Talk:Pretty. Odd.

message: It was confirmied on NPR news radio on May 17,2008 that Panic's third single would be Northern Downpour. Here's the link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=90520630&m=90562774
:I created the page. You guys can have a look at/edit it: Northern Downpour. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Single 

message: It was confirmed that a song with its lyrics would be the first song on the album and later that the song itself would be on the album.Parralax (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: We're So Starving

message: I suggest moving the page to "Pretty Odd" (without the periods/full stops. There is no reason to include such punctuation in the album name, even the artwork does not show it. Furthermore, albums such as Nimrod (album) and Warning (Green Day album), which are typeset as nimrod. and Warning: are not given these extra characters. Also, this will prevent confusion and poor grammar usage when the name is used mid-sentence, for example:
* The new album Pretty. Odd." will be released....
* The new album Pretty Odd will be released....
Nouse4aname (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment. It seems people do not understand. The nimrod and Warning article titles were changed from their stylistic form, to a non-stylised form, as this is an encyclopedia. There is no need for the full stops - see MOS:TM "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization". Pretty. Odd. is not standard English, especially when in the middle of a sentence; Pretty Odd is. Furthermore, why is the name Pretty. Oddd with three d's? Nouse4aname (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, I understand that, but the fact remains that it is not written with the periods on the album artwork....Nouse4aname (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Yes, but what's not to say that the folding of the album's banner backwords between the words isn't to illustrate the periods without distracting from the album art. Either that or it could be to pay tribute to old style posters, banners, etc that used the folding of an banner in an image to represent the literary device of a period and Panic is simply paying tribute, afterall the image does look very much antique and their music reflects this. Knight Whitefire (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Also as Whydontyoucallme dantheman so very well put, the words Pretty and Odd are both adjectives so if you were to remove the periods from the album title you would be changing the meaning of the album from Attractive. Unusual. to a different meaning in which the adjective Pretty affects the adjective Odd. This would also also change the meaning of Pretty from Attractive to another one of it's meanings Moderately, in which case the meaning of the album would be Moderately Unusual. Knight Whitefire (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And what is the official meaning? They say they wrote it that way because they liked the look...that says nothing about the intended meaning. 131.251.33.62 (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  The official meaning is Attractive. Ususual. that's also why they included the periods in it's name and why they are selling it as Pretty. Odd. and not Pretty Odd, MTV did a whole article about this actually. Knight Whitefire (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The official meaning is Attractive. Ususual." source please...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nouse4aname (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know why they called the album what they did, because i do not know the band or their music. Were they deliberatly trying for a certain meaning? Or only getting attention by naming it with two sentences instead of the usual one? But I can confirm that according to their record company (as repeated at a reliable source, MTV) the albums name is "Pretty. Odd.": "Panic At The Disco Know Punctuation Better Than They Think." The manual of style discourages punctuation which is only decorative, but for this album it would also seem to be grammatically correct. Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool, thanks for the source. I withdraw my proposition to move the page in that case. (Not sure if I need to state this anywhere). Still damn annoying to write mid-sentence though! Nouse4aname (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move (Old) 

message: As we speak, song titles are being discovered
I will reference their locations if the song titles are changed from the magazine review one  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.117.240 (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah i see where you getting them from now but how do you know which songs are replacing which?Parralax (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 23:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: O wait nevermind i see it now well keep up the good workParralax (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm confused... are "Behind the Sea" and "She Had the World" OLD titles or did they suddenly change titles on us because they thought the old ones might be too weird? If they're changing those titles, I'll be pretty disappointed... they were my favorites. 71.59.154.161 (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song title changes 

