Talk:No Line on the Horizon

Certifications sites to check

Information on certifications may become available from these websites as time progresses. They are probably the best places to check.

• Argentina: CAPIF
• Austria: IFPI Austria
• Canada: CRIA
• Finland: IFPI Finland
• France: Disques en France (may not be available until 2011)
• Mexico: Amprofon
• Poland: ZPAV (will not be permanent as page is updated)
• Singapore: RIA Singapore (potentially)
• Switzerland: Hit Parade.ch
• United Kingdom: BPI
• United States: RIAA

These all link directly to either a search function or the album charts where the certification is displayed (for the latter, just select the week for a permanent link). I am unable to find sources for any kind of album crtification for Columbia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Norway, and potentially Singapore (their album site is currently down). For all these, we may have to rely on random chance in a newspaper article or something. Sales figures will be even harder to track down. Melicans (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

For Portugal there is AFP. However, it won't probably be available until 2010 (like France). SOAD KoRn (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it does have No Line on the Horizon listed as Platinum on the charts, but luckily Portugal is one of the sites we've managed to find a source for. I'll change it to this one though. Melicans (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

All known certification sites (as well for sources of album and single charts) for the 30 largest markets are listed at WP:GOODCHARTS. Many of the sites you can't find certifications for are pretty dicey for including in articles anyway, because they represent such minor markets. Sources for German things have gone to hell in the last month because the chart creator decided that the archive sites were committing copyright infringement.—Kww(talk) 01:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

SNEP has finally updated with certifications for 2009, but neither No Line on the Horizon or U2 are listed under any of the certification headings in any of the categories. Looks like the sales won't reach a certification level until 2011 at earliest, given their frequency of updating. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

US Sales

We really need to do something about this; every week a new citation to prove that the cumulative sales number is correct. It's a mess. What's going to happen next week, another citation added to make it four for one number? It's just getting ridiculous. I don't see a need for it. Any thoughts on how to clean this up? Melicans (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there some way to have only the citation for the most recent sales, but somehow include the previous weeks' sales in "References" or "External Links"? Or maybe create a separate heading at the very end of the article indicating the location where one can find the sales number for every week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkee23 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've searched and searched and searched and found nothing. I think we should just wait until a cumulative number is made available as opposed to updating every week. It's turned the chart into a huge mess. I don't think it's necessary. No other figures are being updated so often, so why should this one? What's going to happen after 11 weeks on the charts, 11 citations for just one number? It's ridiculous and unnecessary. Melicans (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I completely agree. The citations became too much. However, since we have the information available, there must be some way to include the total number of sales based on all the articles. Like I suggested, would it be at all possible to have, say, the articles referring to weeks 1-3 available in a different part of the NLOTH article (possibly all together at the end of the article in the "References" or "External Links" section)? Perhaps it would be better to make a special note that although no cumulative number is referenced anywhere, Billboard has weekly sales figures and that is how we were able to reach the total number thus far. And the reason why no other countries have many updates is because there appears to be no comprehensive or reputable source (such as Billboard in the States) that gives weekly updates. Thoughts on this?Shkee23 (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would work particularly well. The best thing to do may be to leave a note of inquiry at WP:ALBUM; I'm sure they must have come across this at some point in the past. Melicans (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I left a note as you said and here the response was to include all the citations within one reference tag, and include line breaks between each. Do you think this would work? Shkee23 (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I've given it a shot as per the suggestion. I couldn't figure out how to do it without including the first cite twice, so it's repeated in the References at 105 and 106. How do you think it looks? Melicans (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks a lot better than the mess of citations we had before. I say we stick with it until we can find an article that mentions total sales. Shkee23 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, though that may take a while before that information becomes fully available. Melicans (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's due to go platinum soon, 9,000 short last week.--76.209.221.224 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sound sample?

