Talk:Diamond Eyes

Mention of leak?

An editor has expressed his interest (on my talk page) in keeping mention of Diamond Eyes leaking off the article until the official release date. As it stands, mention of the leak is reliably sourced as a possible explanation for why the release date was recently bumped up two weeks. Nowhere in this article or the source is there a link to download the leak, and this article in noway promotes illegal downloading. What has been written here is compliant with the (brief) leak guideline at WP:LEAK. However, I still feel I should gather some consensus before continuing to undo his edits. If the result is to remove the information, it would be best to comment out the sentence and source so it can be easily re-added. Thank you. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Scrapping of Eros

There are two delays surrounding Eros. The first being shortly after Cheng's accident, all work on the album halted until further notice. This was not a creative or artistic decision, just what felt right at the time. According to Moreno, the band hopes to "release [Eros] when the time is right -- hopefully when Chi is back on his feet. But when the accident happened, we just didn't want to be in that time anymore." [1] The creative/artistic decision that Moreno speaks of was the choice to shelve Eros indefinitely and begin on a new album, Diamond Eyes. The "creative decision" is already paraphrased in this article as "they didn't feel that [Eros] represented who they were as artists or as people at the time" from the Blabbermouth source "this record doesn't best encompass and represent who we are currently as people and as musicians."[2] These two separate delays should not be lumped together. I feel that what has been written in this article accurately portrays what the third-party published sources are indicating. Maybe it needs to be expanded upon or made a little less wordy, but not completely changed.

ALSO, an editor has expressed his dislike for mentioning "the creative decision" in the intro, feeling that it was overly descriptive. Something that an intro should avoid. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Metal Hammer link

Does the link to Metal Hammer really need to be there?

The reviewer listened to the leaked version,and the descriptions are..vague.

While it is a nice link for people interested in the album,I think the link may need to be removed based off the fact that the review was of an illegal version of the album,and it really isn't the best of reviews any ways.

I realize the album has only been out 5 days and it will be hard to find a good replacement for the link,but it just seems..wrong to have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.185.10 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done – While it seems unreasonable to assume that this review is based on the leaked version (at two months before Diamond Eyes was released promotional copies were likely available, and Metal Hammer is 25 year old publication that would not promote illegal downloading) use of the review is no longer needed. At the time it was added, it was the only review available. Now that we have full reviews with ratings, the MetalHammer track-by-track can be removed. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Slant Magazine genre refs

Alternative metal seems to be reliably sourced, the entire album being called such. I recently noticed that shoegazing and dream pop were added with a citation. It is popular belief that these are good descriptors for the album back when these went without a source, but someone challenged them and removed them. I immediately found the alt-metal ref but could not find anything supporting the others. I only see individual songs supporting this ref and claims that go along with it. I added quotes to the citations to make it easy to review, because I found the supported genres. What do you all think should be done? Remove them or keep them? DannyMusicEditor (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Since there are no real rules or explanation on what the infobox genre field is to represent, I only use it specifically to display genres that have described the album as a whole. The average user isn't going to read the sources, and won't understand that one genre was pigeonholed to one song, and it's very good to use that info in the prose, but somewhat misleading for the infobox. I'd remove the others, but I'm welcome to other opinions as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No one else has made a comment. I will move these genre mentions to prose in the near future. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)