Talk:Achtung Baby

message: "Until the End of the World" is a staple of their live show and charted, but it was never released as a single. It was released as a radio-only promo, but then, so was half the album and a B-side.
--typhoon 01:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Put your comments in a header!!

message: I added articles for every song on the album, according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs guidelines. They could use some work, though. --Kristbg 23:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual song articles 

message: If post-1978 rock is not plain old rock, what rock genre is it an alternative to? Fantailfan 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is OK to have alternative there as Rock is also there and first. We could arguably also have Pop in there (ie, Mysterious Ways, and Trying to Throw Your Arms Aorund The World and even Ultra Violet, EBTTRT) but I am sure that would just cause arguments like any kind of genre classifying. :-)  --Merbabu 23:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Violet, not Violent, I make the mistake too.) Alternative is a subcategory of Rock anyway. I just find it anachronistic before 1991 or so. It's like pre-punk. Fantailfan 01:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At any rate, "alternative music" no longer has an article so I'm replacing it with "alternative rock". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  Examples of Madchester acts would be the Stone Roses and Happy Mondays. I remember reading about Bono being impressed by the output of those bands circa 1989, however, Adam Clayton was sceptical about attempting to reproduce the sound and sensibility of Madchester. I think in the main those bands and those who were fans of those bands would be sceptical of very large internationally successful music acts such as U2, Bon Jovi, INXS etc etc, and as such I don't think you could bracket Achtung Baby with that scene (although if you could dig up sources, you might be able to cite Madchester as an influence on Achtung Baby, but in my opinion that's a bit of a stretch).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceadge (talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is alternative? 

message: Someone described "Mysterious Ways" as having a "closer resemblance to conventional pop music of the time (1991)." This was included in the section about "new fans" which makes it a little suspicious. I personally cannot see any important similarities between "conventional pop music," which is a very strong and limiting term, and "Mysterious Ways." There are vague traces of dance music in "Mysterious Ways," but the song features bongos, wah-wah gutiars, layers of effects, and drum loops with rock guitars; overall, it is quite objectively not very similar to "conventional pop music" of 1991, which is a vague term in and of itself, but could be said to include urban R&B and dance not totally disimilar from today's dance, hip-hop and pop music. It bears certain similarities to successful then-contemporary bands like the Stone Roses or even Primal Scream, but these Madchester types of groups were certainly not "conventional pop music" either by their own admission or the admission of their audiences. Or to give another example, even though grunge music was immensely popular at the time, it could not be said to be "conventional pop music," since it's sound was so far removed from the most consistently successful kinds of pop songs. Again, I don't think this is nitpicking and I don't think this is a subjective issue at all.
its correct it sounds like the music of that time especially MADCHESTER sound  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.140.192.0 (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mysterious Ways 

message: Is there any reason to point out the fact that certain songs were released as singles underneath the track listing for the album, when farther down the page there is a listing of the singles and how they did on the charts? If no one has any objections... I'm going to remove that comment below the track listing... Jgrizzy89 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles info 

message: Is it just me or does this phrase never, ever appear in The Producers (1968 film), like everyone (including the article) says it does? It does appear in To Be or Not to Be (1983 film), though (during the very tasteful "Hitler Rap"). --typhoon (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several sources that state the line doesn't appear in The Producers but I haven't found one we'd class as a WP:RS. There are however RSs that note its inclusion in Hitler Rap: this article by Graham Reid and this book by Ronald L. Smith. Need mention of both facts for inclusion though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Achtung, baby" 

message: "There are also a handful of developed ideas that were wholly abandoned, such as "She's Gonna Blow Your House Down", a song the group had been working on since the Rattle and Hum days."
* I'm too lazy to look up a source, but it was extensively reworked and released on the Pop album as "Wake Up Dead Man."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.164.75 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  She's Gonna Blow Your House Down 

message: I think it would be productive to put the speech Bono made at the final concert of the Lovetown Tour:
"We've had a lot of fun over the last few months, just getting to know some of the music which we didn't know so much about -- and still don't know very much about, but it was fun! ... this is just the end of something for U2. And that's what we're playing these concerts -- and we're throwing a party for ourselves and you. It's no big deal, it's just -- we have to go away and ... and dream it all up again."
Seen as it was definitive in that it signified U2's move to the new style of music on Achtung Baby, I think it's relevant to the article and could be put in the History section. I already have a reference - Sylar07  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylar07 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dream it all up again" 

