Talk:Supermassive Black Hole (song)

Supermassive Black Hole (song) was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 25, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Chart position

I thought #25 was the download chart? How did it enter the CD single chart when it isn't released yet? O_o --Tene 21:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Chart counts downloads as well. "The main chart contains the top 200 singles combining record sales and downloads." UK Singles Chart.

Leak

The song was leaked on the 7th May, I had a copy myself. It was due to an iTunes error - can anyone find a source so this info can be added back in? --Tene 12:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promo "not a registered publication"

I thought that a catalogue number constitutes being a registered publication? --Tene 16:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has one? I removed it because I thought it didn't. There are only three in the infobox. BigBlueFish 14:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Just saw the promo catalogue number on MuseWiki - I put the promo back. Sorry. BigBlueFish 14:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

Does this still need to be marked as a stub? There's more in this than in the BHAR article! Chardir 09:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No comments so I've removed it. Chardir 10:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It has a references section and everything... for the song's age, not a bad article, even if I did add the references myself ;) BigBlueFish 14:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC) muse is the best.[reply]

mid week number 2 whooo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.174.25 (talk • contribs) .

B-Side

the studio track omits the riff found in the earlier live version

I'm not sure exactly which riff is being referred to, but it sounds to me like all "notable" riffs are still in the studio track (one riff in particular is now only played on the bass (but still there!), with a new riff on the guitar)... so basically, I disagree with that statement. 66.131.129.127 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

title

shouldn't the title of this article be "Supermassive Black Hole (song)"?

Yeah, I noticed this one with the titles possibly being confusing with "Supermassive Black Hole" leading to the song and "Supermassive black hole" leading to the phenomenon. I think at least one should be given a brackets title, presumably the song... AllySDude 16:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Music Video

There is a comment I belive in the description of the music video that says: 'Revealing the beings are made of space.' This may cause some confusion for a reader who hasn't seen the video because the description doesn't really state what type of 'space' these beings are made of. Matthewbarnard 15:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also in this section it says quote--"There are also flashes of a round black circle". As opposed to a triangular or square black circle? I think I'll drop the redundant "round", any objections?

Genre

This is the first time I listen to this song and it sounds like 1990s guitar house to me. What do we do with the genre? Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 14:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical Phenomenon vs. Song

I propose moving the article to Supermassive Black Hole (song).

It is ridiculous that Supermassive black hole and Supermassive Black Hole gets two completely different articles, and I suggest moving it to a more sensible name. After all, there are many articles about songs on wikipedia with the title Song Title (song) which saves people a lot of confusion. Ai y da 19:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Supermassiveblackholedvd.jpg

Image:Supermassiveblackholedvd.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 03:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Fail

Article quick-failed due to citation needed tags. Will ^(talk) 22:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and stuff

Album reviews

Not allll that much out there mind you. naerii 18:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "in popular culture" section and am contemplating removing the remixes section also as it doesn't seem particularly pertinent. Thoughts? naerii 19:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "remixes" section doesn't really strike me as being all that important. Gary King (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight movie

The fact that this song is going to be in the Twilight movie and the movie's soundtrack needs to be highlighted. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 10:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Twilight soundtrack not mentioned??? JoelleLynn (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

signature song

would this song not be their signature song? its their most popular by far! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.8.202 (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Like!!!

omg you are spot on whoever wrote that! it's the riff from 20th century boy! can't belive that i can't even get myself to add CN to that, it just does! I mean they din't rip the entire song off or anything but it sounds like at least half of it made it as "inspiration", still supermassive black hole really is a tune DarkShroom (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. While differing capitalization is a perfectly acceptable means of disambiguation, it is not required.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supermassive Black Hole (song) → Supermassive Black Hole – Capitals seem like disambiguation enough. i.e. Cash machine and Cash Machine, Gold digger and Gold Digger, Ice cube and Ice Cube, Black caviar and Black Caviar, etc.. Unreal7 (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have no real preference either way, but the precedents shown by the nominator seem to indicate this is a reasonable move. A check of the links to Supermassive Black Hole (song) doesn't show any causes for concern. You may want to contact Aiyda above, since that user was apparently the original source for the migration to the current name. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. If we decide capitalization is not enough to disambiguate, we should do so across the board (with an RFC at WT:TITLE or something), not an article at a time. — A. di M. 09:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – disambiguating by only caps has never been widely accepted, and is only employed in a handful of rather controversial cases. Adding ambiguity this way is a step in the wrong direction. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Step in the wrong direction if you ask me. Very inconstent. Unreal7 (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AT#Disambiguation explicitly allows for things like this (provided hatnotes are used); if you want to change that, you might want to discuss it at WT:AT. (I don't strongly care one way or another, so long as it's consistent.) — A. di M. 08:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These RMs are always very subjective (e.g. I supported the Black Caviar move) and in this case I feel that the majority of people typing in the capitalised version will not be looking for the song. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2012 (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.

Genre

Please note that genres require sources per WP:RS and WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE. Please search out sources before adding uncited material to this or any other article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]