It occurs to me that one of the few things that might be left to be added/needed in this article before nominating it for FA is a 30 second sound sample. I think it would help to illustrate the kind of direction the band pursued in making the album, and would be an interesting oral accompaniment to it. If we do decide to go with it, I think that the title track would probably be the best choice. What do you think? Should we add a 30 second sound sample to the article, and if so which track should we do? Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I can do that, I think we should add Fez - Being born as well, to illustrate the contrast in sounds(?) Suede67 (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we could get away with two license-wise, but I'm not sure about space-wise. I'm also unsure "Fez" is the best choice. Maybe one of the singles, or "White as Snow" instead? One of the tracks that has their own article anyways. Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me point out the Cat Stevens article, has quite a few clips (I uploaded all some 1.5 months ago), and so far, no one has complained. We MAY get away with more, suggest songs and what exactly the clip should have an I'll do it. About which songs should be selected, why not select GOYB, MAG, GO CRAZY and SNOW? All have articles, clips could go on them as well as the NLOTH page. I'm not sure really which ones to choose. Suede67 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Aye, but I'm worried about using too many clips because of fair use policies. Specifically criterion 3.a), which says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." An over-use of non-free fair-use content (audio and images) could be a problem in an FA nomination. I've been looking at the U2 article, which has only four sound samples and only one from each "period of reinvention." I really don't think we'd get away with more than two... Since we can put "Boots", "Magnificent", "Crazy", and "Snow" in their own articles, why not choose at least one song that doesn't have it's own article? We could do "Horizon" and "Crazy" in here (I think we definitely need one of the singles), and upload "Boots", "Magnificent", and "Snow" samples for their own articles. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point, let's have "Cedars" then? I went through the article again and I'm not really sure what song would help illustrate whats in the text. You decide. Suede67 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think "No Line" and "Snow" or "No Line" and "Crazy". The title track I really think is the best first choice; since it's the opening track on the album, I think it's more indicative of reception towards the band's change. "Crazy" is an option because it's a single, and "Snow" because, well, I just like it =P. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit): WP:Music samples says that the audio samples should be 30 seconds or 10% of the song, whichever is shorter. If we select two of these songs, they'll all fall under the 10% range. "No Line" (4:12) would be about 25 seconds, "Crazy" (4:14) about 25 seconds, and "Snow" (4:41) about 28 seconds. For the other articles, "Magnificent" (5:24) would be 30 seconds, and "Boots" would be about 20 seconds. I guess all we need to do now is decide which parts of the songs to sample (although Category:Song articles missing an audio sample suggests When choosing a song portion, choose one that contains the chorus. If the song does not contain a chorus, choose a popular or "important" section of the song. Also, try to choose a portion that has a natural beginning, and does not begin in the middle of a line or measure.)! Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I know, i'll manage clips to the lengths you calculated, and will take care it doesnt start abruptly, i'll see to it. So choruses for all 4? Suede67 (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, sorry, I have a habit of stating the obvious for my own reassurance. How about 0:25 to 0:50 for "No Line on the Horizon", 1:50 to 2:20 for "Magnificent", 1:04 to 1:31 for "I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight", 0:42 to 1:02 for "Get on Your Boots", and 2:19 to 2:47 for "White as Snow"? Most of those are choruses; only "No Line" (opening lyrics) and "Snow" (what I think is particularly powerful) aren't. "Crazy" is a couple of seconds over (to get in the full chorus; it was 2 seconds too short), but I don't think there'll be problems over that. (Sorry for the lateness in replying; long day at work). Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Heard them, sounds good. I'll upload them and add to your talk, you can put them where they should be. Suede67 (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to dredge this discussion back up, but I was wondering what you thought about switching out the sample of "White as Snow" for "Magnificent". I think it makes sense to have at least one of the singles represented, and "White as Snow" isn't really representative of much of the album. On the other hand, "Magnificent" is illustrative of Eno's influences on the album and it was one of the tracks that originated from Fez. Thoughts? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"White as Snow" is also one of the tracks that originated in the Fez sessions. I personally prefer the inclusion of "Snow" over "Magnificent" anyways; it is one of the few political aspects of the album, and I think it is important to note that. "Moment of Surrender" is absolutely filled with Eno's influence and, although it has not been released as a single yet, it is one of only two real possibilities to be the fourth release (with the other likely candidate being "Breathe"). Many people are also very familiar with that song due to it's prominence on the tour and it's slot on Saturday Night Live, and from my experience I would say that it is at least as well known as "Magnificent" or "Crazy Tonight". I think that the two clips we have in the article at the moment are fine, though others may disagree. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"Composition"

Great interview with Lanois by the National Post here; lots of worthwhile information on just about every track, including details not noted before. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Song articles

As many of you have probably noticed, I've been working recently on building song articles for those that previously didn't have them; in the last few days, "Breathe", "Unknown Caller", "Stand Up Comedy", and "Fez - Being Born" have all been put out, leaving only "No Line on the Horizon", "Moment of Surrender", and "Cedars of Lebanon". I am working on these three too, but I'm a little busy with a couple of essays and a midterm over the next few days. "No Line on the Horizon" will hopefully be out tomorrow or Saturday, with the other two not long after. No need to worry, they are coming. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You've done enough, you do need rest :) Suede67 (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it hasn't really taken me more than 2-3 hours per article so far. Once I've gotten today's midterm out of the way, I should be able to get at least "No Line on the Horizon" out relatively quickly. Most of the data is there, it's just organizing it and searching through the sources for any tidbits that might have been missed. Melicans (talk, contributions)18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, "Unknown Caller" should be up on DYK within the next 6 hours or so. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Did you put every new article up on DYK? Suede67 (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Every one so far. "Unknown Caller" is in the que and "Breathe" has been accepted as an addition for a later entry. "Stand Up Comedy" and "Fez" are still pending. I hope to nominate the last three after I've put them into article space. "Magnificent" and "White as Snow" both had entries some time ago, so as it stands "Get on Your Boots" and "I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight" will be the only two songs from this album not to be featured on the main page. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I see... Suede67 (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Singles → Songs in the charts

I've altered the charts so that the Ultratop 40 (Belgium Wallonia) is now there in place of New Zealand. This lends a bit more of an international perspective per the first and current Achtung Baby FAC. I've also added the songs "Moment of Surrender" and "No Line on the Horizon" as they both charted in Wallonia, and as a result have altered the title of "Singles" to "Songs". If anyone feels that it should be just singles and not songs that charted in only one location, feel free to remove them. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Reception edit

I split the reception section into critical response, commercial performance, and accolades (which includes awards/nominations not from critics as well), basing it on how its layed out at WP:Albums with critics reception seperate, the conventions of other well-written album articles on wikipedia, and just that its better readability this way with each topic in its own section. Also, I replaced two reviews in the template, Toronto Star and MTV Asia, with revs from the Village Voice and Pitchfork Media, a print publication and an online publication just like the ones replaced, but more notable/professional reviewers. Metacritic usually includes them as mainstream critics. I also replaced the Herald Sun review with Entertainment Weekly's, as the former is a tabloid publication and probably shouldnt be included as a review (as Ive heard about tabloid publications from other editors on WP). EW is also a prominant publication used for reviews on Wikipedia and is included as a mainstream critic at Metacritic. My bad if this seems too long, but I just want to explain my edits right. Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have partially reverted your edit; specifically, the changes to the review box. The almost exclusive use of North American and British publications in this box was a specific concern brought up in the FAC, and so some of these were replaced with more international reviews. We have not included the Pitchfork review in the box either because it barely discusses the album. This part should not be changed further without a full and resolved discussion resulting in an established consensus here on the talk page first, as the inline note requests. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

How about replacing the Herald Sun with TimeOut Sydney's review; its not a tabloid publication and would represent that "place"'s criticism of the album like the Sun's did. Dan56 (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be adverse to that; they do at least come from the same region and it contains a good amount of content in the review. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Charts for practically all of Europe

Although outdated, it does show the chart positions and sales achieved by No Line on the Horizon. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.37.245 (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

U2Place is a fansite and cannot be used as a source. Please see WP:RS and WP:FANSITE. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Footnote problems

There are errors in the footnotes. Shouldn't this be fixed if it on the front page Of Wikipedia? Looks tacky. Goingtough (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Which footnotes? Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Main Page#Problem with today's FA. This was done literally minutes ago, and I am trying to repair it. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the content and got past the spam filter by commenting out the backupurl links. Best, Cunard (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers; luckily the original links were still active, so I've replaced the backupurl archives with fresh ones from Web Cite. I do still wonder why it was put on the blacklist though; oh well, I always preferred using Web Cite anyways. =/ Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Twelfth or 12th?

I'm afraid that I don't see the need for changing "twelfth" to "12th" in the lead. According to WP:MOSNUM, "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." Clearly either varient is acceptable, so I do not see the need to change from the current "twelfth" to "12th". Is there a guideline or policy that I'm missing which says otherwise? A change should be made on policy, not on random personal preference. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox producer field

