Jump to content

Talk:Exogenesis: Symphony

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

Notability

[edit]

A common argument will be that this song not being a single release, is not notable enough for an article. Here are a few reasons why the song is notable enough:

  1. The song has had a lot of independent media coverage, which can be seen from the wealth of information, with references;
  2. The song is extremely notable in terms of the band's style of music and the music industry itself (the song is pretty much unique); and
  3. The song has spanned a lot of Muse's career, as Matt has written it, "on and off," since before Black Holes & Revelations.

Please discuss this matter and put it to a vote before simply deleting the article. Thanks for your co-operation. Andre666 (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above statement. The article should be kept, a unique song like this will dominate the album, and as Andre666 said, plenty of media coverage can be found. Keytar Shredder (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]

Any reason for this? Andre666 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

[edit]

Seeming that it wasn`t released as a single, suggest that we deleted this acticle. 222.154.243.247 (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being released as a single isn't the only indication of a song's notability. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was: Moved back to original title Exogenesis: Symphony. Although "(song)" is preferable to the unnecessary "(Muse song)" (WP:MUSTARD#Disambiguation), when Exogenesis by itself is ambiguous a "more complete name ... that is equally clear and unambiguous ... should be used" (WP:NCDAB). Based on this discussion, because "Exogenesis: Symphony" appears to be the actual "more complete" name of this work according to several sources including the band's web site, because this article was recently moved from that name, and because using the work's actual title avoids any question of whether it is in fact actually a song or a symphony, consensus seems to indicate a move to Exogenesis: Symphony. Station1 (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exogenesis (Muse song) → Exogenesis (song) — Exogenesis (song) is currently a redirect to here, Exogenesis (Muse song). As no other song called "Exogenesis" has an article, there is no reason for the article to be disambiguated to (Muse song), it can simply be Exogenesis (song). Andre666 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, but why was it moved from Exogenesis: Symphony without discussion in the first place? U-Mos (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, to be honest. Andre666 (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is, is Exogenesis actually a song? I don't think so. It's three tracks. And in the booklet, the main title is designated as just "Exogenesis" with the seperate lyrics labelled as "Symphony Part 1/2/3". So Exogenesis (symphony)? But then why not Exogenesis: Symphony? It's a tricky one. U-Mos (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, if designated a symphony rather than a song all mentions of the title should be italicised rather than "quoted".) Thinking about it, my vote goes to Exogenesis (symphony). U-Mos (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that; it's hardly a 'conventional' symphony, so we couldn't really base it on that kind of structure... I personally think Exogenesis (song) is Wikipedially correct. Andre666 (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at symphony, there are traditional symphonies but there is no real rule to being one. So a group of songs, basically, which is what this is. U-Mos (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Exogenesis Part 4: Salvation

[edit]

Part 4 should be released soon. Source here: [4]. Should not this be included as well? --RockyMM (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was April 1st joke. The joke is on me. --RockyMM (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References to this have been removed from the article as it was a joke by the message board staff (of whom I am one), and had nothing to do with Muse at all. 147.197.190.100 (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after settling down over being fooled I find the inclusion of THE WORST possible interpretation of MK Ultra totaly hillarious! :) --RockyMM (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Exogenesis: Symphony. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 18:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Exogenesis: Symphony. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 20:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exogenesis:_Symphony&oldid=1195555025"