so people just have to believe it. R-Tiztik 17:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia is unreferenced 

message: I just removed the trivia section just now, placing facts in their appropriate areas, while removing unsourced info. Now this page is much much better by Wikipedia standards!!! Andrewlp1991 04:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed trivia section 

message: One of the links at the bottom of the page is incorrectly noted as the official 'Minutes to Midnight' page, when in fact it is just as fan-site. I'm willing to delete it, but I don't want to get yelled at lol.--Twenty8 02:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if i'm not mistaken, fansites get removed. it's not there now, and shouldn't be added back in. FyreNWater 07:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads Up: Links 

message: I went through this  and if you observe a "Singles" column on the left hand side of the page, you will see that Given up and shadow of the day are two new singles........ i have already updated the singles in wikipedia.--Sharmask7777 12:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pretty sad when a band decides the majority of the album's singles within 9 days of global release of an album. "Given Up" and "Shadow of the Day" are fair picks for singles (not that I enjoyed them much, but given what the album is working with these tracks are single-material), anyways... "Given Up" and "Shadow of the Day" are fair picks for singles, but to decide the majority of an album's singles (there's designated 3 now) and their release dates already... that's pretty bad, especially when they know what single will be released in 5 months. It's sourced, but I won't believe it until the band confirms it. R-Tiztik 20:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Singles According to billboard.com 

message: http://www.metrolyrics.com/minutes-to-midnight-album-linkin-park.html. i didnt know if this should be in the article
:Lyrics don't belong on Wikipedia, well maybe this link could go in the External Links section. Regardless I've been looking for the written lyrics so this is nice. R-Tiztik 05:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lyrics don't belong on Wikipedia. There is a lyric site, but I don't think it's associated with Wikipedia, but it's LyricWiki. There you should find lyrics. Minutes to Midnight is on there. They're still in the editing stages but they'll get it right... I hope this helps out a little.-Weatherman289 10:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: OK I got the link to the album. Just giving a heads up before I change the "Lyrics" link.-Weatherman289 10:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The tracks are out of order or not in the same order as the tracks on the album.-Weatherman289 16:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Haha! I looked at the "Wake" lyrics. I've heard that song before...I think it's Wake Me by Grey Daze, the band Chester was in before he joined Xero/Linkin Park. I'll have to listen to the song again, hehe..:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. 04:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics 

message: if some topics are irrelevant, or impossible to purposefully discuss, shouldn't they be removed, they take up space.Speakethnow to me! 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning 

message: You can take a look. You might want to add more sources and the citations, but it's a decent start. TheKillerAngel 17:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a reception section needed? It's just quoting some of the reviews linked in the sidebar. :--SayCheese 03:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Its very good. Brief and to the point, it filled the last necessary chunk of the article, thanks. :--Sharmask7777 15:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've started a section on the album's reception. 

message: BBB recently had a message for the fans thanking us. Should we put it in the album page? Maybe in the RECEPTION area. Or have it's own. We better quote the band's reactions about the people's reception of their new album.
Thank You from Brad - LP
Robutix 04:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worthy of note, however use of the word "us" is a bit ambiguous, as I was unsure when you wrote that as to indicate "wikipedians," "fans" or "every person in the world." Anyway, that aside, I think it'd alright to give the reference a home in the article, somewhere and somehow. --lincalinca 08:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message from the Band members 

message: We aren't done with the MTM article, and already there's a refference to a fourth album (on the right-hand thing with the album before and the next one).
:Geez, the forth album won't probably come for like the next several years...72.66.12.217 02:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth album? 

message: I removed this section because it was a clear copyright. Copying the text into Google, I could easily tell it had been copied. Anyone who wants to see the version history, here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minutes_to_Midnight_%28album%29&diff=133924132&oldid=133922102
Please, can, whoever it was, refrain from just copying text from webpages onto Wikipedia. If you really think that it is important for people to know that information, then please instead, provide a link in the External Links section instead of filling up Wikipedia. That's what it's there for.
Thanks, --rjcuk 20:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Descriptions and Song Meanings 

