Talk:Worship Music (album)

Tracks

Based on what I've heard about the new album, I don't think these tracks are correct. Tetsuo669 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

According to metalhammer.co.uk/news/exclusive-hammer-hears-new-anthrax-tracks/ here are the confirmed tracks (so far):

• Burn The Past
• Earth On Hell
• New Noise
• Bleed

Chart Positions

here --L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Good source, but what is needed is links to the actual charts they represent so peak position can be charted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no source that says Dan Nelson wrote any songs on the record. The record only credits the band. The article should only state what the record says unless there's a source to show otherwise. http://www.herfitzpr.com/hpr.com/Anthrax_Worship_Music_CD_Credits.html - this has the credits from inside the album. 12.16.164.205 (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you had actually commented when you reverted, this problem wouldn't have happened. A reliable source should have been requested at the time that it was added. Yours isn't a reliable source, but http://www.allmusic.com/album/worship-music-mw0000819619/credits is, and Nelson isn't listed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Since when is the US copyright office not a reliable source? Needtaknow123 (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Dan Nelson writing credits

It doesn't seem as though Nelson has been granted credits only that he is in the process of suing for those credits. If anyone has a more clear reference than what is in the article, that would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Link to the copyrights for Worship Music clearly showing Dan Nelson as a coauthor on 8 tracks. Case was settled in Nelson's favor June 23rd, 2012. Thank you.

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search%5FArg=Anthrax%20worship%20music&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=Uedrxru_9RpC8YeI9jaz_2KVH-gr&SEQ=20130620102412&SID=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needtaknow123 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, here is the link clearly stating that the case was settled last year. Thank you.

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/anthrax-settles-lawsuit-with-former-singer-dan-nelson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needtaknow123 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Needtaknow123 (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to make a personal comment: Needtaknow123, do you know how to read English? The reason I ask is that there's a big edit notice on my page, "If you're here to tell me about an edit of yours that I reverted, please explain why it should be included on the article's talk page" yet you kept writing me on my talk page. And then above, I requested "a more clear reference than what is in the article".

The reference you have provided in the article and again here, the US Copyright Catalog (1978 to present), is not clear as to whether Nelson has or has not won the suit as it clearly states: "Copyright Claimant" but below "Authorship on Application". So a link to the case, or a notice of settlement or a write-up about this would be better. In short, your source is not sufficiently clear and we need a better one. So please stop beating this dead horse with this ineffective stick and start reading.

And do sign your comments with ~~~~ Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The blabbermouth.net article is sufficiently clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I wasn't well versed enough in the realm of Wikipedia. Peace. Needtaknow123 (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Worship Music (album) → Worship Music – I noticed that the title "Worship Music" is a redirect to a completely different subject. Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The common term is Christian worship music not this album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - The articles are entitled "Contemporary worship music" and "Contemporary worship", while the term "Worship Music" is a disambiguation page. I think the readers can easily make difference between those terms.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course you support it, you nominated the move. The question isn't what those articles are called but what the primary term, "worship music", refers to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - leave as is, CAPS is not sufficient disambiguation in this case when this genre is, rightly or wrongly, often capitalized (example Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World 2012 capitalizes Contemporary Worship Music, just as it captializes Rhythm & Blues and Rock n Roll). In ictu oculi (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - the disambiguation page is necessary; this page is by no means the primary topic. StAnselm (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nominator's preference is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the disambiguation page for such an ambiguous phrase is entirely appropriate per WP:TWODABS. Even an unreliable indicator like a google test establishes that the album is no where near the top of search results. Bad nomination.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ditto StAnselm and ColonelHenry. Evensteven (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The disambiguation page at the base title is the correct approach, as the genre of music is much more notable than the single album. Xoloz (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I would like to see the disambig page have other forms of worship music added. There can't be only contemp. Xian? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Worship Music (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: L1A1 FAL (talk · contribs) 16:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   My only concern was the list of chart positions, but I believe that it is ok in this context.

   Yes, it seems okay now. The Brave Words cite was moved at the top of the table, since all of the chart positions were sourced with that ref.

   Hey L1, I was thinking if you could paraphrase the Caggiano statement in the 'Touring'? The Scott Ian quote in the 'Background' (5th paragraph–December 8, 2010) could also be paraphrased.

   I was thinking about either knocking that quote out completely or trimming it way down when I was toying with that section last night. I'll have to take a look at the other quote that you mentioned.

   Update I eliminated the Caggiano statement, as I feel it didn't add anything of value. I turned Ian's statement into regular prose.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Citations should be more consistently formatted; Author names, websites, dates, publishers (when available) etc. I know you know what to do there. There are a couple sources in other languages, and they should probably be tagged in the citation. There are a number of dead links that need fixed. As of this revision those are cites #4, 18, 23, 43, 44 and 45

   I've formatted the references, placing the author's name if given in the source, and updated the current links. Also added the date when the information was published. All of the dead links were either replaced or updated, after which I've removed the "dead link" templates.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   It appears to be neutrally written. The only concern I have is if there is any negative reaction to the album.

   I have completely re-written this section because it had too many quotations. This articles was one of my very first attempts to summarize a critical reception of an album, and now I see how lousy my writing style was back then. Added some negative comments from Popmatters and partially from IGN. Added a few opinions from the newspapers listed in the box, which makes it a better read now, I suppose.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   I don't see anything that indicates frequent large changes to content.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Are there any images that could possibly be added? Perhaps pics of Dan Nelson and/or Joey Belladonna?

   I was thinking of incorporating an image of Scott Ian, or John Dette if possible, since they were the members discussed in the 'touring' section. I'll see what we have on Commons.

   I'd avoid a pic of Dette. He's a minor part in relation to the album. Both Belladonna and Nelson are entwined with the album's history though. Ian certainly would be as well though.

   Couldn't decide which member to pick, so went with the entire band at the Big Four tour.

   Is there one available from later than 2010?

   Good catch, haven't noticed that the image was before the album was released. Replaced with a fresher one from 2014.

   what about this one from 2013? You can see the album artwork behind the band. the only thing that concerns me about it is the copyright status, but I think its okay. Here is a good one of Belladonna, too.

   Copyright on that image is fine. Bad caption though. --erachima talk 19:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

   Done. The caption was slightly re-worded too.

   Ok, great!

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: