Talk:Weezer (Red Album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bohemian Rhapsody Connection?[edit]

Pig and Bohemian Rhapsody are very similar at the time of 1:50. Can anyone verify if this connection is an extreme coincidence or intentional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.128.196 (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Album?[edit]

I'm pretty sure this is an April Fool's Day joke by Rolling Stone. Weezer's publicist through Interscope has said that the title is still not confirmed, so I don't think we should keep this title up until it's official. Ringer7 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not wait before making impulsive edits? The current article title is not hurting anyone. It has been reverted back. Get proof before making rash edits like this. BGC (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, let's see, because we don't edit articles based on rumors. Seeing as the article was released on April Fool's Day and the information was suspect, as well as the fact that only one site released the info and the publicist denied any such info being available, it was a rash decision to confirm it as true. Maybe you should look into how Wikipedia operates before you call me out on something. As it is, weezer.com has recently confirmed these rumors to be "highly possible", so it is now acceptable to put them on here. In the future, though, keep in mind that Wikipedia does not operate on rumors. Ringer7 (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard and Rolling Stone articles are hardly "rumors". You were proven wrong, and apparently can't handle it. BGC (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we have a bit of etiquette and assume good faith? ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But refusing to add it because it was released on April Fool's, even when we have more than the one source, is speculation in itself. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. BGC (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only one source was given at the time of my edit, which was the aforementioned original Rolling Stone article. There was speculation all over the internet that it was an April Fools hoax, more speculation of that nature than that it was true (Pitchfork, for example). The proper way to handle it was to mark it as speculation until it was confirmed, which ultimately happened last night. This is a non-issue now that it has been confirmed, but the point is that I was merely trying to handle it appropriately. Posting it as confirmed fact (try to remember this is an encyclopedia) was jumping the gun, my edit was not. This section can be deleted from here though, obviously. Ringer7 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When there was just the one source, by Rolling Stone, I too refused to call the album "Weezer", but due to the fact it wasn't an official source. However, later a second source was added where the band's publicist confirmed it, so I went along with it - at least it's sorted now. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm absolutely fine with that logic. I'm just saying that when I checked and made my edit, the only article cited was the Rolling Stone one. Once the publicist confirmed it that's absolutely legitimate. My argument with BGC was based on the fact that he acted like my edit was premature or "impulsive," simply because the article was "not hurting anyone" and I didn't "have proof"...when the burden of proof was on him and he had nothing official to offer me. If you made the edit after seeing the publicist confirmation I obviously have nothing against that, as I read Karl's confirmation on their own official site when he posted it last night (which came hours after I edited it). In other news, I'm pumped for this album.Ringer7 (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well as long as there's no misunderstandings :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Amazon "Pork and Beans" clip[edit]

There is no citation given for this and I can't seem to find anything on Amazon about it, or the release date of the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.114.99 (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


iTunes Singles[edit]

Are iTunes singles considered to be the same as radio singles, in terms of listing them as official singles? I only ask because "Troublemaker" has now been released as an iTunes single, raising the count of "singles" released from this album to three before it has even been released. This is obviously likely due to the leak, but I'm just wondering if a digital single should be listed the same as a radio single. Ringer7 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually something that I think needs to be addressed universally. This is something a lot of bands are doing; release a "single" to fans in conjunction with the single released to radio. On one hand, it achieves the same promotional goals in the realm of fans; showing the album's sound in the form of a highlight, and hopefully bolstering public knowledge/anticipation of the album. On the other, the pop culture implications are different. Looking at a band's list of singles before this happened was a good indicator of the success of the album in the public's eye. How many were released? How well did they succeed? And on what charts? In what countries? And, probably most importantly when we're talking about hit machines like Weezer, what order? Clicking through a band's singles chronology should usually be a good tour of the band's mainstream success. These for-fans releases typically have no chance of making any dent on the mainstream world until they're released to radio officially. So doesn't that kind of challenge their criteria of inclusion? They're technically singles in the definition of the Wikipedia template, but to be fair, those terms were conceived before this process became so rampant. DackAttac (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel[edit]

I don't know about anyone else, but personally I'd like to see a more detailed personnel for this album, detailing what songs each of the members plays what instruments on. I wish I could be more help than just nagging for the information without actually contributing anything. Sorry for that :). But, really, if anyone knows, then I think it would be a good thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewlargemanjones (talk • contribs) 05:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the booklet that comes with the deluxe edition, it explains that Pat and Rivers switch roles on Brain's song "Thought I Knew", although Rivers is aided by the backtrack of a drum machine. The same switch is made on "Automatic". Ringer7 (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damn it, I knew I should have held out until I could make it to a place that had the Deluxe edition, lol. I was just anxious to get the album. Anyway, thanks for the info. I remember hearing Rivers say in an inerview that he played drums on three tracks for the album; do you know what the other one was?
I'm actually not sure, it doesn't have a list given, those two are just mentioned in some of the Q&A in the booklet. My best guess would be "Cold Dark World", though. Ringer7 (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

review suggestion[edit]

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this review. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the review and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the professional reviews section. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! (negative) 2008
Asst. Editor, Crawdaddy! FenderRhodesScholar | Talk 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyric Mistake/Error/Possible Trivia?[edit]

In the song "Heart Songs" there is an attribution (hope that's the word) mistake/error in it. Maybe it should be added.

