This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hypnotize (album) article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
Untitled
To discuss the dispute over this album's release date, please go to
Talk:System of a Down.
Tuf-Kat 03:18, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism
Please stop removing the information from this page, 66.36.148.190 (or should I say The truth about Hephaestos?). If you continue this one more time, I have no other choice but to report you and I think you do deserve a ban from this repeated vandalism. As I told you at your
talk page. --
Mike Garcia |
talk 3 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)
Hi, Mike. Please feel free to add your source to the article. Thanks!
66.36.148.190 3 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)
Are you insane? Please grow up and leave because you shouldn't be here vandalizing any page (especially this one) and I am not threatening to ban you. But you will be banned when me,
Dan,
MrHate or others report you. --
Mike Garcia |
talk 3 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
Yes, he did vandalize the page (see
[1]). I don't care what he's doing or what he wants me to do, why? Because, I really don't have to deal with anonymous users like him, especially when he refuses to stop vandalizing or removing some information that is right or not before threatening to violate the 3RR (three revert rule). --
Mike Garcia |
talk 5 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
What he's doing is not vandalism. He just does not see a reasonable reason so believe that such a fact is true and thus asks you to cite your sources before accepting it. --
DB009:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Category
Please add the category of upcoming/unreleased albums ([[Category:Upcoming albums]]) when the article is unprotected. Thanks!!!
secfan 10:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Unprotected
This article shouldn't have been protected for so long--particularly in the period of fan anticipation of the release. I've unprotected and apologise for our lack of vigilance in leaving it this long. I've added the category requested by
User:secfan. --
Tony Sidaway|
Talk08:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Yes, but what about Mezmerize? It has been protected for a long time? --
Mike Garcia |
talk 17:24 August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism is back (again)!
An anonymous vandal (
66.36.133.229, similar to the previous anonymous vandal
66.36.148.190) is vandalizing the page by removing the sentence that says "The album was supposed to be called Mezmerize before rotating" twice. If this happens one more time, I am going ask a moderator to lock it, so his/her vandalism can stop. He/she has begun unconvinced with what I said: "It's true that it was supposed to be called Mezmerize" when I was reverting the vandalism. --
Mike Garcia |
talk20:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I have settled for compromise language (I don't think the mistaken beliefs of a few fans merits inclusion) but you have to have it 100% your way. If you would please add a source it would be easier for all.
66.36.133.22922:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
You see, this is why you should not post here. Especially when you keep removing the information I reverted. So stop vandalizing the article. You either do that or leave here and take your behavior elsewhere. I am sorry, but the sentence you kept removing has nothing to do with whatever you want me to do. I am getting so tired of your attitude. --
Mike Garcia |
talk22:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
We've already been over this in this article before, and what he's doing is NOT VANDALISM. I have seen no proof anywhere that says that this album was supposed to be called Mezmerize and the other one Hypnotize. If you can give us a credible source for this, maybe it would stop happening.
bob rulz 02:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
It's just a sentence. Someeone can simply change it to "The album was believed to be called Mezmerize before rotating". There. No harm done. --
Ultrasound05:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Believed by whom? I've never heard that before reading it here. If one person believes it to be true it doesn't mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia article. If we had a source this would be much, much, much easier.
66.36.144.4005:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)reply
This source is relevant to the content dispute at
System of a Down. When it comes to this article's disputed sentence ("The album was supposed to be called Mezmerize before rotating"), this source isn't sufficient. We know Ultimate Guitar was wrong when they said Hypnotize was disc 1, but why? Did they report the wrong info? Were the album names swapped? Was the album that was supposed to be released later, released first? The source really doesn't answer those questions, and we can't say for sure that Mezmerize was earlier called Hypnotize. At least, not with this source.
Pasboudin23:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Bro, who cares. Mezmerize has already been released, stop thinking about the past. Your acting like a stubborn little child. The media doesnt have full knowledge of events. Only the band does. Someone should have removed that "..was supposed to be released.." bit on both articles a long long time ago. By the way, the band didnt mix it up, they had packaging and album artwork all prepared. They even styled their website prehand. This can only show that there was some sort of planning before. --
Ultrasound14:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Nu Metal?
"We are not an Armenian band, we are not a heavy metal band and we aren't nu-metal. We are System of a Down. People always seem to feel the need to put us into a category, but we just don't fit into any category. We are what rock music has evolved into."
-Daron Malakian
[3]
You know, this is funny. I always had this idea for a great scene in a movie. A reporter (from some music magazine) is interviewing four guys with eye shadow and trenchcoats, indecipherably screamed lyrics and ridiculously distorted guitars:
Reporter- "So, what genre would you place yourselves in?"
Guitarist- "I find that genres only put people in cages."
Drummer- "Yeah."
Lead Singer- "I don't think you can put us in a category. Our music is... what it is. No genre fits us."
Bassist- "If you had to pick just one... I'd say jazz fusion. With elements of blues. And neoclassical folk."
Reporter- "Um... what about 'death metal'?"
Anyway, there is no reason why we should live by Mr. Malakian's statement. Besides, if this is really what rock music has evolved into, you can shoot me now. Why
Deltabeignet04:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Mike Garcia, I see no reasons for your selfish reverts. The compromise that was agreed to that simply stated "Hypnotize was originally thought by some to be released before Mezmerize, but Mezmerize ended up being released first" or something to that affect is not only more gramatically correct than the other sentence (as was stated below), it gives out the exact same information in a less conflicting, less "controversial" way.
