Talk:Simulation Theory (album)

Justification for including tracks 12 and 13 in Super Deluxe table

I think we should include tracks 12 and 13 in the Super Deluxe table for clarity. A reader could reasonably wonder if tracks 12 and 13 were omitted by mistake, if the tracks are misnumbered, etc. Even if the reader expands the Deluxe table, there's nothing explicitly stating that the Super Deluxe version includes those two tracks, so while the reader might be able to piece together what's going on with the table, they might still not be entirely certain. Of course, a reader could click the source and see the track listing on Muse's website just to be sure, so this is a minor inconvenience at best, but clarity and zero inconvenience are better than possible uncertainty and minor inconvenience. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. —mountainhead / ? 21:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

{{Singles}} parameters

{{Singles}} is once again a controversial topic in an album article on Wikipedia, also the sky is blue and water is wet. Okay, jokes aside, the issue of what to put into {{Singles}} has been raised with a few edits (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3) contesting the inclusion of "Dig Down" on the grounds that it wasn't released in promotion of the album per se, and "The Dark Side" because it is a "promotional single", even though that term exclusively applies to singles sent to radio airplay only and not commercially available. It has been my understanding that {{Singles}} is used to list all the singles featuring tracks from the article topic album as their A-side, regardless of timeframe or purpose, and that there is a "The Dark Side" single; it is available on iTunes and Google Play to purchase. Ideally, {{Singles}} shouldn't exist at all and 90% of the problems in all album infoboxes would be gone, but obviously that's a deeply controversial opinion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Since this appears to be controversial, I figure I might as well register my agreement. Speaking as a reader, if I were to go into a Wikipedia article for an album and look at the "Singles" section of the infobox, I would be interested in seeing all of the tracks the band released from the album as singles (regardless of the nature of the release or whether they were initially intended to promote the album), and Muse's page on iTunes lists both "The Dark Side" and "Dig Down" as "Singles". That being said, I'm not well-informed on the precise definition of a single, so I may be wrong here. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 10:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hadger: A single is a single. If a single exists, it'd be illogical to argue that it didn't exist, so yeah. If you want a precise definition, the term "single" often refers to a music release consisting of one track, and rarely any more. In the days of Vinyl, singles used to have two tracks, with the other one filling the other side of the physical record, but since we're now in the age of streaming, that's a status quo long gone. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 11:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@5.90.24.182 and 5.90.31.112: "The Dark Side" on iTunes and Google Play; "Pressure" on Google Play. Please don't revert content in {{Singles}} without discussing it here first, as the editors' note states, especially when your inquiries can easily be answered with a Google Search. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The Resistance and The 2nd Law: concept albums?

Although Drones can surely be considered a concept album, can we really consider The Resistance and The 2nd Law as such in the background section as well? I don't remember them being concept albums afaik, since they don't tell the story of an individual and don't revolve around really specific themes like Drones? Or am I wrong? --IronDust71 (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) NO CONSENSUS - the creation of a WP:DAB page at Simulation theory counteracts the main argument presented in support of the move. There's no evidence given that this (recently released, but chart-topping) album is the primary topic over the simulation hypothesis or the Simulation theory of empathy, thus I have to discount votes such as "Support Per commonname guidelines". The remaining rationale for the move would be that per WP:SMALLDETAILS, the capitalization difference after a move to Simulation Theory is sufficient to distinguish from the DAB page. Several !voters objected to that, and I see no consensus as to whether that should be done here. I considered relisting to try to get a clearer consensus, but I think the situation is best handled by waiting a few more weeks before re-proposing such a move. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Simulation Theory (album) → Simulation Theory – Currently, Simulation Theory redirects to the page Simulation hypothesis. Since there isn't a page called "Simulation Theory", I don't see a reason that we shouldn't have this article use that name instead. If this move ends up happening, we should add a hatnote to the top of this page linking to Simulation hypothesis. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support – If the other article's common name is "simulation hypothesis", then I see no reason not to make this article here just "Simulation Theory". Aria1561 (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support – The nominator's rationale is convincing and I also agree with the hatnote suggestion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support – the simulation hypothesis is commonly referred to as the "simulation theory", as it's often the case to put "theory" at the end of everything when there's general discussion on scientific thought. However, a google search alone would prove that the phrase "simulation theory" is now commonly associated with Muse's album, so it should qualify under WP:COMMONNAME guidelines. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Pure recentism by Muse fanboys (to whom I belong, but still). As for the author's argument, even the choice of the album's name by the Muse is a reference to the simulation hypothesis, and the phrase "simulation theory" has been used to reference the former quite often (just see google results from before the year of the album's announcement Openlydialectic (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Openlydialectic: A similar move discussion with recentism concerns for The Shape of Water set precedent that a popular work would qualify under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if it achieved sufficient notability, such as a notable accolade. We'd have to wait to see if the album gets such recognition, though, as it only just released. Still, the album is most associated with the phrase "simulation theory", and Simulation hypothesis has it's own article title. It should be also noted that "Simulation Theory (album)" gets more traffic than "Simulation hypothesis", despite "Simulation Theory" redirecting to "Simulation hypothesis". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The actual primary meaning of simulation theory is the poorly-titled simulation theory of empathy. —Srnec (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above Buttons0603 (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Per commonname guidelines. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ASTONISH, per long-term historical significance (which should decide this RM right there), and, related to long-term significance, WP:RECENT (it was released 9 November, yesterday, wp:asrecentasyoucanget). The term correctly redirects to Simulation hypothesis, and to focus the common term to an album would create simulated confusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• This just released album is named for the simulation hypothesis, and by doing so identifies the hypothesis as primary. From the page: "Simulation Theory explores the role of simulation in society and the simulation hypothesis, which proposes that reality is a simulation." Randy Kryn (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:COMMONNAME. 83.248.186.87 (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Common name? The album was released Friday. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• And what does WP:SMALLDETAILS have to do with this at all? Openlydialectic (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• That it's acceptable to have articles whose titles differ by a small detail like capitalization. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Page names that differ only by capitalization. We have Red meat and Red Meat. 83.248.186.87 (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• The practice of differentiating per lower-case and upper-case has been questioned and overturned in quite a few recent RM's, although don't ask me to link to the discussions. Two totally different subject-matter articles separated by one upper-cased letter is too confusing for some avatars in this simulation. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I have boldly created a dab page. Srnec (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal based on difference in capitalization

WP:SMALLDETAILS gives examples of instances in which a difference in capitalization alone is enough to have two different pages without any identifier in parentheses (e.g. Red Meat and Red meat, or MAVEN and Maven). Could we do the same here? I'm thinking we could 1) move Simulation theory of mind to Simulation theory (note the lowercase "t" in "theory"), 2) move Simulation Theory (album) to Simulation Theory (note the capital "t" in "Theory"), and 3) place hatnotes on Simulation theory, Simulation Theory, and Simulation hypothesis directing readers to the other two pages. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hadger: This would make the most sense, in my opinion. Srnec has started a move proposal at Simulation theory of mind that aligns with this method of moving forward. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hadger: Oppose That would leave it a confusing mess, unclear to readers. I think the commenters here should stop #fighting because they are either fanboys of the group or not and just retain the name as it is right now. It makes the most sense, gives the most clear understanding to new viewers and just doesn't need to be changed at all Openlydialectic (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Hybrid Theory. Unreal7 (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Synthwave?

Would this record fall under the subgenre of Synth-wave? There are some reviews out there stating it as such and I believe a good gist of the album falls under that category. Would love to add it to the genre list. --LRLArch (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The Dark Side

There isn't a page for the single "The Dark Side" which is one of the most popular tracks from the album. Patata mccurdy (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)