message: I see that you disagree with me adding details about last minute changes to "The Fly" and "One" in to the section about the end of the recording sessions. I would caution against reverting my changes, because as it stands, the bulk of the article is dedicated to background information/context prior to the recording sessions, and the bulk of the information about the recording sessions is dedicated to Berlin. If most of the recording was actually done in Dublin, we should try and put more information about it into the article to avoid undue weight. Furthermore, instead of stating something (e.g. last minute changes were made to the songs), it's better to give examples of something to prove it (e.g. The Fly was mixed over its previous mix, One had a guitar part added after production finished the mix). It gives more insight into how rushed the last day was and just what kind of changes were being made up until the recording sessions' last minute. I ask you to be open-minded about this being added to the article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I "would caution against" against you reverting *my changes* and also against getting hung up on notions of undue weight - it doesn't mean you need to balance word counts.  It's an article on an album, not on songs. Relevance or notability is not measured by word count. It's much better just to say "Most work was Dublin" and "It was more productive". We don't need all the rest, or the evidence. That's what we have song articles for. No matter how hard you try, you will always find more material and more notable material on the Berlin sessions than Dublin. The info on One is also trivial and long-winded (incidentally about Berlin) I tried changing the prose from a story-telling one but was "open-mindedly" reverted.  --Merbabu (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposed changes on recording sessions' end

message: The article was put up for peer review and we have had one detailed review already - here. I've pasted the review and my (as yet incomplete) responses below. I will update as necessary - feel free to comment. --Merbabu (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand Hot Press is one of, or is, Ireland's most respected Music publications. Is there any reason to doubt it? Or indeed, why doubt this one and not others. As for atu2.com, here it is merely the source for the Hot Press article and I also read the articles on the site that are sourced from many other publications. Again, there is no reason that I can think of to doubt the content. If there is something specific, please let us know. :-) cheers --Merbabu (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the info box. From memory, the video had it's own article, and this section has all the appearances of an article being copy'n'pasted into this article. --Merbabu (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: It's 2009 and all my records, cassettes and CDs are packed away in storage - my mp3s are streamed wirelessly through the house. Thus, I don't have easy access to the album sleeve and booklet. Is there any resource on line - at the moment I'm looking to see if there is a track by track notes. I remember the songs Lillywhite mixed for  JT are individually credited. What about AB? cheers --Merbabu (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope this helps. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A-ha - thanks. Hope that didn't take too long. Different songs, different mixers --Merbabu (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album credits 

