Talk:Folie à Deux (album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFolie à Deux (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 13, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
December 4, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Album Cover Confirmed[edit]

Can be found here[1], was gonna upload it, but the whole process confuses me —Preceding unsigned comment added by FalloutPhoenix (talk • contribs) 06:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed Tracks[edit]

I don't think we should say "Confirmed" tracks... they're only demos and we don't really know if they're certain to be on the album

edited the correct accents on the 'a' it should be an 'a' with an accent aigu over it (à), since it's french. i don't know however, to fix the main title of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.35.228 (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i also erased 'fueled by ramen' under their record labels. they are no longer on fueled by ramen.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.35.228 (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Confirmed Tracks and Possible Tracks[edit]

I have removed the Confirmed Tracks section until necessary sources can be found, per WP:RS. I have removed the Possible Tracks section indefinately as it violates WP:CRYSTAL. If someone finds sources but doesn't know how to add them in, just give me a buzz on my talk page and I'll be happy to update the article accordingly. Happy editing, Dalejenkins | 09:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that demos of new songs have been given out by the band on the internet, right? And you realize that they are clearly marked as "snippets" and, in one of them, Pete Wentz even interrupts the song and states something along the lines of, "You'll have to wait to hear more of that," suggesting that we'll have to wait until the album is released to hear the rest of the song.
Why would the band release snippets of songs they had no intention of putting out for their new album that they've already begun promoting? Among these snippets is a song called "I Don't Care", which has been officially named as the first single.
I certainly don't agree with adding the tracks from the mix tape as "Confirmed tracks", but "Possible tracks"? Why not? It's obvious that these songs will be included on the album or, at the VERY least, be released as bonus tracks for the album, even if it has not been explicitly stated anywhere. 64.53.37.3 (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre's[edit]

I think we should remove Dance from the genre list, as none of their previous original album material consists of dance music. None of their songs have been dance, but they certainly do have a good beat to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.211.45 (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second single[edit]

The Fall Out Boy iTunes page lists "Headfirst..." as the second single. Is this acceptable as a source? (Just-buzzed (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Leak![edit]

I found a website that has a leaked version, not going to mention the site or download the leak but is this a real torrent or fake and is it worthy of noting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casket56 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaks are rarely notable, unless it makes a major change. Such as changes in the tracklist, changes in release date, etc. But jsut as for it leaking.... no, not really notable. --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it notable to say that the entire album "Folie a Deux" has been leaked on youtube? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.161.72 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Maybe if there is a reputable source with a story about the leak, but unless it's from a major source and gets more than a passing mention, it isn't worth mentioning. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There is a leak. Would yuou like to know how i know? BECAUSE I'M LISTENING TO IT RIGHT NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonmenn (talk • contribs) 02:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one really cares. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

America's Suitehearts[edit]

Why can't we add this we could just say it was suppose to come out November w18th but for some reason didn't.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxFallOutFan13xx (talk • contribs) 16:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I redirect the article to here as it is not verifiabler and not notable. --neon white talk 14:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the page for this single keep getting deleted? It holds the same amounf of weight as all the other itunes singles plus the band is in the process of shooting a video for it now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8t2Oy3-284 Someone should bring the page back.

Honestly I am doing rite now

This single a) Holds as much notabilty as the other iTunes singles. b)Has cover art c)Fall Out Boy are in the middle of a videoshoot for this single, this places this single above "What a Catch Donnie" and ""Headfirst Slide into Cooperstown on a Bad Bet" as neither of those have a video but yet have an article. Nitromaster (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article asserts no notability whatsoever. All the others charted in the Hot 100 and therefore pass criteria at WP:MUSIC. Having a video and cover art is irrelevant. --neon white talk 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MTV News[edit]

With the release of the Folie a Deux Preview here...

http://supjustin.com/post/61812973/eat-it-up-folie-deux-preview

It's clear that "Never Believe" is now (Coffee's for Closers). I think the paragraph under the track listing is not needed, since we now know for sure Never Believe made the album. It just takes up space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinDM (talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still notable. And how notable is this preview site you've listed? --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a site we have used before on the America's Suitheart leak.. so I don't know- xxFallOutFan13xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxFallOutFan13xx (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that's why the page was merged. It wasn't reliable enough. Are you two the same account? --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nOPE- xxFallOutFan13xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by xxFallOutFan13xx (talk • contribs)

