Talk:Battle Studies (album)

Reception Section

Does the reception section of this article really need to be this long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.84.229 (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Single info...

Hey all I changed the release date of the single "Who Says". It was released for preview September 25th 2009, the official single release date is October 6th 2009. Cjones132002 (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

in the style of cream?

Do we know for sure the Crossroads cover will be in the style of Clapton's version? Personally, with the style of Who Says, I was expecting it to be an old school fingerstyle/walking bassline version like Johnson's original. Also, the length has me questioning the Cream theory (if it were a cover of Cream, I think it would be longer to accommodate some soloing).Hypershadow647 (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Commercial performance edits

4 Consensus. Editors welcome to comment. Regarding this revision.

The revision sounds like a run-on. better b4 w/the two ideas seperated 2 two sentences. Dan56 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: This sentence: "As of February 2010, it has sold 792,000 copies in the U.S." should be taken out because in two weeks it will be outdated, and acutally already is outdated. Unless the person who added this sentence plans to update this every month (or week) into perpetuity, adding quickly fading statistics into any article is just not productive. It is always better to add benchmark statistics (or precise language) that won't change. Like the fact that it was certified gold will never be outdated information. Or the fact that it sold X number of records in its first week will never be outdated information. But any sentence (in any article) that starts off "As of..." is always a problem. That phrase should only be used when its unavoidable, like , "As of February 2010, the city of Hoboken is planning on adding a light rail." Such a use of "As of" basically says that although we believe this to be true, we acknowledge this info may change. But we know that the number of album sales is changing every minute. So in this article, we're just choosing to put in inaccurate information. See WP:As of for more information.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Esprit for the reasons he cited and would add that there is already a fair amount of info in the article already regarding records sales so reporting on this narrow time frame just doesn't make any sense from any angle. By the way, it looks like a nice article. Best to All, -- — Kbob • Talk • 16:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I propose that the sentences run as this:

  On December 9, 2009, Battle Studies was certified gold in sales by the Recording Industry Association of America, following sales in excess of 500,000 copies in the United States. [ref.] By February 2010, it had sold 792,000 copies in the U.S. [ref.]

  Dan56 (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This phrasing will not become dated fortunately, but the only question I have now is, What is notable about the album sales in February 2010? I would sooner give a year's end statistic or some other notable benchmark. February 2010 is such a random month. Why not January? Why not March? Why not next August?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree; it will obviously be updated in the future as more information will be issued about the album's sales. But the edit I am specifying here is to have the two sentences like this, rather than the one sentence that combines the two ideas (ceritified & 792,000), so it does not seem like a run-on sentence. Dan56 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

edit

{{editsemiprotected}} In the infobox, change the release date of "Half of My Heart" from June 8 to June 21...as the Source given now says June 21 not June 8.

Done SpigotMap 13:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)