message: Much of the information on the songs in the "Composition" section needs to go in the relevant song pages. Keep what's necessay for contenxt regarding discussion of the album as a whole. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also just noticed that many of the charts positions and sales figures are uncited. This needs to be rectified immediately. You can do without the singles chart positions table; typically such a table is only included in album articles if there were only one or two singles that charted in just a few countries. This album had no less than five that were worldwide smashes, so best to leave that information to U2 discography. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added references (and in some case positions) for the charts where applicable, though I'd recommend swapping out some of those we aren't likely to find a peak position for (ex. Brazil) with one where we can (ex. New Zealand). I'm not sure who added all the sales figures but I'm guessing that the way that they did it was by taking the certification (all sourced) and multiplying that by the certification thresholds to get the number. Not exactly the best (or most desirable) way of getting the numbers, but understandable. In regards to the singles chart, I wouldn't really call 7 US charts "worldwide" =P. For an indication of that surely we could remove some of the US charts (Top 40 Main, Hot AC, Hot Dance Air) and replace them with figures from Australia and New Zealand. I don't really see how their inclusion could really be seen as detrimental to the article. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Which info do you propose gets moved from the Composition section? While there could be some changes about what is listed and a general cleanup, there should be no problem about having a summary of the 12 songs, and I can see no real problem with length.--Merbabu (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One example is the details about "Even Better than the Real Thing". None of them are essential to understanding the album as a whole, unlike, say, the details about how "Zoo Station" was intended to signal a new sound for the band when the album started. The details about "Even Better Than the real Thing" are more specific to the song than to the album. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I get the distinction you make, and perhaps it is preferable to have info more like the Zoo Station example you refer to, does it matter if it means we at least mention each song. Ie, I'm not saying we can't improve the section, but that there is nothing wrong per se with having a more song-specific mention. I think it's actually good to mention each song. They are each part of the album - that's enough for an inclusion (again, their inclusion can be improved though!). regards --Merbabu (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It primarily has to do with page layout and Wikipedia summary style. Knowing when to summarize and when to leave details to subarticles will help you achieve the "well-written" criteria at FAC down the line. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why One has but a few sentence's mention, but a longer article on itself? I guess it's the interpretation of detail and how to summarise - and indeed criteria 1a is notoriously subjective.  For example - I don't propose "So Cruel" needs an article, but a mention of the song here is fine. As for interpretations of detail, I don't understand why an album article needs to list each track's running time - but changing that is not a battle I'm going to fight.   --Merbabu (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The details about the songs are one issue. In general the article could be tightened up; it sprawls out at times. Compare it to In Utero (FA I wrote earlier this year) or The Final Cut (a current FAC candidate). If you're including information on a specific song, keep in mind what's necessary for context with the album as a whole, and what is better left to the article. The details of how the band wrote "Even Better" are best left to the song page; it doesn't inform the reader's understanding of the album as a whole, unlike the details about "Zoo Station". WesleyDodds (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've moved info from UV. But ultimately an album is only made up of songs.As I said - - i acknowledge the section needs work. I'm not sure why it's not in track order, for example. As for "sprawling" - most articles get bloated in parts then get tightened up. It's not going to be ready for FAC tomorrow.--Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Hmm, same. The current content seems to be more about the individual songs than the album as a whole. It needs to be reworked so that it goes from one theme to another, rather than all spread out among the individual songs. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to leave this alone for now. In judging the changes, please keep in mind that it's not finished! It needs a lot of tidying up and coherence needs improving - particularly to the latter half of the section. I can see things that can be removed, and bits that can be added. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

text: As you see above, there is quite some support for this. Today's changes have removed info that's really only pertinent to the individual songs and not the whole album. In theory, perhaps there is now room for additional info common to the album. --Merbabu (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Further, I don't mind so much having one or two songs mentioned twice if it's illustrating a different point. In the previous version we might end up mentioning each song just once, but we kept mentioning the same point throughout the article. "Song A is song about X. Blah blah blah - two paragraphs later - song B is also about X". --Merbabu (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary style with songs 

message: My thinking is now more inline with WesleyDodds' now. Some of the info (eg, Acrobat's time signature) is just not relevant to the article on the album as a whole. And, I don't think we have to list every song if it's not relevant. We don't have to find something simply so each song is mentioned. Nor does it necessarily have to be in tracklist order. --Merbabu (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, same. The current content seems to be more about the individual songs than the album as a whole. It needs to be reworked so that it goes from one theme to another, rather than all spread out among the individual songs. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to leave this alone for now. In judging the changes, please keep in mind that it's not finished! It needs a lot of tidying up and coherence needs improving - particularly to the latter half of the section. I can see things that can be removed, and bits that can be added. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

text: As you see above, there is quite some support for this. Today's changes have removed info that's really only pertinent to the individual songs and not the whole album. In theory, perhaps there is now room for additional info common to the album. --Merbabu (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Further, I don't mind so much having one or two songs mentioned twice if it's illustrating a different point. In the previous version we might end up mentioning each song just once, but we kept mentioning the same point throughout the article. "Song A is song about X. Blah blah blah - two paragraphs later - song B is also about X". --Merbabu (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: March 2010 update

message: At the request of Merbabu, I'm looking into ways to tighten up the prose of this article to make FA status. I'll start with the header and background sections for now. I have a few questions about areas of the text which I think could be more precise:
Header:
"U2 replaced their earnest public image with a more ironic one" - it's not entirely clear to me what it means to have a more ironic public image. What are we trying to say here, and can we say it more explicitly without taking up too much space?
:Essentially, the band became more self-mocking and playful, and in many ways, more "hip". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the album itself was renowned critically and commercially, but on the subsequent tour, and in subsequent interviews/public appearances, critics/detractors/music journalists began to see the band as becoming to self-important. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