Are you answering "nope" to my account question, or stating that is not the reason the page was merged? --HELLØ ŦHERE 18:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same accout one itw was merged because it was pushed back, lol, itunes wasn't working —Preceding unsigned comment added by xxFallOutFan13xx (talk • contribs)

Okay. --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, the song "(Coffee's for Closers)" takes its name from the monologue by Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.228.47 (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guests on What a Catch, Donnie[edit]

Why do the track comments say that only Elivs Costello is a guest on "What a Catch, Donnie"? The page for the single shows all of the guests, and anyone who listens to the song can confirm that all of said guests have spots at the end of the track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.113.48 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one, I was mistaken. Looking at the page, I thought that it said that each vocalist was featured on one song. However, I still contend that we keep it the way it is, since Elvis Costello is the only one credited as a guest vocalist with the song title. The others can be featured in the "Personnel" section when that's added. Otherwise it clutters the track listing far too much. For a good example, see In Defense of the Genre. That album had TONS of guest vocalists, but if they were all featured along with the song it would be way too long. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who sang which parts on that song? It's a little confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.218.43 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG THE ALBUM LEAKED WUTT?[edit]

Of course it leaked. All albums leak. Unless it causes SUBSTANTIAL MEDIA ATTENTION it has no place here. --128.226.95.156 (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and track lengths[edit]

I will be removing the track lengths again, please do not revert this edit. You have yet to provide actual sources to back the times up, as Amazon is not a reliable, independent source. It isn't a matter of trusting you and your assertions, it is a matter of sourcing. "I have the album" is not a source, no matter how adamate your assertions are. Unless you have an ACTUAL source, then do not add the track lengths in again. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 04:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't Amazon not count? I don't understand that at all. The times are right; I have the CD -- do you want me to take a picture of the back of the jewel case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.249.210 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pharrell.[edit]

I know it's been there for a while, but I don't remember reading that Pharrell actually produced any tracks, I just remember that he was featured. If I'm wrong please correct me, but if no one can legitimately prove it within the next 24 hours, I'm going to remove it. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pharrell produced one track on the album which has yet to be announced which one it is but the rest of the album is produced by Neal Avron. But we'll just have to wait until next tuesday to confirm that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die hard panic at the disco fan (talk • contribs) 01:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this? If you know, it should've been published before the album's release. --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was guest in w.a.m.s. shown here: [3] --F-22 Raptor IV 23:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album Information / Songs Released to the FOB Myspace page?[edit]

Wasn't sure how relevant this might be to the article or the contents, especially with the above about the track lengths. On the music player you can now access and listen to what appears to be all of the songs from Folie a Deux. Considering that quite a few of the songs had less than 30 plays last night when I first looked at it, I think that this may have been a rather recent development. Should anything be mentioned? Mizunori (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually like to know why my edit was removed. I think it was a very relevant piece of information, seeing as some people like to know when these things come out. Ah well, it isn't really relevant any more, seeing as it will be released tomorrow. Mayalou6999 (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the information because it's not very notable. Albums leak all the time, and FOB's answer (releasing the album on their MySpace), has been done before. Most "pre-album releases", such as leaks, and the postings on their MySpaces, aren't very notable. Unless, for example, they pushed the release date up. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre.[edit]

The info we have in the "genre" section is sourced as FOB's genre, but not necessarily for this album. I believe we should blank this field until a consensus can be gained as to what exactly the genres are for this album. Just my opinion. --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for a Third Opinion concerning the album's genre. We need to conclude that is it Pop, or Pop Punk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by F-22 Raptored (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't even necessarily say "pop" or "pop punk", I think it should be left blank and gain a consensus. --HELLØ ŦHERE 04:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The genre field should not be left blank. We must reach a consensus without edit warring; leaving the field blank will accomplish nothing. Looking through the edit history, I found the addition of some sources that were not reliable. So, will both of you please provide a source or two for your preferred genre so we can decide which is reliable and which isn't. Timmeh! 14:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit protected}}

I don't have a source for my genre. In all honesty, I have not listened to the full album, but I believe that the genre should be sourced. I will, however stop my reverting of the genre field. I apologize for my actions and ask that the page be unblocked so that others with information relevant to the article may add. It is not fair to the other editors for the page to be blocked for my childish behavior. --HELLØ ŦHERE 20:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've unprotected the page. IF you guys really want a third opinion on this you may ask there. Thanks for agreeing to talk things over. Protonk (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, and I apologize for my actions. I will leave the genre dispute to a third-party. Well, that's all I can say--F-22 Raptored (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I have added "Pop pink, alternative rock" to the genre field to match the most common genres amongst their last couple releases. I hope everyone agrees. --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have sourced a genre that is relevent for a large proportion of the article could JpGrB please refrain from removing it again. Addug (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the source you have provided previously went ka-puut. I know the genre thing is a bit of a struggle, as we are listing them as what defines Fall Out Boy. We need a major source or two if we are to really confirm the "genre incident". Sorry about that, I know it's all good faith.--F-22 Raptor IV 23:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Song sample addition[edit]

