Talk:The Colour and the Shape

message: If you're a fan of organization, which is really what online encyclopedias are all about (organizing/storing/supplying information) and consistency, I suggest whoever is doing it, to leave the article alone. 
There is absolutely no good reason whatsoever to change or tamper with information that is already sufficient. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Don't go out of your way to change something if it doesn't need to be done.
Capisce? Spooky873 (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  If it ain't broke, don't fix it 

message: This album has always been listed under Alternative rock, leave it that way. It is not anything else, ESPECIALLY post-grunge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.13.60 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Asked and answered, your continuing opinion on the matter is irrelevant. That's how easy THAT is.  Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 18:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: DO NOT move this page to the American spelling; it is correct as-is. </br>Kingoomieiii 07:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  READ 

message: True or false: this is a UK album as opposed to a US album (hence the colour spelling.) 66.245.77.90 01:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  True or false?? 

message: This article is not written in the style of an encyclopedia. E.G "Dave didn't think he was good enough". Speedboy Salesman 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem

message: Why include a recording session that ultimately was not used. They scrapped those sessions with the exception of two drum tracks. Two drum tracks out of six weeks doesn't really qualify for much of a recording, let alone a significant one, especially considering not a single song track was used. The scrapped sessions they recorded started in October and November of 1996 but actual recording that was used didn't take place until January and February of 1997, and to my knowledge we're only talking of actual recording on the front page. If you bother including October and November because of scrapped sessions you might as well track Dave down for when he wrote the songs (most are on tour anyway). Its too much unnecessary information. You don't see Cigarettes and Valentines material on American Idiot for Green Day's wiki.
via fooarchive: 
"EVERLONG
A lot of people regard this as your best song. Where were you when you wrote it'?
"We started working on our second album, 'The Color And The Shape' in October and November of '96. We recorded at a studio just outside Seattle that was a converted barn and you could stay in the house. Behind it there was this creek that had salmon jumping in it. It was beautiful but you were really isolated, outside town by about 45 minutes. So I was staying out there and while I was there my ex-wife and I split up."
So Everlong' came together at that point?
"Not quite. We took a break for Christmas, so I went back to Virginia by myself. I took the rough tracks of what we'd done and it didn't seem right. The album had something missing. But I had this one riff that I originally thought was a Sonic Youth rip off, but I decided it might be good to turn it into a song. When I brought it to our producer Gil Norton, he said, 'That's greatl Let's put it on the album!'"
131.125.115.15 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in that paragraph does it say that they entirely scrapped the Seattle recordings?  THEY DIDN'T.  THEY KEPT ALL OF "DOLL" AND THE SLOW VERSION OF "UP IN ARMS".  What you hear of those on the album is ENTIRELY from the Seattle sessions.  AND IT SAYS SO IN THE LINER NOTES. -- ChrisB (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "Doll", as it appears on the album, was entirely recorded in Seattle.  The b-side version of "Up in Arms" is the exact same recording that was used for the slow section of the version on the album - they just edited it down.  That's what it says in the liner notes. -- ChrisB (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Album Recording Sessions

message: "While Rock Band is indeed a popular video game its inclusion of TCATS is not pertinent. There are dozens of compilation albums that use songs from TCATS, but we are not at liberty to include them all; for example, those ubiquitous "Best of the 90s". Rock Band is, furthermore, a pretty recent occurrence. I can guarantee you it's a trendy, decade-relative fad that will probably die out just as every other one has.
The information regarding which songs are featured on Rock Band, Guitar Hero, and the like is more relevant to the game articles (there's some featured lists about which songs are on the games, I believe), than it is to the song/album pages themselves. In regards to song and album pages, it's about as notable as saying a certain song appeared in a movie trailer, which really isn't that notable unless a secondary source comments on it." 
I guess it shouldn't be included. 67.242.58.111 (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most flash-in-the-pan fads don't constitute a $2,000,000,000 industry all by themselves (music games), but I tend to agree with the above. Where is the quote above from? Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 19:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fails WP:NOTE 

message: I don't really understand why the detailed track commentaries I wrote for this page have been removed. If I was reading this page I'd be happy to have the extra information available if I wanted it. Whoever did this has some explaining to do, as those commentaries took a long time and were all completely true, describing the music of each song in detail.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reagar (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of information 

message: All that needs to be stated in the bonus track information is that the songs were b-sides to the album's singles. mjgm84 (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bonus track information

message: Regarding this edit. It's useless, pointless information that'd belong on pages for the individual songs, if they had them anyway. It's also completely unsourced. So there. I went and removed what would prove to be a problem later on. It looks close to a Good Article - if we reorganize the "track information" section I'd nominate it, but this kind of gross section just gets in the way, so I removed it. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  21:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of bonus content section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Colour and the Shape. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nme.com/reviews/album/reviews-foo-fighters-8844
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/f/foo-fighters/colour-and-the-shape.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121123242/http://blog.rock.inmusic.ca/2011/12/foo-fighters-surpass-10-million-mark-so-yeah-theyre-loaded-.html to http://blog.rock.inmusic.ca/2011/12/foo-fighters-surpass-10-million-mark-so-yeah-theyre-loaded-.html
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) 07:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified