Talk:Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume Two: No World for Tomorrow

Amory Wars

There is a whole seperate article for the amory wars and the little bit about the albums correlation with the story does not belong here. Nineinchsin 05:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

leaked

the entire album leaked, at least i believe so. I'm downloading it now, im not sure if its the real deal or some fake. i'll find out soon though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.71.127 (talk) 03:31, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

If you were a true fan you'd wait and buy it.. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 04:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You might wanna keep your opinions to yourself. --Ksharpe126 14:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC) &BTW, it wasn't the album, someone just uploaded some metal under coheed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksharpe126 (talk • contribs) 14:27, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse, I knew it would not be leaked. Downloading supposed 'leaked' albums kinda puts the artists out of the price which should be payed for their album, that's why I said it. People can do what they want, my preceding comment was slightly humourous, please take no offense. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 09:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Just downloaded the title track to see if it was real, and it seems that it is. It's obviously Claudio singing, and the chorus includes the words "No World for Tomorrow." I'm putting the leak notice back up on the page. AyAn4m1 16:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides jack, downloading an album early doesn't mean you aren't going to buy it. Imo since fan is just short for fanatic, I can do without being a fan of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.196.38 (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

versions

did you notice on amazon.com there were a lot of versions of no world for tomorrow. there is a sba1, clean, and two imports. so i take it it will have a parental advisory? what does sba1 mean anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.185.26.251 (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NWFTreal.jpg

Image:NWFTreal.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Song articles

Please refrain from creating articles for individual songs on the album, they're simply not notable enough.Rehevkor 18:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

noworldfortomorrow.com section

I have cut the noworldfortomorrow.com section and replaced it with a briefer marketing section. I found the original to be rather superfluous, redundant and overly verbose. Rehevkor 17:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Live songs

If in the article, we wish to mention that three songs were played live prior to release, we should mention The Hound (Of Blood and Rank) and cite the date of performance. 142.157.197.100 21:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk cleanup

Feel free to revert my changes if you think some of the sections here are necessary, but I'm going to delete a good number that serve no further purpose: noworldfortomorrow.com, Songs, Article Title, Running Free, Album title again, Songs Again, competition. A few other sections could go too probably, but someone else can clear those out if they feel like it. Everything I've removed was discussions that only applied pre-release. Harukaze 10:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Added this section. Please feel free to revise and add. I think NWFT has got enough reviews to make this section. Some of the mag reviews I don't have, so if you do, that would be nice to put. Nineinchsin 01:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

B on the quality scale

Technically, we don't qualify yet. We should have the full personnel listing up, more than just the band. I'm not going to bother changing our class though, because I'll add personnel tomorrow if no one else gets there first. As far as I know, I think we're good on every other point. Harukaze 02:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Claudio on Keys

Okay, I just undid an undo regarding Claudio on Keys. Reason for original Undo: please provide source; reason for my Undo: it's in the NWFT lyrics book under credits. I just don't know how to use this as a source on Wikipedia, since it's an offline physical publication, not an online source. At the moment, I'm listening to WP:IAR more than WP:NOR [I hope those're the right links ^_^], since I know the version that exists now is correct [although, when I get more time I'd like to match our two drummers verbatim to the booklet like I did with everyone else]. The question is, is there any way I can properly source this? Harukaze 10:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess you could do it like when you cite a book; see Wikipedia:Citation_templates. Thanks :)) — jacĸrм (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Will try to do this when I'm home [don't have it with me here right now, and I can only spend a little bit of time on Wiki at work]. Side note, how embarassing, I typed "Base" when I meant "Bass" -_- I need to stop editing Wiki late at night >.> Harukaze 13:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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 no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

---

The album has been released and the official title is "No World for Tommorow". There is no evidence to suggest that "Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume Two" should be included in the title. (The section below entitled "Article Title" is merely conjecture, posted months before the album's release.) MikeCerm 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but in the deluxe edition of the CD, on the cover of the liner notes it specifically says "Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume Two: No World For Tomorrow." So yes, this is the official title. Thanks for playing, though. 24.98.7.208 01:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Drew

Thanks for being a jackass to someone for absolutely no reason. I am guessing that the fact that everywhere else besides the liner notes it is referred to as "No World for Tomorrow" by itself is no reason to think it is the official title. I guess they couldn't have the title correct on the official website, the official blog, every single webstore that carries it and most review sites. That would be completely irrational. Oh yeah and where is the other place the put the title of an album? Oh yeah, on the cover of the CD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.196.38 (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Brother, chill out. I was kidding around. But the album *is* officially called GAIBS4 VII:NWFT. It's a fact.12.155.207.2 14:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Drew

Arguments about politeness aside, I think it's safe to say that the move request should be removed - the official title, however rarely seen, is in fact Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume Two: No World for Tomorrow, so the article will remain where it is. Harukaze 10:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragraph to the page summary explaining the confusion regarding the title. Unfortunately I used some weasel wording, but I don't know how better to say it - can someone suggest or write a better wording? I read somewhere that Claudio mentioned the album was marketted as No World for Tomorrow because the full title was too long. I wanted to include that, too, but I can't back that up with a citation, so I left it out. Does anyone know if he said that, and if so, where is it documented? Harukaze 11:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's here:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:O3fe2VCwBaAJ:forum.severedmyties.com/viewtopic.php%3Ft%3D1185%26postorder%3Dasc%26start%3D15%26sid%3D0d827fcf584a087d389861a782331d7c+chondra+coheed&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=uk

Unfortunately it's only cached so someone will have to work on this pretty quickly. Apparently some guy met Claudio, and reports back that "The new album will be titled: Volume II: The World Of No Tomorrow. He said he didn't want to make it long."

Seem to be getting a lot of conflicting information here, perhaps we should use the title the album was officially released as, rather than how it was meant/intended/secretly to be titled? Rehevkor 17:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no more confusion and no conflicting information that isn't already outdated. How the title was meant to be and how it is are the same thing now: "Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, volume two: No World for Tomorrow". The font was all caps, but that's not terribly relevent. If I have to take a photo of the lyric book and post that, I will, but there's no further need to move this page at all. Harukaze 20:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly sourced on the page, the title is as the article is named. — jacĸrм (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

---

OK, we had a SNAFU here, which I finally rectified by moving the things back. For everyone's convenience, here's an excerpt from my talk page:

Hey, I noticed you recently moved all Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume Two: No World for Tomorrow articles to simply No World for Tomorrow. I was wondering why you did this exactly? You said moving per the RM, so I assume that someone requested for it to be moved, but after a brief search, I couldn't find who. I would ask that the move is reverted (I know it may seem a pain to you to do another RM, and I apologize) as the full title is indeed Good Apollo... as stated by Claudio Sanchez (lead singer of the band) in a sourced interview shortly before it was released, and is in fact written inside the album cover. Thank you for your cooperation on this. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 10:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It was listed on WP:RM for a while (by User:MikeCerm), but when I checked the talk page, there wasn't a debate indeed; actually, it was removed by User:Harukaze, but not unlisted from the RM [1]. Having checked the band's official page, it's listed as "No World for Tomorrow", as well as on the album cover, and pretty much everywhere on the internet. I would argue for the shorter title on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME and sancta simplicitas, and on the basis that "Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume Two:" could be treated as a subtitle. Generally, we don't do "official names" (hint: take a look at my closure at Talk:FC Dynamo Kiev, and subsequent complaining I expect on my talk page). In any case, I won't be terribly shaken by the revert of my move. Duja► 10:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

IOW, I missed this debate, as it was at the page's top, and under not-so-intuitive heading title, and moved the page under the reasons outlined above. Since there's apparently no consensus to move it, I reverted myself. I'll also feel free to relist the debate at WP:RM, as I think that the original nominator, User:MikeCerm has a point; take my post above as an argument in favor of the move. See e.g. how a similar situation is handled at NATO. Of course, I will also recuse from closing it. Duja► 12:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm really sorry guys, apparently this was entirely my fault. I didn't realize there were conventions for archiving talk pages that got too insane, nor did I realize that I left a flag saying the page was still to be moved. I'm still learning here, and sometimes being bold means doing something really stupid <.< It looks like this is all worked out now though, yesh? Should I maybe fix the mistake I made though, and create a /Archive1 page, or however it normally goes [I'm pretty sure I saw that a few times, anyway, but I'm kinda hesitant to fix something like that now without asking first]? Let me know. Harukaze 18:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Common name vs. Official name

I've read the above, and I hate to say something that will stir things up, but... our policy isn't to use the official names of things. Our naming convention states that we should use the most commonly used unambiguous name that we can find. In sources that discuss this album, is is predominantly referred to as "No World for Tommorow", or as "Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume Two: No World for Tomorrow"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell "No World For Tomorrow" is both the common and official title. It was released and marketed as such. If the Good Apollo title was the full title it would have been on the cover of the album, not tucked away in the booklet. At best it is an unofficial title. I would fully support a move to No World For Tomorrow. Rehevkor 21:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with just having a re-direct? If the opening reads "Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume Two: No World for Tomorrow more commonly referred to as No World for Tomorrow.." then there I see nothing wrong with that. The page also contains a section about the name and how it's referred to as 2 different things. -- Jack 21:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see that there's anything particularly wrong with either option, but given a choice between complying with our naming conventions or not, I don't see a compelling reason to choose not. Consistency is worth something, perhaps? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see the point if No World for Tomorrow already redirects here. Also on a video source on the articles, Claudio says the full name of the album is Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume Two: No World for Tomorrow.[2] This link proves that it is the official name. -- Jack 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that it's the official name. I'm asking whether it's the common name. Your argument about not seeing the point as long as there's a redirect could be applied equally well in the other direction: Why keep the article at the long title that's less common, as long as we can have a redirect in place from that title? The reason to choose one over the other is consistency with our widely accepted naming conventions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what your point is. Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume One: From Fear Through the Eyes of Madness was never moved to a shorter title though, which would make moving this seem a bit out of place. I know Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume One: From Fear Through the Eyes of Madness is referred to as just Good Apollo etc., but I see no problem keeping the current page and re-direct, nor do I now see a problem with moving it to No World for Tomorrow if more people want to move it than keep it here, so long as it explains about how people refer to it as 2 different titles. -- Jack 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

{edit conflict} Replying to GTBacchus, I agree, consistency is worth something; and since both the official and common name for the previous album is Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume One: From Fear Through the Eyes of Madness, it is consistent to go with the official title for this album, instead of the common name. I understand that this isn't precisely the naming convention we should be using, but I for one think that internal consistency is more important than site-wide consistency. When just looking at Coheed and Cambria albums, and not the rest of the encyclopedia as a whole, you get a better sense of what the artist wanted in naming his albums. Each album is a part of or a whole chapter, and its title suggests which chapter: Second Stage Turbine Blade; In Keeping Secrets of Silent Earth:3; and the two Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV albums. Claudio also once said that he doesn't want to confuse people with two albums with a significant chunk of name in common, but he still maintained that Good Apollo etc was part of the name. If it ever comes down to a vote, I for one would fight tooth and nail to keep this page where it is. 春Harukaze風 23:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a very valid point. If we remove the first part of the title, it will remove the numeral side of the album names. -- Jack 23:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Harukaze, I don't think there's any reason for it to come to a vote, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. I'm actually not arguing to move it; I was asking some questions to determine what people think regarding the applicability of WP:COMMONNAME in this particular situation. I think that question's been answered, and the consensus on this page appears to favor the long name. Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone still think we should move it, and remove one of the most important parts of the album name? -- Jack 04:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it should stay exactly as it is.Ringer7 22:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

ray charles on quaaludes

"creating a sound he described as 'Ray Charles on Quaaludes.'" Isn't that kind of redundant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

About the Requested Move Archive

Could the RM archive be modified ever so slightly so that the extremely long link someone posted is shortened somehow, to avoid stretching the page? Something as simple as creating a hyperlink with an ellipsis in it would be quite appropriate and very helpful, I think. I'm just unsure of Wiki policy on this - the template about the archive seems fairly adamant that it not be modified at all - though I suspect that's directed mainly at people bringing up the request again in the middle of the archive, rather than start a new request... Anyway, yeah, if anyone could direct me to a relevant Wiki policy on this, that'd be cool. Thanks. --DragoonWraith (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Gravemakers and Gunslingers

Coheed's myspace just debuted the video a little while ago, but I'm not sure if it is worthy of mention on the article. The fact that it was directed by Claudio himself leads me to believe that it was just a video made for fun rather than an official video for the single (actually, I haven't even heard anything about G&G being the next single anyways). I haven't really seen all of it yet because my computer has some problem with videos and will either (a)close my browser or (b)stop playing the video shortly after it starts. From what I did see, though, it was just some live concert footage. So, is it worth a mention? 68.221.194.57 (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusion...?

In the introduction to the page it says:

This is the first Coheed and Cambria album to not contain the signature Second Stage Turbine Blade theme.

What does that mean, it is not clear enough...!

Child.harrow (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are instrumental themes in the first three albums, but only one recurs through the first 3 albums (at the end of Everything Evil and on The Ring in Return and Keeping the Blade). The theme was nowhere to be found in NWFT though. The "SSTB theme" probably isn't a very good descriptor, maybe "The Ring in Reutrn theme" would be more clear...? 68.221.209.13 (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume Two: No World for Tomorrow/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.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Article requirements: Y All the start class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section) N A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs N A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y Categorisation at least by artist and year Y A casual reader should learn something about the album.Andrzejbanas (talk) Missing song authorship, and needs and expanded personel list. Expanded prose on style (such as what considers it prog-rock an alternative rock, how does this differ from previous albums?) and a section production and genereal reception. Speaking of reception there are too many reviews in the albumbox, WP:Albums limits it to ten. Try to keep it with review sites and magazines that have their own pages on wikipedia as well. Also have these reviews alphabetized. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 16:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)