Talk:Night Visions
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Regarding tracklist
editThe 2013 issue is not available on the US, therefore the Deluxe Edition for North America belongs on 2012! Also, for the 2013 issue Fallen is ONLY available on iTunes, and on the 2012 North American Deluxe Edition, Working Man and Fallen suffer the same. Please, whoever is undoing that, stop.
Producer and writers?
editWhy is this like the only album that has the writers and the producers? The writers are the band on every song, and no one cares about the producers enough to have them as a subcatagory on each song. If people really cared, they would look at the credits on the CD. This seems like a pat on the back to Alex da Kid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.69.122 (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Trololol? This is an encyclopedia. Production information on a piece of art is relevant information. 173.67.255.21 (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Please show one other album right now with this information. No other album in their genre right now has this info, and what the h is trololol?? 24.234.69.122 (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Critical reception
editWould it be fair to say something along the lines of 'Despite several positively reviewed tracks, usch as Radioactive, Demons, It's Time, On Top of the World, Amsterdam, and Hear Me, Night Visions overall received mixed reviews.' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjvollert (talk • contribs) 19:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Alternative!
editNight Visions is an album with Alternative Rock as a genre. Just look at the genres of their singles! Come On, we need to add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clawraich (Dalek) (talk • contribs) 14:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're not a music critic. 123.136.107.24 (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you on that, but I'm not going to put alternative rock in there because I know it will get reverted even if I provide a source. Campingfreak3599 (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 7 October 2016
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that the album is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC among subjects with coverage. The most compelling point of the opposing arguments is the fact that the visions of Zechariah are more significant, however, little evidence was presented that this subject is typically referred to under the title "Night visions". Cúchullain t/c 04:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
– Over four years after its release, it still receives more views than all the other topics combined.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose page views are only half the story with any article claiming to be the absolute majority topic. In this case the "Night Visions is" test gives the night visions section of Zechariah which is not often capitalized, but can be. More of an issue is that the Night Visions (stories) comes next, and the TV series third. The album is nowhere in books. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Google Books have nothing to do with this... Unreal7 (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Reliable real world sources have nothing to do with the second half of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline? If real world sources don't help with the second half of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline then what do you propose as an alternative? Newspapers? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- How about common sense? Unreal7 (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Reliable real world sources have nothing to do with the second half of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline? If real world sources don't help with the second half of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline then what do you propose as an alternative? Newspapers? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Google Books have nothing to do with this... Unreal7 (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Page views are clear. Calidum ¤ 14:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note that the above editor deleted another editor's Talk page contributions quoting the guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Copy and pasting texts from a guideline page is not a "contribution" but rather a waste of space that clutters up the page, like some editors I know. Calidum ¤ 12:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- All the same @Calidum: you don't get to delete, reformat or blank Talk page comments in the middle of an RM, RFC. If half a guideline is being ignored or misread by some editors it is legitimate to restate it. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Copy and pasting texts from a guideline page is not a "contribution" but rather a waste of space that clutters up the page, like some editors I know. Calidum ¤ 12:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note that the above editor deleted another editor's Talk page contributions quoting the guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support as obvious primary topic. Cavarrone 11:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
It's Time
editThe date that It's Time was released was wrong, it was released around a year before it said.So I changed it.