The mistake:
Debbie Gibson
Tell me that you think
We're all alone

Debbie Gibson did not sing the 1980's remake of the classic song "I Think We're Alone Now". It was Tiffany who sang that song. It was on her 1987 Self Titled album. Nemrel (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2008 (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 Weezer (2008 album) –Juliancolton | Talk 01:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weezer (Red album) → Weezer (2008 album) — Page was moved without discussion - ignoring past consensus. The album is clearly self-titled Weezer, the named Red album merely comes from the colour - a fan made title to distinguish three self-titled albums. This needs move protection too now. Unable to change back because of redirects, etc. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Release year is a well-established and widespread disambiguator; I'd prefer it to be used here. Knepflerle (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, though I agree some discussion should have taken place first. Sure, the generally accepted policy for disambiguating albums in this case would be to use the release year; but what ever happened to ignoring all of the rules? Weezer's self-titled albums are more commonly referred to by their color than Weezer or even their release year, and could easily be sourced in this manner. It is not just a fan made title, as several professional music sites disambiguate with color including: allmusic, Spinner, Billboard, PitchFork, NME, Alternative Press, The Boston Globe – the list goes on and on. With the official title still being Weezer, and the color being a good disambiuation, Weezer (Red Album) is a very appropriate title for this article. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it's not an official name and we should be following disambiguation guidelines just like any other article. I believe a chronological difference is going to be more helpful than colour. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 15:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be considered an official title if the band themselves refer to it as "The Red Album" as they do on their official web site here and here (among other places)? What use is a chronological disambiguation when in most cases the article is already associated with its own release year (such as the discography section on the band page, the separate discography article, the band's navbox, album infoboxes and sentences such as "the band's 2001 album Weezer")? Fezmar9 (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An official title is what's on the album cover or in the record label's cataloging. Period. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of like what you see here at the Interscope Records website? Fezmar9 (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is hardly official cataloging by the record label. And notice how it still says the name of the album is "Weezer". That's the name of the album, and Wikipedia's policy for distinguishing releases of the same name is release year. Don't know what is so hard to understand. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is an album listing on the official Interscope Records website. If you can find a more official catalog, please do so. Wikipedia, in essence, is just a reflection of what outside sources say. Sources are disambiguating Weezer's self-titled releases by color. So why can Wikipedia not do the same? Putting the album naming/disambiguating policy aside for a second, how is disambiguating by year better for editors/readers than using colors? Fezmar9 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's what we do here, and being consistent makes it easier on users. There are places where we can't be consistent, and we shouldn't try to force consistency on anything where it just doesn't fit (which is what WP:UCS is really all about), but this is hardly one of those instances. We ignore what corporate marketing departments want with impunity, and for good reason. Part of the point is also that Wikipedia is not an anarchy.
— V = I * R (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what happens when Weezer releases another self-titled album that is colored blue? If that were to happen, what would you do then? You would go with release year, which has long been used across Wikipedia to distinguish between releases of the same name, whether it's video games, films, music, etc. The release date is simply much more encyclopedic than a color. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Undiscussed and controversial moves should always be reverted, unless the consensus is immediately clear that the new name is more appropriate (which is certainly not the case here, since the new name goes against WP:TITLE guidelines).
    — V = I * R (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parenthetical disambiguator is not part of the title; it's only purpose is to help readers distinguish between two or more titles that would otherwise be identical. Since in this case readers are somewhat more likely to know what color album they're looking for than the year it was released, Weezer (red album) -- or possibly Weezer (The Red Album), but not "Red album" -- is probably slightly better than Weezer (2008 album). But it really doesn't matter too much as long as redirects are in place, and if there's no consensus for "(red album)" it should probably go back to where it was. Station1 (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving to Weezer (2008 album) for consistency. The current name looks like it was about an album named Weezer by a band named Red. At the very least, move it to Weezer (red album) if there's no consensus for this move. Jafeluv (talk) 10:51, 25 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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Weezer (2008 album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Weezer (2008 album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Weezer (Red Album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article requirements:

Green tickY All the start class criteria
Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Green tickY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
Green tickY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Green tickY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
Green tickY Categorisation at least by artist and year

Green tickY A casual reader should learn something about the album.Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Weezer (2008 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) 22:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Weezer (January 2019 album) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Weezer's Untitled 6th Album" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Weezer's Untitled 6th Album. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weezer_(Red_Album)&oldid=1211565906"