Talk:Congregation of the Damned

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 articles

Metal Start‑class

	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 articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Cover art[edit]

Just because the image is at the top of Atreyu's MySpace page, does not automatically make it the cover art. This constitutes as original research. It looks more like a logo to me. A reliable source should be provided to verify what this image is. So far, there are zero sources claiming this image to be the cover art. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and information about future events without proper sourcing is considered speculation. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no choice but to agree with you, but the song was just released last night. But if it is the actual cover when they release the album, I'll nave to say I told you so :) Bugboy52.4 | =-= 23:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, the image is "not the new CD artwork." Fezmar9 (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Song sample[edit]

There are several issues with the use of the "Stop! Before It's Too Late and We've Destroyed It All" clip. The first being the the length is a copyright violation. According to copyright laws, "unlicensed music samples should generally not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter." The full length of the song is 3:56, and 10% of that would be 23.8 seconds. The clip is currently running at 28 seconds. It may not sound like much of a difference to the average person, but copyright laws on fair use material are very specific. The suggested audio quality for a clip is roughly 64kbps, the clip is currently at 110kbps. Also, it is suggested that the clip helps illustrate prose. Aside from the song being released on the band's MySpace, there is nothing of substance within this article. The clip seems rather decorative. Either it should be removed or the article should be expanded and issues should be fixed. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Are we going to argue about 4.2 seconds? Well if so, the key word used here would be OR, "unlicensed music samples should generally not be longer than 30 seconds OR 10% of the length of the original song;" And if it makes you feel better, I added some info, the sample is here to help demonstrate the difference in the change of sound from their previous album. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 20:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "or" is not the key word. Under fair use, "unlicensed music samples should generally not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter." So, shorter would be the key word. If you have an issue with 4.2 seconds, take that up with the United States Copyright Office. Or hell, why not just remove the Copyright Clause from the United States Constitution. If we do not have explicit permission from the artist or label to use a sample (which we do not), we have to follow copyright fair use guidelines as stated above. Which, in this case, would be a clip shorter than 23.8 seconds. There is a reason why most Wiki music articles do not have music samples. Usually no one follows the fair use guidelines and it legally has to be removed, or it does not really add anything to the article. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why would itune samples have the song The Theft, which is 2:58 at 46 seconds (actually all their songs are about 46 seconds)? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 14:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because iTunes is a webstore that has permission from the label to use the media. So they can do whatever they see fit. Everyone else must adhere to fair use guidelines. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want it to be shorter, than you are going to need to do it, cause I'm not sure how to. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 18:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, neither the album nor the single have been released to the public outside of the band's MySpace profile. Is it safe to assume this is a rip from their MySpace player or from a leaked version? There seem to be way too many issues with this little clip. I am going to go ahead and remove it. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

metalcore, really?[edit]

Has anyone even heard the new album? It is NOT metalcore at all, it is post-hardcore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.129.168 (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source that says so then. GeneralAtrocity (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? at least 6-7 songs are clearly metalcore... anyway allmusic says metalcore so it doesnt really matter if we think. Ducky610 (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the IP belongs to User:Savagebladez who was blocked indefinitely last night. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MetalSucks review[edit]

According to WP:ALBUMS#Professional reviews, "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc." MetalSucks has a clear and defined writing staff according to their About Us section and is independent of both Atreyu and Hollywood Records. A quick search for the author and site turn up 15,400 search results (which is several times more than can be said for the author from the allmusic review) which certainly establishes notability. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it just seems the staff are extremely biased to certain bands... and how does the amount of google hits show notability? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 23:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is part of the general notability guidelines for article creation. While I am not trying to create an article for Axl Rosenburg, an abundance of sources surrounding one topic versus no sources can be used to establish notability of a certain topic. If this was just some guy with a blog, which in my experience as a frequent album article editor can tell you is usually the issue at hand regarding good or bad reviews, a google search for the author would result in little to no hits. I fully understand why you would think the site is biased toward certain bands. MetalSucks does seem to favor extreme metal, death metal, grindcore and the like. But the same site has also written fair reviews for Killswitch Engage [1], Lacuna Coil [2], Mastodon [3], Haste the Day [4], AC/DC [5] -- even punk rock band The Bronx [6] and progressive rock band These Arms Are Snakes [7]. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you think it is worthy, then I'm fine with that. I generally just avoid these semi-professional metal sites because of the sheer amount of them... they're everywhere. This one does seem to have some kind of weight behind it, Devin Townsend spent the day running the site today or something I'm reading. Must have some merit. kiac. (talk-contrib) 09:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I know what you mean about all the "semi-professional metal sites" that keep popping up. But with MetalSucks, they have only been around a couple years and already have a following comparable to punknews.org, which has been around since 1999. According to an alexa.com comparison with metalsucks.net and metal-observer.com, bnrmetal.com, sputnikmusic.com and punknews.org (two sites deemed unprofessional and two deemed professional from WP:ALBUM/REVSIT), MetalSucks seems more on par with the latter. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Congregation of the Damned. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]