text: The band had a level of success, such that the albums were selling, they were playing large sell-out gigs, they had been nominated for/won Grammy(s), and had been the winners of several readers polls in music publications. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some notes on the prose 

message: The article only mentions the breakup of Edge's marriage in passing, and doesn't make clear what effect that had.  Yet several sources attribute much of the album's dark, personal themes to it.  Consider for example pp. 73-75 of Conversations with Bono.  I think the article is missing part of the story here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Be Bold --Merbabu (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No way am I going to start beating my head against the wall on U2 album articles!  Tour articles and the few song articles I've been involved in are more than enough ... I have an easier time working on articles about U.S. presidential candidates!  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pft - that's pathetic and to wikipedia's detriment. That kind of attitude is completely against the whole idea of wikipedia. You're way or (you're on) the highway? Seriously, if you don't have time to do it - then, fine. thanks for adding the idea. But it sounds like you're just having a little tantrum. Why not just get over it and add it? And, yes, it probably will be copyedited - but the overall result (to which you were a contributor) will be for the better. I mean, this is wikipedia 101 for God's sake - I don't need to state it here. Just add what you want without sulking (and yes, this is also partly in reference the crabby second part of your post here.   --Merbabu (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on guys, let's not squabble. We've all had run-ins and editing disagreements with each other before, but there's no need for this. If there's something that any of us thinks is missing, is being overlooked, or should be added to, shouldn't we do it to make it as complete as possible? Yes, sometimes it's difficult to fit it in a logical and coherant manner, and that can lead to reversions or relocations to a different location in the article, or even a complete chopping down to only a fragment of what was posted due to misunderstanding or lack of clarity. We all have our own ideas of what is important and should be mentioned, but unless we take the step and actually try to include it, the article will always be incomplete or lacking (or both). We also shouldn't fret about adding something in if we can't find a reference for it; that's what Talk:U2/References was created for, so we can work together and add cites for information that one person may not have access to. So how about we just go ahead and edit as a team? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All I'm trying to say, if someone has something to add into an article, then they should add it, rather than use it as an opportunity to convey another message. Perhaps I should have said it was a promising idea (although that would be implied in asking one to add it, surely?).  --Merbabu (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree I'm at fault here, for saying on an article talk page that something or other isn't included and not being willing to do the work to add it myself.  I too have given  responses to people who do this in the past.  But, at the end of the day WP is a volunteer activity, and none of us are compelled to do anything we don't want.  And I don't want to get into any more edit battles on U2 articles than I have to, even if that makes me "pathetic".  So I'll strike out my comment above.  But I may raise it again if there's another FAC, because in that forum it's not considered bad form to raise objections without fixing them yourself.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't meaning to criticise your raising it - after bold, suggesting on talk page is great. Others can do it. But, what bugged me (for what it's worth) was the sulky nature of your reason for not doing it - ie, the implication u can't be bothered cuz someone will just change it and because u2 editors are somehow difficult. Even if those latter two are correct, it shouldn't stop u. Or just ask someone if u can't do it for lack of time. --Merbabu (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok, so what would you add about The Edge's divorce? I know that he was going through a rough time and that it made him want to write more personal material. How would you enforce this point in the article? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think it's a bad point, and I think the best thing would be to encourage "Wasted" to make the addition. Perhaps I didn't put it quite the best manner. In fact, I'd even say it is as equally important as the so called "one" breakthrough. It could even go into the lead. Personally, I find it hard not to sometimes feel that the One breakthrough is over overstated band folklore. Ie, not actually bullshit, but an overemphasised good story. If you've been following U2 since the mid 80s like Wasted, you'd know that they are good at milking a great story.  --Merbabu (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I'd go as far as to de-emphasize the "One" story. The band may be good at propagating their own myth, but almost all reliable secondary references mention "One" as the album's breakthrough. It would probably be original research to suggest the song wasn't as important as these resources say it was. As for weaving The Edge's divorce in elsewhere, I'll try to do that the best that I can. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would work well in talking about the themes of the album; many of them relate to Edge's emotions at the time, and I seem to remember hearing somewhere that it affected Bono's lyrics to a degree too (I think in "So Cruel" particularly, though IIRC he later denied it was about Edge). It also plays a role in Composition. In U2 by U2 it's stated that the solo at the end of "Love Is Blindness" cae from Edge releasing all of hs frustrations and just destroying the guitar in the process. There's quite a few relevant placs where the info could be worked in. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Feel free to vet this information - I just added a mention of it in the Writing/recording section, mentioning how it was among the things that hurt morale. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edge marriage breakup effect on album's themes 