{{editprotected}} Hi. Could someone with write access please add the following code to the page's info box to link to the song sample I just uploaded. Thankyou. {{Extra musicsample | Type = song | filename = Fall_Out_Boy_-_America's_Suitehearts.ogg‎ | format = [[Ogg]] | title = America's Suitehearts | artist = Fall Out Boy | description = }}

Date released?[edit]

I made a change at one point correcting it to Dec. 16, which is when FOB says they released it. http://www.falloutboyrock.com/discography/ Was it released earlier in different countries? I'd like some citations for that, since it makes no sense to list the wrong release date. Thanks! Bouncehoper (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are citations in the "release history" section of the article. On Wikipedia, we go by the first date released around the world, which happened to be the thirteenth rather than the sixteenth. --HELLØ ŦHERE 20:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but this Ape thing doesn't look very reliable. In fact, it looks more like a watered down version of Amazon, and not a real news source.
Not only that, but they seem to mistakenly believe the deluxe edition is the regular edition, which it is not.
Please also show me the guideline for Wikipedia's release dates policy, as I've never seen it. Thanks.
Bouncehoper (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A "[watered] down version of Amazon", isn't necessarily a reason it isn't a credible source. and if you have a better source of the album coming out early, please add it. But most albums are almost never released in NA first, it's actually usually last in the market. And for a little bit of read there's this on the fact that we put the first released date. There's this on "release history" sections. And as for which edition is which, we're not really using the source for that, and if so we can remove it, but we're mostly using it for the release date. As mentioned above. --HELLØ ŦHERE 04:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bwah? I was citing the actual band's site as for when it was released; according to them it was released the 16th, not the 13th. I was citing nothing for it being early. Doesn't make much sense to me to say it was released early, if the band doesn't. But whatever.
And I said it was a watered-down version of Amazon because it appears to be poorly constructed, having gleaned its information from someplace like Amazon and getting rid of big chunks as to avoid a potential lawsuit. Again, that's just MY impression, but it doesn't strike me as a very reliable resource, as opposed to something like Amazon, or a band's own website. I was merely saying also that since the Ape people consider the deluxe version to be the regular, they have their facts messed up; ergo, they are unreliable.
Bouncehoper (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put all release dates up there, but it was eventually reverted. Being that quite a few people who read this page are from the U.S., and would like to get their facts straight on when it was released there. I think that all the release dates should be listed on the main template.--F-22 Raptor (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I for one live in the U.S. and an American saying that it was released on the 13th would be wrong. The rule you always claim is usually never followed, if you noticed on all albums, including other Fall Out Boy albums, they list multiple release dates. Even the web page does state it was released on the 16th, even though it is an American website. Also, keep in mind, many people are changing to or adding the 16th. At the end, unless you can get someone in your defense, it will be kept like this, or I will have to accuse you of page ownership.--F-22 Raptor (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not owning the page, I also live in the US, but I try to follow Wikipedia guidelines, other pages using it or not is not an excuse, it is a guideline, and should be followed. That is the point. Take it to an admin if you feel this is incorrect. --HELLØ ŦHERE 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Resolution[edit]

I will ignore the template revision, if I add to the first paragraph that it was later released in the United States on December 16, 2008. This will not interfere with the rulings.--F-22 Raptor (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. Would we like to discuss the wording here? --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stating it was first released in Australia and in New Zealand on December 13, 2008, and later released in the United States on December 16, 2008. No need to discuss the UK release since I can't find a good enough source for it.--F-22 Raptor (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me! :)
Bouncehoper (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion: Aw, man, I had an entire opinion worked out for this, and I got an edit conflict when I tried to save it. As long as you guys worked it out, though, that's okay. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can still give your opinion, it's always welcome. And perhaps we'd like it better. Ha ha. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the page says it was released in Japan on December 10th, I am changing the release date to December 10th. DanielDPeterson (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Release date of the single "America's Suitehearts"?[edit]

iTunes was originally going to release the song on November 18th, but it got pushed back to December 2nd. [4]. Is there something wrong about this statement because when I went to edit it on the page, the release date was quickly changed back to November 18th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.210.116 (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My dearest apologizes. It was unsourced by your addition, as opposed to the text we've had there for a while. Once again, I'm sorry. I hope you understand, I'll add the correct information right now. --HELLØ ŦHERE 04:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was my fault, I saw a page which they released the song at that time, but they didn't say anything about a delay--F-22 Raptored (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good. In all honesty, when that section was made, I should've put a fact tag. And now that I think about it, one of them is listed without a source, so I might go put a fact tag there. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

America's Suitehearts (Suarez Remix) and Garageband file[edit]

I'm not sure how relevant it is, or where this would go, but there are is a downloadable bonus track and Garageband file. If you have Folie à Deux in your computer's CD/DVD drive you can go to http://www.pushentertainment.com/126 and download the Suarez Remix of the song. It also downloads a Garageband file of America's Suitehearts with all the separate tracks that make up the song. This process is pretty similar to how the Leaked In London EP worked. I can't find an article anywhere that confirms this, but if you follow the process at http://www.pushentertainment.com/126, it works fine. (Ablt92 (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

America's Suitehearts[edit]

The video is out now.. Could it PLEASE HAVE IT'S OWN PAGE IN WIKIPEDIA? Even Headfirst and What A Catch has their own page yet they don't have official videos. Come on, people... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.138.192 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

As at present the genres displayed only seem to correspond to previous work, I am re-adding a sourced genre. Please do not remove again JpGrB's reason for removing was because a review is only an opinion, to quote him. But if he can explain how anything related to music genre is anything more than an opinion I beg him to do so. Addug (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, Wikipedia goes by consensus, and the genre has been discussed and decided upon. If you'd like to try to gain a new consensus, that'd be perfectly fine, but as of now, it is by Wikipedia policy. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Title Change[edit]

Somebody deleted all the stuff about Fall Out Boy and replaced it with a redirect to a medical condition. Could someone please change the title of this page to "Folie a Deux (Fall Out Boy album)"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.76.59 (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, the talk page was never moved.--猛禽22 •• 04:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--猛禽22 •• 04:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folie à Deux winery[edit]

There is also a Folie à Deux winery in St. Helena, California, founded in 1981. Capital 'D' in Deux, like the album name. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linked from Folie à deux (disambiguation). –xenotalk 19:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what makes this page more important than the winery page? What makes this page not be Folie à Deux (album) (as it says at the dab page) or Folie à Deux (Fall Out Boy album)? I think Folie à Deux should redirect to Folie à deux (disambiguation), so that no one gets to sit on the main page. This page should move to either of the (album) names. Binksternet (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Folie à Deux (album) GrooveDog (oh hai.) 01:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{movereq|Folie à Deux (album)}}

Folie à Deux → Folie à Deux (album) — This album is not so much more notable than other instances of the phrase used as a name. The straight phrase should go to disambiguation, with Folie à Deux redirecting to Folie à deux (disambiguation). Binksternet (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. Seems sensible. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Folie à Deux? what the heck is that?!? :) Besides, I found the disambig page more interesting than this article anyway (No, that's not really a reason to move this, I'm just making an observation here...).
    — V = I * R (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The album is much more notable. Folie à Deux and Folie à deux combined are getting roughly 60,000-120,000 hits per month this year. The stats program doesn't break out case, but no more than approximately 10,000 of those are attributable to the disease (based on pageviews prior to creation of the album's article in August 2008). Other uses are much fewer with the winery getting fewer than 200 hits/mo (and only the winery uses precisely the same name). The minority looking for another article already see the dab hatnotes. By redirecting Folie à Deux to a dab page, where no one wants to be, we will be inconveniencing literally ten of thousands of viewers per month for no benefit. Station1 (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move, but redirect to Folie à deux instead. I think that the medical condition, being somewhat well known and the inspiration for the title of this album, should take preference because of common sense. I think that the resultant redirect should target the non-capitalised main page as having two URLs that point to different pages could prove to be confusing. Sceptre (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just have the DAB page at Folie à Deux?
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still has the confusion aspect. Wikipedia searches aren't case-sensitive, so we run the risk of accidentally hitting one when we mean the other. Sceptre (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I think Binksternet's suggestion is the best way to do it. Though this record accumulates way more hits than the mental conditon, it still doesn't change that they got the album title from aforementioned disease, and it does make a lot of sense to me to change this to Folie à Deux (album). Tommyesp (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Genre discussion[edit]

