Talk:Gold Cobra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeGold Cobra was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 8, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed

why was my edit taken out about the Unquestionable Truth EP!? it is simply a withholding of information if you state that this is their first album from the original line up since 2000 although they released this EP in 2006, as I recall. I even linked the article to my edit. can anyone explain that to me!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.222.72.100 (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


i heard there was a song on this album called "bring it" a few days ago on here. were there any references for that

((2011))

Please can we settle the 2011 debate when it hasn't even been confirmed even their website says 2010 year of the cobra and their tour dates are supposed to start this summer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.113.225 (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep it at June 2010 / Summer 2010 until Limp Bizkit Tells the official news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.113.225 (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC) http://www.limpbizkit.com/whytry/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.113.225 (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Release date[edit]

All of the tentative release windows have come and gone, and all recent sources[1][2][3] only claim "the release date for the LP has yet to be announced." They don't even suggest it could be released later this year. At this point having anything in the release field would be a blatant guess. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we should not be predicting when this album will come out. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Album release[edit]

What do you mean with: "and the first full-length album from the original lineup since 2000's Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water." What "Results may vary" was? Thanks. Alakasam 02:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Cobra is the first album with the founding lineup since Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water was released in 2000. Founding guitarist Wes Borland was not involved with Results May Vary. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you are right, thanks. Alakasam (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUT he WAS involved with the The Unquestionable Truth (Part 1) in 2005! So, I admit that it was only an EP and not a full-length album but to leave the information out raises the main idea that the reader will get, that they have not worked together sinde 2000. And that is definately false. I added this information twice and after the first deletion asked about why it was deleted but even my comment on this talk page got removed. Can anyone explain that please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.178.227.93 (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But John Otto was not involved in The Unquestionable Truth (Part 1), so Gold Cobra is the first album with the band's full original line-up since 2000's Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water.GroundZ3R0 002 17:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angelos song length[edit]

The duration of the song is 2:53. The 3:27 extended version of "Los Angelos" is made by a fan, HanoiA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXMJvAXpFfM) He added a third chorus to his version. The original version only contains 2 choruses. "Los Angeles” is the iTunes exclusive track, at least for Europe. Here is the German iTunes page for Gold Cobra. As you can see the song length is 2:53. 71.214.43.35 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

A good album is always a good album. The sales reflects it, the people love it no matter how hard the haters try to put the negative reviews on the reception section and it does not matter how hard people try to show it is a good album when the BBC reviews it negatively while it is shown as positive next to the box in the right section. Such malpratices in wikipedia is abolutely pathetic. Who cares, I like the album, I listen to it. Do not give a damn to these absard "competitions". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.234.45.5 (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry, we will keep the reception section accurate. Portillo (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an album sells does not mean it is good. If only good music sold well we wouldn't have to put up with people like Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga. Limp Bizkit hasn't have a good album since 1999. --Jimv1983 (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

Is there a limit to how many professional reviews you can put in the article? Portillo (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, no. Though you should try to keep it short and sweet. The ratings box has a limit of 12 reviews, but you can add more in the article body itself if you'd like. However, 12 reviews should be more than enough to establish how the album was received. You can read more about reception sections and ratings here and here. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There were a few more pro reviews I found that I thought deserved to be there thats all. Portillo (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that kind of reflects on the reviewers having a different opinion than you expected rather than an intentional attempt to go out of the way to focus on positive reviews. All the cited reviews are from reliable sources, and no one's digging through fan sites to find favorable reviews.--WTF (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gold Cobra/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mattg82 (talk · contribs) 01:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

1) MOS

Chart placements need to be in following format, No. <number>, per WP:NUMERO.

2) Refs

The dates on references need to be in a consistent format.
Gold Cobra sold 27,500 copies... needs a source.
ref 18 no longer works, see WP:GOODCHARTS for a list of suitable replacement sources.
Allmusic as the publisher is sometimes italicised and sometimes not, be consistent. Again the same with Artistdirect. Sometimes it Blabbermouth.net and other times it is just Blabbermouth. Check all publisher/work/newspaper options on refs are consistently formatted and named.
ref 26 has the same date twice, it seems to incorrectly using |author=
Deccan Chronicle needs to be italicised and again in the Pro ratings box
  • A couple of other things
Was the album certified anywhere?
The size of the text on the music sample looks small.
Could do with a link to Billboard 200 within the prose.


All done for now. The main problem here is the references, I'll leave this on hold so that the issues can be fixed, thanks. Mattg82 (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that some but not all of the issues were fixed. This should be either passed or failed in the next day or two. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after comparing the review comments to the changes, I see almost nothing has been fixed. As a result, I'm failing this. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

The genre is listed as Nu Metal. Seriously? Nu Metal? Is that suppose to be a joke? --Jimv1983 (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, this is what this album is most commonly described as. And it's by Limp Bizkit, who are usually described as this genre. --WTF (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Douche Bag" from singles' list[edit]

I've deleted "Douche Bag" from singles' list as i was unable to find any references claiming that it was released as a single. If you do come across one, then please add it back and also mention it in Limp Bizkit discography. Aashwath_001 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC). —Preceding undated comment added 11:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gold Cobra. 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) 21:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Gold Cobra. 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) 16:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Metal genre[edit]

Nu metal genre.

Multiple sources claim Limp Bizkit to be a, first and foremost, a nu metal band; including:

Limp Bizkit’s profile at Apple Music: https://music.apple.com/se/artist/limp-bizkit/105544?l=en-GB — “Nu Metal pioneers”.

Spotify’s official Nu Metal play list, featuring Fred Durst on the cover. https://open.spotify.com/playlist/37i9dQZF1DXcfZ6moR6J0G

On each and every Loudwire article, for example, https://loudwire.com/best-limp-bizkit-album-vote/ — “one of the most beloved Nu Metal bands”, and https://loudwire.com/limp-bizkit-cover-metallica-master-puppets-videos/ — “Nu Metal version”.

On each and every Metal Hammer / Louder Than Sound article, for example: https://www.loudersound.com/news/limp-bizkit-fred-durst-new-look-european-tour — “nu metal daddies”, and https://www.loudersound.com/news/limp-bizkit-gunenrsbury-park-london-announced — “nu metal legends”.

Fred Durst referring to himself as the “king of nu metal” on track 4 “Turn It Up, B*tch” from their latest album ‘Still Sucks’ (2021).

Additionally -and on the same song- referring to the band as “nu metal one hit wonders”.

Wikipedia’s Nu metal page: “Nu metal became popular in the late 1990s with bands and artists such as Korn, Limp Bizkit, and Slipknot all releasing albums that sold millions of copies.”

The Guardian: https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2023/aug/13/limp-bizkit-review-piece-hall-halifax-nu-metal — “nu metal elders”.

Multiple Revolver articles including: https://www.revolvermag.com/music/10-wildest-nu-metal-performances — “Wild nu metal performances”.

Multiple Kerrang! Articles including: https://www.kerrang.com/amp/limp-bizkit-how-significant-other-saw-the-nu-metal-anti-heroes-take-over-the-world — “the nu Metal anti-heroes”

These are just a few examples (quick google search, first hits) to prove that Limp Bizkit is widely recognized as a nu metal band. Acknowledged by the band members themselves, the media, the critics and the fans.

Hope with this information you reconsider your position and change the main genre on their Wikipedia page.

Thank you , Warm regards,

@Materialscientist Cambodia3DBY (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gold_Cobra&oldid=1205849114"