Concerning this edit, User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 argues that the producer field in the infobox is exclusive to "album producers", but the impression I got from other articles is that it's any producer credited, even if it's just one song on the album. Although Template:Infobox album does not say much about the field, if will.i.am did not produce even that one song, then he is not credited in the liner notes. Either he is or he isn't. If not, his name should be removed from the track listing template in the article. Comments? Dan56 (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The liner notes credit the album as being produced by "Brian Eno, Danny Lanois, and Steve Lilywhite". Any individual songs with contributions from other personnel are credited as "Produced by Eno (or) Lanois (or) Lilywhite - Additional production by Gaffney (or) will.i.am." I don't know about you, but I think it's pretty clear that these two had very little to do with the album. Eno, Lanois, and Lilywhite were significant partners in producing the album, and they are credited as such. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe then the additional producers should be noted as such in the track listing template, like in this article? Dan56 (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the listing of producers here is correct, additional production is not qualified as "producer". However, there should be note in the tracklisting template about this. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

How are you in a position to say that an additional producer is not a producer? Were you in the studio when the album was produced? How do you know how big (or small) the role of the additional producer is? The way the producers currently are listed in the Infobox (Brian Eno, Daniel Lanois, Steve Lillywhite) is misleading. It gives the reader the impression that the album was produced solely by Eno, Lanois and Lillywhite, when it infact was produced by will.i.am and Declan Gaffney too.--z33k (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The liner notes EXPLICITLY SAY the album was produced by "Eno, Lanois, and Lilywhite". Any other contributions are "additional" and on a song-by-song basis. If U2 thought that Gaffney and will.i.am made enough of contributions to the album to be considered producers of the album, they would have credited them as such. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, I have no problem with mentioning in the track listing that Gaffney and will.i.am were "additional producers" for a few of the songs, I just want the credit give to reflect what the liner notes say. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"I just want the credit give to reflect what the liner notes say" The liner notes explicit says songs on the album was additionally produced by Gaffney and will.i.am. You're only getting into this discussion because we're talking about Gaffney and will.i.am. It if said that the album was produced by Gaffney and will.i.am with additional production by Eno and the others, i'm sure you would raving all about how we need to credit Eno in the infobox. Obviously you're against accurate information!--z33k (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not! I'm against uninformed people opposing common sense. The article currently credits the album as being produced by "Eno, Lanois, and Lilywhite", just as the credits for the album production do. The article also currently credits individual songs in the track listing section as being produced by those who individually produced each song exactly as credited in the song liner notes. What is so difficult about this? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hidden Fibonacci sequence

This link [2] from Amp Visual says that they hid "a little hidden code – a piece of the Fibonacci sequence" on the digipak version. Can anyone identify what this could be, and where it is exactly?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Is five million an accurate global sales figure for No Line On the Horizon?

I’m concerned that this page does not provide a solid source for the total global sales of this album.

The only sources for the five million figure are footnote number 97, which references an Irish newspaper article from 2009, and footnote 102, which references an Australian newspaper article from 2010. Neither newspaper story provides any source or authority for the five million figure..

It’s true that the five million figure can be found many places — but none that I’ve seen cite a rigorous and authoritative source. The official U2 web site also cites five million at the following page, again without offering any source: http://www.u2.com/music/Albums/4083/No+Line+On+The+Horizon

The certifications chart on the bottom of this Wikipedia page offers figures that add up to only about three million albums sold.

Boden sea

Isn't it worth knowing that Boden sea is from German Bodensee, the name of Lake Constance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arndt1969 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"U2 New Album" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect U2 New Album. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 04:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Why does every song on this album have an article?

Why does EVERY single song on this album have its own article? That's absolutely ridiculous. Just because a song is by U2 doesn't make it inherently notable. Why doesn't Radiohead's "Kid A" have a seperate page for each song? That album was WAY more popular, shifted WAY more units, and is a million times more musically interesting than ANYTHING on this utterly generic rock record. I'm not even a big Radiohead fan, but it's just an example of how ludicrously biased this page is. ALL of those song pages, except for those which were singles, should be deleted. There's absolutely NOTHING about the songs on this record that makes them inherently notable. It's not even one of U2's well regarded albums, and it didn't sell well. "The Unforgettable Fire" doesn't have a seperate page for every track, and that album was a million times more successful than this one. I'm so sick and tired of fan cruft clogging up Wikipedia. I'm sure it was some moronic wikilawyer types who organised all those pages, and I'm sure some moronic wikilawyer type will come along and tell me how they're somehow notable enough to have their own page. Utterly vacuous rubbish that has NO place in an encylopaedia, just like all those repulsively cringe-worthy "list of characters from xxxx" articles. ENOUGH CRUFTY GARBAGE. U2'S SONGS ARE NOT IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY NOT THOSE FROM ONE OF THEIR LEAST SUCCESSFUL ALBUMS. 1.157.95.133 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)