message: Forget what I said before, if you look at iTunes under Pretty. Odd. (Deluxe Edition), you can see that it comes with a video for Nine In The Afternoon and Mad as Rabbits, therefor confirming that as a single I would think? http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPreorder?id=272682569&s=143441 Thedarkchao93 (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, not everyone can view that source, so it's not valid. Also, I highly doubt that they'd be releasing another single before the album even comes out. It should not be mentioned in the article until you provide a valid reliable source. Timmeh! 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they are 100% making a video for it.But that doesn't mean its going to be a single.It might not even be a music video it may just be a live performance iTunes has done that before.Parralax (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are making a video and you want to mention it in the article, it needs to be sourced. And yes, they can make a video without making the song a single. That's the most likely scenario in this case. Timmeh! 21:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Will this do as a source?  For anything?  http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=292914  MagZness (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me, but if you can provide a more reliable one, I suggest you do so. Some editors might not include AbsolutePunk as a reliable source. Timmeh! 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mad As Rabbits..is that the video they are shooting in February that was mentioned on their website? I'm really confused. JazzlineB (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Mad as Rabbits and Things have Changed are the same song. And also i wouldnt rule out the possibility of a second single before the realease of the album.Lenny Kravitz did it recently.But we can't put any information until it is confirmed.Parralax (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: What "Final Challenge" puzzle? The source listed does NOT state it as being a single, just that a video is being made for it. If you can find a reliable source specifically stating that it is the second single, you can reinsert that information. The original source cited is not acceptable Timmeh! 01:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Timmeh it's not one source, their are two videos that I've been placing as sources. Also in the video AND video summary it says that that's the second single, please take the time to view the sources. Knight Whitefire (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A different source was there before that didn't state it as a single. Why don't you tell me how I knew that the source did not state it if I don't look at sources? Timmeh! 02:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Every source I've used tonight I added together at the same time, not one after another. Also as for the A Fever You Can't Sweat Out source that source was there just not immediately after the section you kept deleting, it was down one pop culture fact down because it was a reference for all of the pop culture facts and you the only one whos ever made it so we had to post the same reference eleven times over and over again. Knight Whitefire (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second single 

message: These guys are not rock.. anyone with ears can tell they aren't rock.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.108.176 (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Id just go for pop-rock or something along those lines, instead of sugar coating it with the bloody overused Emo, which weirdly any successful pop-punk or rock sorta band get either called Emo or sellouts... ha.(86.154.242.202 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say this album is closest to Baroque Pop but thats just based on the sound i have no source for it.Parralax (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. We should also but Sunshine Pop cause there's a few songs that fit better in that category.Parralax (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  Baroque pop sounds about right to me. Just listen to some Rufus Wainwright and then listen to the album. Can we say Baroque pop without a source, though? Vash Aurion 18:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, infoboxes should only show the most general genres, and baroque pop and sunshine pop are subgenres. Also, you're never going to find any sources, so I removed them and put pop rock and alt. rock up which are best for the infobox. Discuss subgenres in the main article. Timmeh! 19:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock? 

message: Has the album leaked? Ive heard a few songs here and there on youtube and other sites but has the full album actually gone up? (86.154.242.202 (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the record label released the album to MTV so it could put it up for listening. I think it would be pretty hard for the band to be on the leak playing each song several times per second perfectly matching album quality while people listened to them. =) Timmeh! 23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  leak? 

message: I think we should make this a section. Reception has been mixed and common themes seem to be that they used to many tactics used by The Beatles,they were too experimental,and this record fits better with albums of the 60s and 70s than now. I personally think those comments are all bull(except the last one but they say like an insult even though its one of the greatest compliments i've ver heard),but we should include it anyways.Parralax (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this, and I agree with the comments. I watched the Nine in the Afternoon video, and the costumes are straight up Sgt. Pepper. It like a pale imitation of that album, though Wikipedia's not a place for opinions. Yeah, make a critical reception section.
But the reviews that link to this page have been generally positive. But I gree with the addition of a reception section. Roxyr (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Obviously, you don't know what a "good source" is. A good source is reliable and third-party. In the case you mentioned, it is a reliable source. And the writer is not wrong. Panic is a very big band at the moment, much bigger than Muse, U2, and The Rolling Stones are at this point in time. Plus they're all British bands, but in your mind, I'm sure you think all American bands suck. Prejudice revealed. :) Timmeh! 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical Reception

message: Well, I'm from Puerto Rico and the CD's already on sale at every major retail store. Just got my copy at Specs. Added the release date. --Luisdile02 (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early release 

message: As the album's been out for a few days now, I think a clean up is in order. As it is, the page is a slight mess. Roxyr (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a big mess. I removed some non-notable and unsourced info and cleaned up a little, but someone needs to completely reorganize the page and add some sources. Timmeh! 02:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Songs are getting turned into blank links because people are trying to start rumors of singles for songs, this needs to be taken care of  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarkchao93 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, who's up to the task? Roxyr (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: My French teacher [Who was born and raised in France] says herself Pas De Cheval means "No Horse" and anyone who knows a little bit about negatives in the language will say the same thing. Even Google Translate says it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarkchao93 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pas De Cheval Translation 

message: I can't seem to find any website which has Pretty. Odd.'s status as to how many albums it has sold to date.--Panic!out (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can you find out how many copies it has sold? 

message: This article says the title of the album came from the lyric in That Green Gentleman, yet the article for that song says "The title of the album was already decided before the line, 'Things are shaping up to be pretty odd.' was written."  The latter has citation.
24.69.9.216 (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion about title origin

message: This genre should be removed. I heard maybe one synthesizer and maybe one punk song. Domokato (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthpunk