Talk:The New Game

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

Progressive Rock

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

About "Deluxe Songs"

My deluxe edition of the album did not come with the "deluxe songs" mentioned in tha article. So how can one get them? --Easyas12c (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Letters

can anyone make an article about the song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.252.251 (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Done --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 01:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive metal

It's pretty clear that this album is progressive metal. Why fight the sources? --68.185.2.134 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, this IP spammed this message across a bunch of Mudvayne related articles. It must be a touchy subject across the fanbase or something, as this isn't the first IP to be so adamant on the term. (Or its the same person across multiple IPs.) Anyways, this one is advocating that some obscure blogs should be used for the stance. Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Per WP:RS, the sources cannot be blogs or online discussion groups, they must be respected music critics, career journalists or published authors. I know you know this—the message is for the page watchers. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prog rock

The review added from Billboard (here) states ""Fish Out of Water" opens things with a staccato gallop before careening through series of prog-rock-styled dynamic shifts". This is the only part of the review that mentions prog rock and it's for not even one song, but one part of a song. That's not enough to declare the entire album belonging to the genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be going through all these albums and adding/removing genres based on an agenda. Stop that. JuggaloProghead (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I remind @JuggaloProghead: of WP:GOODFAITH. I am discussing the the genre on the talk page. The article does not call the album prog-rock, it described something it did "styled dynamic shifts" as "prog-rock styled". That's talking about the shifts, not the songs, or the album as a whole. This is why we can't use it as a source here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another prog-rock discussion on a Mudvayne-related article, followed by "an agenda accusation?" Sounds not fishy at all. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have three fucking accounts to push this bullshit? The sources say progressive rock. Stop aggressively genre-warring. JuggaloProghead (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]