Talk:A Weekend in the City

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Album Cover

That album cover is absolutley not real. I've seen that art various places on the web for last year or so. Not a Bloc Party album cover. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.152.146.79 (talk • contribs).

Online stores such as amazon seem to be using that as the album cover. Unless you can cite an official bloc party source to the contrary, we'll leave it as that Hippoking 21:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The unsigned comment above was left by an anonymous user back on October 1. Methinks the cover is official now, no need to continue the discussion. --King Bee 21:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is almost certainly not the original photo that was being used, here is its original location: [[1]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Protiek (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Leak

Should it be mentioned that the album has leaked? It is fairly common knowledge. A google search for "A Weekend in the City" mentions the leak on the first page. I've seen this added and removed a couple of times on the history, and I'd rather get a definitive decision. Other albums (which have since been released) such as Stadium Arcadium and Encore mention the leaks in their album. Hippoking 15:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I have reverted the changes. Since when was it up to an encyclopedia to decide what people shouldn't know. Freedom of thought and information and all that, we are here to tell a story, not serve company's financial interests by not publicizing a leak. By the logic of the person that removed the leak info, I should also blank the nuclear bomb page as it "may be best that people dont know this" Protiek 16:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

First, leaks are not a common occurrences. Leaks of albums like Stadium Arcadium and Encore made headlines, and as I mentioned earlier, both have their leaks mentioned in their article. Second, as Protiek said, we are here to give information, not be partisan to corporate interests. Third, if you want to make a change, look at the edit history. If it's just been done and undone a few times, it might be under contention, and it's worth reading the talk before editing it. Edit wars aren't cool. If you have a good reason to make a contested change, discuss it on the talk page. That's the whole point. Hippoking 16:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"leaks are not a common occurrences" = completely false. Leaks always occur. This leak is not particularly special. You can not look me straight in the face and tell me that this leak made headlines in major newspapers. Therefore, I am removing the leak information. --Russ is the sex 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

...And album releases always occur too, so let's remove from all album articles the dates those albums were released. I have reinserted the business about the leak. --King Bee 15:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Every other album I can think of which has been leaked has it mentioned in their wikipedia article. Most albums do not hit peer to peer until release or a few days before. 3 months before is near unprecedented, and well worth a mention in an article. Running a Google test, the very first result is a discussion of the leak.

Also, when deleting content, it is NOT a minor edit. Minor edits are typos and minor grammatical faults. Quoted from here:

"A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."

The fact that we are discussing this on the talk page pretty much denies it from being a minor edit, even ignoring the fact that it is content deletion. I will continue to re-edit this in, following the trend set by wikipedia articles on other leaked albums. Should you wish to continue this debate, we can create a case with the Mediation Cabal. Hippoking 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got agree that, although the leak may not have made the news outlets, a 3 month early album leak is notable and significant part of the history of the new album. Tnomad 01:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, when i look at the wikipedia page for an unreleased album, I am generally looking for details of when/if it has been leaked. Yes, the information becomes less relevant after the album has been released, but in the case of leaked album which is as yet unreleased, especially in the case of a 3 month early leak, it's probably the most interesting thing on the page at this point in time. PunkOn 09:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice to know Wikipedia is being turned into a piracy resource. We're here to provide information to the best of our ability, and that's what we'll do, but I must say I frown on it's use simply to find out what can be pirated. Hippoking 18:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be going a bit too far there, Hippoking. It's not like we provide links to torrents or P2P downloads on wikipedia, so all someone like PunkOn is getting is news that the album is leaked. He's not getting any information as to where he might find it. After the new Bloc Party album leaked, the info was almost everywhere, so he couldn't have missed it; he didn't have to go to Wikipedia to find it. --King Bee 20:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)