Talk:Necroticism – Descanting the Insalubrious

Intro's

The samples from the album are taken from some documentary. Does some one know which one? Spearhead 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Incarnate(d) Solvent Abuse misspellt ???

According to the track list, the track "Incarnated Solvent Abuse" is misspelt and the correct name would be "Incarnate Solvent Abuse". But take a look at the Tools of the Trade EP. On this EP, there is the same track, in the same spelling. So it would be misspelt on 2 different CDs ?

As with "Corporal Jigsore Quandary": According to my translator programm, both "corporal" and "corporeal" mean the same, right ? (sorry, english ain't my mother tongue). So why should this track be misspelt ? Since there is no citation, I think we should remove the part about misspelt track names. --87.177.229.102 (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Even at the risk that I am just talking to myself (the above post was also made by me): I just took a look on my CD (I didn't have it near me yesterday) and whats interesting: in the booklet, "Incarnated Solvent Abuse" is spelled like on the back of the CD. However in the booklet "Corporal Jigsore Quandary" is spelled as Corporeal. But maybe the word in the booklet is misspelt and not the one in the tracklist.

But another thing about the track list that should be mentioned: Almost all of the running times of the songs are wrong (except for the last 2 songs, they are correct) The biggest time difference is at track 1, "Inpropagation". According to the track list, it should be 6.19 minutes, but the track itself lasts 7.07 minutes. Normally, this wouldn't be that important, but since someone wrote about the misspelt tracknames ... --87.177.226.214 (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have original LP to view track listing on it? -- Serguei Trouchelle (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Carcass-Necroticism.jpg

Image:Carcass-Necroticism.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

— Save_Us_229 20:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Japanese vesrion

Does anyone have any sources for this? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Clarification" needed

No sort of clarification is needed on the term "Progressive", as the quote from the DVD interview (as mentioned, albeit not cited with ref tags) is their words. Any sort of "clarification" would be original research, as they didn't specify past "progressive". Maybe they meant progressive metal, maybe they meant progressive house, maybe they simply meant progressive, period. We can't assume what they mean, we just report what the source said. If there is a problem with the layout (such as lacking a citation using ref tags), feel free to add one in. If you can find a source where they state that they call it "progressive ________", then please add it in. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Rename the article

Someone please rename the article to include the proper typographical dash character "—" instead of the regular "-", since this is the only proper spelling as per the English language rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.220.184.30 (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Currently the article is titled using the en-dash, "–", not a hyphon as you claim ("-"). Can you provide evidence that we should use the em-dash, "—"? Specifically, something from "the English language rules" supporting this? Until then, I have reverted your edits adding the em-dash. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)