message: I've begun a copyedit, and it's struck me that there may be some contradictions in the text. In Background, it says "Following the tour the group began its longest break from public performances and releases." But in the very next paragraph it says "More hints of change were two 1990 recordings...". Would not those two songs count as a release? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, both were quite low profile releases - particularly the clockwork orange work - in fact, it was only Edge and Bono and it wasn't released til the The Fly single came out. Passengers had the profile of Michael Jackson's Thriller in comparison. --Merbabu (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we just need to clarify that the break was from releasing albums and performing? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some contradictions? 

message: I had removed the Dalai Lama note as being the inspiration for One with and edit summary. Personally, I read it as being the other way around - ie, the song/lyric came first and Bono then used in a note to the Dalai Lama. Even if the note did come first (note my scepticism) the source is not at all clear that it was the inspiration for the lyric. It is also the only source I know that mentions it. And, indeed, is it about the song or the album - surely it's the former and thus is actually a discussion for the song page, and removal altogether from this album page is preferable.
It was re-added here with an edit summary that doesn't address my edit summary for removal.
I see a few options
# Find a reliable source that clarifies the story and adjust the article accordingly. 
# Remove the Dalai Lama mention altogether -  it's a single source some 15 years later after the event and it's completely unclear what is meant. (indeed, I think it means the opposite of what's written). 
# Write it in such a way that it doesn't say it was the inspiration and provides the same vagueness as in the source.
No. 1 is obviously preferable, but I'm thinking it's not going to possible, and 2 is more preferable than 3, particularly given that this story - whatever way it was intended - is not really relevant to Achtung Baby as an album, as opposed to the legendary (mythical?) "One breakthrough" which is pertinent to the album. Of course, it would be relevant to the song article.
In the meantime, I've put in a verification needed cite. And, the appropriate changes will need to be made to the song article too.  --Merbabu (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the Dalai Lama/note mention and instead replaced it with a mention of what Bono was trying to say with the line "One, but not the same" (e.g. he disagreed with the hippie's idea of oneness). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that’s a good change. I just don’t think the source is clear either way – although, if I had to chose one way or the other, I would say that the note came after the lyric. And, it is Bono’s word afterall… --Merbabu (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: One inspiration

message: There's a line from the "Ultraviolet (Light My Way)" article that strikes me as intriguing: "Ultraviolet" is also one of several songs Bono has written on the theme of woman as spirit". Indeed, many of the album's songs are ambiguous and left to the reader's interpretation about whether he is addressing a woman or a religious spirit/God. I haven't come across concrete citations of this, though, but I feel a line about it would fill out the religious imagery paragraph of the Composition section and tie it together. Has anyone come across a source about this? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Woman as spirit"  