I just noticed this page in Recent Changes. It looks like lately
User:Mike Garcia has been editing the page to read as follows:
According to MTV.com, the album thought to be released on these dates for 2005: January 18; March 1 or 15 and April 26 when the album was rumoured to be first and Mezmerize rumoured to be last. Later in early spring, these reports were not likely to prove true and then the albums switched by opposite: Mezmerize on first and Hypnotize on last.
I dare any native speaker of English to parse that paragraph — it's simply meaningless. The last non-Garcia edit looks like a good summary of the facts, and it's even in English! I don't know how this revert war got started, but Mike Garcia's latest edits look awfully close to vandalism. --
Quuxplusone02:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Mike's edits are not vandalism, but they are also not helpful to the article. It's unfortunate that the article is now protected, including this unreadable paragraph.
Rhobite03:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Grammatically, most verbs would go in the passive form, and "by opposite" sounds quite strange to me. (As a non-native speaker however I don't even know what the correct phrase would be.) However the full paragraph is not very useful IMO (it might sound useful because it is about a recent album and a future one, but try to imagine something like that on an article about an album of the past decade), I think the compromise above is better.--
Army198713:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)reply
I decided to edit the page despite the fact that it is protected. All I have done is rewritten Mike's paragraph due to its poor grammar. I also removed the list of uncited dates ("
January 18;
March 1 or
15 and
April 26") - it's not clear where these dates come from or what they represent. This is an instance of
WP:IAR. It's better to edit a protected page than to let it sit there with an unreadable paragraph.
Rhobite20:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)reply
sec vs. s
The edit summary reads:
WP:ALBUM convention is to use sec as the abbreviation.
Well, I was going by the sample infobox on the
WP:ALBUM page. You're right, the code uses the s, but the actual infobox (taken from
Dirt) uses sec. Furthermore, the vast majority of album articles I've seen use sec instead of s. I figure it's simpler to conform with current standards than going to all those articles and fixing them. --
Dalkaen22:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Yep, I think I probably screwed up there. Mike has evaded blocks in the past and I should have realised he would probably do so this time. Oh well, I'll reprotect (or someone else will) if it gets bad. --
Tony SidawayTalk01:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Since it seems impossible to achieve consensus as to wheter keep that paragraph (MTV.com initially reported that the album would be released in the first quarter of 2005, with Mezmerize following it by six months [1]. In early 2005, these reports turned out to be incorrect: Mezmerize was released first, the band announced that Hypnotize would be released in the fall.), let's vote for it.--
Army198721:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)reply
I don't dare to touch that paragraph anymore. IMHO, we'd better keep the paragraph in its Rhobite version, or maybe even better in its shorter Norvy version (Although
some sources originally reported that Hypnotize would be released first, it ended up being released after Mezmerize.), until Hypnotize is released, then use the what-will-we-expect-to-read-in-year-2015 rule of thumb. However, see also
Talk:System_of_a_Down#Album_mixup_rumor. --
Army198712:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Even better:
Although, in late 2004, some sources
[4] reported that Hypnotize would be released first, it ended up being released after Mezmerize.
or:
Originally, it was unclear which half of the double album was to be released first. In late 2004 some sources, such as MTV.com
[5], reported that Hypnotize would be the first, but in early 2005 they were proven wrong, as Mezmerize was released.
You shouldn't tell people the album has been leaked because it encourages illegal downloading (not that i have a problem with it) and it will drag the RIAA in. --
Ultrasound06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)reply
We should have no agenda here other than creating the best encyclopaedia we can. If it has been leaked, then we should be reporting that, regardless of whether it encourages people to download the album, or whether it "drags the RIAA in" - not sure where you think they'll be dragged in though.
KeithD [[User_talk:KeithD|(talk)]]
23:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Does anyone see any reason to keep that tour poster on the page, seeing that the album has been released now anyway? It's not really a great quality scan, and I think it's a bit distracting. If no one objects, I think I'll remove it in a few days.
Thebogusman02:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
tracks
i thought that every track from Mezmerize accompanied a track from Hypnotize, wasent there a former revision of this page that had a list of accompanied tracks? what happend to it?
Does anyone have a picture of the joint artwork with hypnotise?
I think that the
hypnotize page should have a new section, that highlights the similarities between this and Mezmerise. For those who are not aware, the inside artword combines, behind the dic of mezmerise, it a picture of the hypnotize dic, and behind the hypnotize disc is a picture of the Meznerize disc. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SJZ44474 (
talk •
contribs)
00:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Song articles
Since many of the songs are not popular, yet have respective articles, propose we post warning flags at each one which is an unneeded song.
billboard debut
The claim that "System of a Down [is] the only band, other than The Beatles, to have two albums debut the top of the charts in the same year." is incorrect. Numerous artists have done this, included Guns N' Roses
Use Your Illusion I am removing the refrence from this page.
Stuph06:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, not entirely true, as Use Your Illusion I and II were released on the same day, and therefore could not have both debuted at #1, to my knowledge they went #1 and #2. Aside from that, I can't find evidence of other bands besides the Beatles and System of a Down to release two #1 albums in a calendar year, DMX did do it, however.
Matt d8416:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)reply