message: some fans continue to idolize and continue to think that they do Nu metal, metal..withou admit that a good part of the album sounds like generic Pop Rock.
pop rock should added, deleting for sure "rapcore" (1-2 songs not make the whole album rapcore..) and one between "alt metal" "alt rock" and "hard rock"
imho should be "alt metal", "alt rock", "pop rock"
Zagozagozago
Saying it's "generic pop rock," shows some bias from your side, which could bring the neutrality of your statement into question. Something akin to "alt rock" would suffice.
Do we really need to list TEN GENRES?! I know the album is diverse but I don't think acoustic guitars in one song justifies an entire genre.Tehcrusha 15:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: It seems like the changes to the albums genre section are never going to end. I think Alternative Rock suits the album just fine. Why? That's because it encompasses many different sounds and styles (read its page for yourself) There is no need to list such superfluous genres like Synth Rock and Pop Rock since many bands labeled as "Alternative Rock" utilize these genres as well. Not to mention the fact that none of those other genres have a real drastic influence on the album anyway. Please discuss.Tehcrusha 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitive Genre 

message: I remember something about this being the first LP album to have a guitar solo. Why was this removed?
(please sign your posts) it wasn't relevant enough, i guess. FyreNWater 00:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guitar Solo 

message: Did anyone notice that Pheonix is singing (just a little) in The Little Things You Give Away? --72.66.13.32 18:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, at the end, there are three people singing, Chester singing "oh" constantly, Mike singing "the little things give you away", and Pheonix singing "all you ever wanted was someone to truly look up to you". --72.66.18.142 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I'm aware that this isn't a forum but I just need to clear this matter up:  Phoenix only sings live, Mike and Chester did it in the studio version.  Hello2112 18:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering if this was true (and I'm pretty sure it's not, Mike does harmony) it'd be the very sort of information people would want to find on Wikipedia, perhaps try not to be so snappy? --NeF 16:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pheonix 

message: some idiot has vandalised the page and i dont know how to change it back88.97.6.98 14:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: vandalism

message: "It should also be noted that it is their first studio album to receive a parental advisory sticker."
"It should be noted that this is the band's first major commercial album to contain profanity."
"Unlike the two previous studio albums, Minutes to Midnight contains profanity and politically-charged lyrics."
Ok! Noted! - Do we really need to repeat this 3 times in the same article? Surely one reference alone to this should be adequate? --NeF 16:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profanity 

message: You know, it doesn't bode well for a page when half (3/4?) its fucking references are for chart positions. This page is completely fucked up.
I know what you mean. There's almost no citations. I wouldn't even know where to start looking for some of this shit. We'd almost be better off erasing the whole fucking thing and starting over (well someone else could, I'm too lazy).Tehcrusha 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: How come "Nu Metal" isn't in the genres? --BlooWilt on the wikiprowl, later! 15:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As previously stated, this is a stab in a new direction for the band. It is far and away, and agreed by its reviewers, not even vaguely related to their original style -Nu-Metal-. Thusly, how I see it, it CANNOT be Nu-metal. Or at least this is the reasoning I see. Arukan Harless 15:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Nu Metal? 

message: This edition was the first ever MVI disk release which is notable. John a s 07:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD/DVD Special Edition 

message: It's not rapcore and alternative metal because just Bleed It Out is the only rapcore song on this record! and just because one song is rapcore then it doesn't mean that the whole album is rapcore! and its not alt-metal because just given up and no more sorrow are alt-metal! so its better to say its just an alternative rock record!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.167.204.34 (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Alternative Rock 

message: I have removed the following, which was added by 189.157.52.41:
Other titles for demo songs were:
'Japan', 'Grecian', 'Chunky Monkey' and many more random names.
The reason for the material's removal is that there is no citation, and I feel that "many more random names" simply doesn't cut it; it's too informal. Qwerty (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demo names

message: Why is it so hard to understand that this record is alternative rock???There are so many musicstyles but the most are alternative rock!! just two songs are alternative metal so the whole album cannot be alt-metal and there is just one rapcore song!!!!! so the whole album cannot be rapcore too!!! you understand! alt-rock is the best style to discribed this record!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.167.215.209 (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Rock the second 

message: This album is currently number 70 in the bottom 100 albums of all time. 81.154.221.254 02:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rateyourmusic.com bottom 100