message: The current peak position on the charting table for the Dutch album charts says #39, although this is inaccurate. If you examine the reference and click to the album's profile page on the Dutch Charts site, you can see that this position was in 1993. I strongly believe that the album re-charted following the release of Zooropa in 1993 and that the album's true peak occurred right after its original release in 1991-1992 and that it was much higher. After all, it was certified Platinum, so I tend to doubt it reached only #39. If someone could look into finding the album's "true" peak on the Dutch charts, it would be extremely helpful and much appreciated. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking but no luck so far.  I get most of my sources from magazine databases, most of which are U.S. magazines that don't bother listing international charts.  If you happen to know of a particular magazine that might have had this information back in 1991, then let me know and I'll see what I can do. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Page 438, highest rank #1 Joost 99 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much for the help. If I need help referencing another U2 album in the future, can you identify the page number for me? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but I can tell you now that the book was sorted by band, and all the entries for U2 were on page 438. Joost 99 (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Oh, that's even better. For my benefit, could you list the peaks for their earlier albums? As I understand it, everything after The Joshua Tree peaked at #1. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  October #23 (19), Boy #30 (5), War #3 (35), Live-Under a Blood Red Sky #8 (44), The Unforgettable Fire #4 (66), Joshua Tree #1 (82), Rattle and Hum #1 (72), Achtung Baby #1 (46), Zooropa #1 (30), Pop #1 (31), The Best Of 1980 - 1990 & B-Sides #1 (119), All That You Can't Leave Behind #1 (76). Between brackets is numer of weeks in list. Joost 99 (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank you, once again! Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk •  contributions) 13:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "true" peak on the Dutch album charts 

message: The article thoroughly discusses the five commercial singles from the album in the Release section. However, there is no mention of the various promotional singles that were also released: "Zoo Station", "Until the End of the World", and "Salomé". Should we make a (brief) mention of these as well? Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reliable source that mentions them as promo singles, then yeah, it could be mentioned briefly. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk •  contributions) 04:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What I did for "City of Blinding Lights" when briefly mentioning that promo was just reference the single itself. The PID/Catalogue number generally shows that it is a promo (looking at two at random, the Wild Horses and Zoo Station promo PIDs both begin PR, for example). Will that suffice? Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I think so - what is the PID exactly and where does it come from? Like, can I look up a release by PID somewhere to find out what the release is? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk •  contributions) 05:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just use the archives on U2wanderer for when I fill those refs. They have it by decade (here is 90-98 for instance; it includes all the promos, not just the promo singles). Here is the one for "Salomé". The PID is "Catalog" on there. PID stands for Publisher's ID.  describes the field as "The publisher's ID (catalog number) for the release that corresponds to the notes, requires Publisher field" (the publisher being Island, Interscope, Mercury, etc). Generally speaking, the catalogue number can be found somewhere on the release; usually the side (on a jewel case) or the back. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promo singles 

message: As "Achtung" is a German word, shouldn't the pronunciation be "ˈaχtʊŋ" rather than "ˈɑːktuːnɡ"? Or is there any contextual reason for mispronouncing the word? 92.231.223.74 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: See WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. Who measures and compares how much acclaim each record of the 90s received - is there some official yardstick for this? I don't see what these kind of vague yet boastful statements add to the information already in the lead about the critical and commercial reception the album was given. N-HH talk/edits 09:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One of the most acclaimed records of the 1990s ..." 

message: The album title includes the German word "achtung" but in the context of the album title, it's not pronounced the same way as it is in German.  If you've ever heard Bono or anyone else speak the title's name it sounds like "Aktoong" (not "Axtun" or "Achtun").  I originally included the "English-ized" IPA pronunciation (and even cited it from an article where the album's title written in a dictionary-style pronunciation format), but it was removed (along with the citation) and replaced with the German IPA pronunciation.  The German IPA pronunciation of "achtung" is already in the prose, so there's no need to include it in the lead sentence just because it's a German word.  If there's no objections, I'm going to revert to the original IPA text that I added. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title pronunciation 

message: Should there be reviews added under the section 20th anniversary releases? The Unforgettable Fire page has the deluxe edition reviews but that article isn't a Good or Featured one so I wasn't sure.
http://www.metacritic.com/music/achtung-baby-super-deluxe/u2  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultra Violet Light (talk • contribs) 23:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  20th anniversary reviews 