People keep removing "Emo" as a genre on this record. I reverse the edit when I see it, but it has been going on consistently since the article was created. So now it happened again, and it is really annoying. There are several references stating this genre belongs on this record, and albeit I personally disagree on that assessment, it is clear that it should be present. Is there any way we could prevent people from editing it out? Tommyesp (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now 3 sources are present. If it keeps on happening, I will request a page protection.--猛禽22 •• 17:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Costello[edit]

The version of "What a Catch, Donnie" on Believers Never Die: Greatest Hits is different than on the version on this CD. Instead of Elvis Costello singing his usual lines, it's clearly Patrick Stump. Listen to the two versions, you can hear the difference. And yet, in the back of the CD booklet of the greatest hits album, it still says Elvis Costello contributed vocals. Does anyone know anything about this? Am I the only one who noticed? --Worthlessboy1420 (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to confirm this?--猛禽22 •• 03:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's the problem. But the versions are clearly different, which is why I'm really confused. --Worthlessboy1420 (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really do anything about it. If you really feel that it's Patrick Stump, try to find another person that can agree with you and maybe we will try to work something out.--猛禽22 •• 18:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just heard it on Believers Never Die, and I'm sure it's Patrick Stump and not Elvis Costello. It also says that in the Believers Never Die - Greatest Hits Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreplyhaha (talk • contribs) 05:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this album a rock album[edit]

Recently I edited the genre and added Rock to it.But today I received a message saying that it was deleted because it wasn't well constructed enough.Now Fall out Boy is a rock band so their music should be under the category of rock. Am I wright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceman97 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Out Boy is a rock band, but we're using subgenres here to define them. If we call them just a rock band, then people will think "Is it hard rock?" "Is it metal?" "Is it progressive rock?"--猛禽22 •• 21:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Versions[edit]

I think it's important that we add/find more information on the different versions of Folie a Deux. There's a "Deluxe Edition" digipak (cardboard case) version of it with 19songs, comes with a poster instead of a booklet, with a bonus download (I think it's "America's Suitehearts (Suave Suarez Remix)"). I don't know if it's limited, or if it available worldwide. Ther is also a Limited "Green" Edition that is limited to 1000 pressings, and is also packaged as a digipak in an envelope that will plant seeds when planted, but without any extra songs. The Japan bonus version has a bonus DVD. We need to improve the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreplyhaha (talk • contribs) 10:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden track[edit]

I finally found a source that talks about the hidden Lullabye song in the beginning of the album, but where do you guys think I should talk about it in the article?

Here's the source: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-03-05/gossip/17917528_1_pete-wentz-ashlee-simpson-wentz-lullaby Basilisk4u (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source could be used twice. In "Recording and production" detailing Wentz's inspiration for writing the track. at the start of the 3rd paragraph, before guest musicians. Starting with something like: In march... and adapting the quotes:
  • "I wrote a lullaby especially for him - you'll find it on our new album if you look hard enough - it's a hidden track,"
  • "We had so much fun doing it I'm going to put out an album of songs for children."
Secondly it could be used for musical Composition sub-section, second paragraph, after "The Disloyal Order of Water Buffaloes" analysis detailing his bob dylan/ folk influence. Jonjonjohny (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like your first suggestion best, where you mention the lyrics and the track.Meatsgains (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singles[edit]

Is there anything about the exact release dates of the album's singles? "What a Catch, Donnie" was first released as part of the iTunes' "Complete My Album" thing weeks before Folie's release, and the song was later released sometime in 2009 as an official third single. "America's Suitehearts" was similarly released weeks before Folie and then later an official single (with a CD format available too) either late 2008 or early 2009, unknown (my Australian CD single says copyright 2008). Noreplyhaha (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've been wondering. It is really hard to find reliable sources about that, and I'd rather not use iTunes or Friends or Enemies sources because I am not sure how reliable they are. The singles section in general needs a bit of work, but I nominated the article for GA because it usually takes a few months to get a review so I think we will be able to fix it by then. I'm going to keep looking for sources though! Basilisk4u (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the singles section in general needs work. I also figured why you nominated the page before GA level, good idea. Maybe there could be something in the 400 or so pages of Fall Out Boy [news on their website] that might have it, or interesting bits for this article. Noreplyhaha (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Folie à Deux (album). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Folie à Deux (album). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Folie à Deux (album). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Folie à Deux (album)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Folie à Deux (album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "USAToday":

Reference named "Allmusic":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Folie_à_Deux_(album)&oldid=1211184844"