message: Are the lines I just tagged for needing a citation actually verifiable or are they an assumption based on the four all-time albums accolades mentioned in Achtung Baby#Legacy (those by Q, Entertainment Weekly, and Spin are top albums lists exclusive to ~1980s to 2000s), none of which are rock lists. Which I suppose wouldn't matter anyway; such a claim ("regularly"?, "in rock history"?) requires a source either way that states it explicitly, and I couldn't find one in a quick search for "Achtung Baby" + "greatest rock albums"/"best rock albums". Dan56 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can replace the EW ranking with one from last year that is not exclusive to a specific time period, but rather is for all time. Still, I'm not sure what your contention is. Are you questioning whether the album has indeed been acclaimed as one of the best ever (if so, I can provide several more accolades in a draft in my sandbox)? Are you saying the language should be changed to something closer to "the album has been acclaimed by many critics as one of the greatest of all time" (not specific to rock, not mentioning any regularity of appearing on rankings)? Or are you suggesting both? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk •  contributions) 05:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are there any sources that explicitly say it has been viewed or ranked as such by critics, several, many, or whatever? That would be the best solution--to cite such a source--but "several" seems more appropriate, since "many" suggests an indefinite number, which if were the case there'd probably be sources that could explicitly verify any version/wording of this claim. And yes, since none of the sources are rock-specific, the "rock history" bit seems a bit odd. "The album has been acclaimed by several critics as one of the greatest of all time" gives proper weight to the rankings mentioned; "many" is a bit more of an exceptional claim and should require a source (WP:EXCEPTIONAL). Dan56 (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How does the current version sound? It addresses your concerns, and it doesn't use "some" or "several" (which could have been interpreted to fall under WP:WEASEL). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk •  contributions) 15:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMO, "several" isnt really a weasel word; since it means "more than two or three but not many", seven critics (I counted in 'Legacy') for example would be "several critics" since their a countable, definite number, whereas "many" would be weasel if not stated by a source since it means "larger but indefinite number". Perhaps qualify "writers and critics" with "several writers and critics"? But I'm fine with your revision, and good work expanding that section! Dan56 (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claim: "...greatest rock albums..." / "...in rock history..." 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Achtung Baby. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/u2s_serious_fun
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1992
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 06:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Achtung Baby. 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.boston.com/ae/music/packages/U2Fleetcenter/album_review_achtung_baby
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/17/arts/recordings-view-u2-takes-a-turn-from-the-universal-to-the-domestic.html?scp=2
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6597909/62_achtung_baby
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820092500/http://www.infodisc.fr/Albums_ChartRun.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/Albums_ChartRun.php
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) 11:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems pretty obvious - the song was released a year and a half earlier - but I see no references around that make this connection. NjtoTX (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't see it. The explanation given in the text seems the most plausible one. And is referenced as such. If you find an article that mentions the influence, by all means include it. Karst (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it either, let alone would I call it obvious. Does any album or song title that tacks the word "baby" on the end owe Vanilla Ice royalties of something"? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk •  contributions) 17:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title a play on "Ice Ice Baby"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Achtung Baby. 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.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C318875%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/article/1991/11/29/achtung-baby
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/ae/music/packages/U2Fleetcenter/album_review_achtung_baby
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/17/arts/recordings-view-u2-takes-a-turn-from-the-universal-to-the-domestic.html?scp=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060507034515/http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/pnj/pjres91.php to http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/pnj/pjres91.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-20120531/u2-achtung-baby-20120524
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806121030/http://achtungbaby.u2.com/ to http://achtungbaby.u2.com/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.officialcharts.de/charts.asp?cat=a&country=de&year=1991&date=19911216&x=32&y=12
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150804005246/http://austriancharts.at/1992_album.asp to http://austriancharts.at/1992_album.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140822102631/http://hitparade.ch/charts/jahreshitparade/1992 to http://hitparade.ch/charts/jahreshitparade/1992
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) 21:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Achtung Baby. 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/20121015074524/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.1695&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.1695&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015074539/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.7767&type=1&interval=20&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.7767&type=1&interval=20&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015074551/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.2042&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.2042&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014042021/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.2123&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.2123&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015074606/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.1930&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.1930&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015074621/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.1840&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.1840&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015074715/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.2072&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.2072&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3
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) 16:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: That's not the case.
The lead says U2, a musical band, incorporated influences from "alternative rock, industrial music, and electronic dance music". It's clear that we are talking about music here. No one will wonder if they incorporated electronic dance music into their business. 
We should also remove the "stung by" phrasing as this is metaphorical/idiomatic language. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead