Talk:Thriller 25/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thriller 25/Archive 2 was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: December 18, 2007

Contents

Continue merger discussion here (PLEASE SEE ARCHIVE 1 FOR DETAILS ON DEBATE)

CONTINUE DISCUSSION HERE;- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Review of archived comments

Below are 11 editors whose full comments are in Archive page... now grouped in one place so that consensus can be more easily reviewed. Under the horizontal line are further comments added after initial discussions were archived. - eo (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge - This should be merged. It may have new songs on it, but they're still just remakes or otherwise, remixes or old outtakes. To merge it would make it easier for those searching for 'Thriller' to get the full history behind it. This is not an entirely different album.JamesR


  • Merge - I think the article should be merged with the inital Thriller (album) page after the release of the album - it is only a reissue. If you argue that they are different albums, you should also argue the same point of the 2001 reissues of Off The Wall, Bad (album) and Dangerous (album)Mowen1978 (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Separate - Do not merge the two articles. Two completely different albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.101.250.250 (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Separate - Just have a section with a small explanation of thriller 25 on thriller page then have a link to this page saying read full article. Trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.231.217 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge... Re-issues are always present in the original album's article! I dont care if they were totally different songs or they were rerecorded or feature bonus tracks, if its an re-issue then its place is in the original article PERIOD The page could be quite long with all the info, but that's where they belong! If not-merged, then we should create a new article for each and every re-issued album!! :) Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge - though I must admit I'm slightly torn. Technically speaking this is just a re-release with some new bonus material and thus it should be with the original article... however after listening to the new tracks I hate to think that they are being associated with the original album. Needless to say - this is not a new album its the same album remastered with some new tracks (no different that the Thriller Special Edition). :: ehmjay (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Someone go look at my sandbox. It shows, in semi-finished form, some work by Realist2 and myself. It displays what can happen if a merge occurs. Now, it's not done, but I think it shows clearly that we really should merge. I voted seperate before, simply because it needed more work done on it. I think it's reached the point where people can look at it and see a merge as a plausable option. I think it needs creating within the confines of something like my sandbox before a merge is done however - hence my current stance on seperate. I think copy-pasting Thriller 25 into Thriller would be too messy.

(The Elfoid (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

  • Separate - this is a SEPARATE album entirely. It is an anniversary addition, and that is different to a special edition re-release. Keep them separate. This is really just common sense. --Paaerduag (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "Two completely different albums" - yeah, they've got nothing to do with each other right? "It is an anniversary addition, and that is different to a special edition re-release." - it's a re-release. WHY it's being re-released doesn't matter...that's marketting. You think Sony are putting this out cuz they care about Thriller that much? The people in charge weren't even around in the early 80s. Well done on being sucked in by corporate propeganda just because it came out of the mouth of your hero. (The Elfoid (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
  • Merge - The ARIA album charts has Thriller 25 simply labeled as "Thriller" and the chart positions and sales of the original Thriller album have been included with that of the 25th anniversary edition. That why if you go to http://ariacharts.com.au that it has spent 93 weeks in the charts and is 12 times platinum. So since recording industry associations are including this 25th anniversary edition with the original Thriller album then I think the two articles should be merged as Thriller 25 is not a new album, at least not by industry standards. It's just a re-issue. Street walker (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You might be wrong on that , i honesty believe that irish chart position IS for thriler 1982! Many countries ARE labelling it THRILLER 25 on their chart countdowns. Furthermore on 1 of his respected Fan sites they are saying that "THRILLER" "RE-ENTERED" the Irish album chart at #5 [1], and again for Australia [2] they are not saying Thriller 25. For other countries like the UK the site IS specifically saying "Thriller 25" [3]. When these chart positions come through unless they specifically say Thriller 25 they might actually be the original thriller 1982 edition. --Realist2 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If a website says it is the Irish charts and it lists "Thriller", Thriller is in the charts. Almost every music organisation in the world classifies every variation on a CD as a separate release (this includes just a digital remaster with no changes in performance/track listing). It's not impossible that it's actually Thriller 25 in the Irish charts...but if you see Thriller in the Irish charts you can't say "it's obviously Thriller 25". That would qualify as WP: POV and is also bordering on WP: Original research. Whether it's Thriller or Thriller 25, if it says Thriller you cannot make the judgement for if it is Thriller 25 or not. That said, I still strongly believe a merge would be a great idea.

Please look at Thriller (album) and see how much more work's been done on it lately. Wouldn't Thriller 25 just slot in beautifully? People are forgetting Wikipedia's an encyclopaedia. It's not about "it's a new release so it gets it's own page" - like I said, a digital remaster qualifies as a new release in almost all places (USA, Canada, the UK, Japan and France I know it does for a fact, others I couldn't name but I believe it's true everywhere) so the "new release" argument's a dead one. It seems to me people who think it deserves it's own article believe that, as it is so different to the original album, and that having it's own page somehow signifies that. I think written content should tell things like that; what's best is to make this MORE ENCYCLOPAEDIC and in such a case, they should be in one page. How important, how big, how whatever really isn't what's important...it's about what makes the most efficient, useful, concise yet complete encyclopaedia. No one's looking at the right things at all. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

Give it a few more weeks and you might be able to win me over, i think in a months time when this article is complete me MIGHT just be able to get a merger, still while we`re working on it it makes it easier and clearer to edit when its by itself , nothing gets in the way. Realist2 (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge I still stand by what i said earlier! Actually i strongly want it to be merged after i listened to the album... what's with the whole separate albums thing?! its just a re-issue people!!!!! Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A note on the merge debate which I feel everyone is ignoring

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Is it encyclopaedic to split up articles that would fit comfortably together in an easy to read format? Is it a good idea to divide up strongly releated topics when there is space to avoid it?

I keep hearing the same old arguments. I keep getting told it's "notable" enough for it's own article. I keep hearing it's "a completely different album" and I keep getting told "The RIAA will count sales seperately so it's a seperate album". Well, let me tell you something.
1) Being notable doesn't count for ANYTHING in this debate. If something is deemed notable of being Wikipedia, it gets on there. Nothing's "notable" enough for it's own article. I would regard the dictionary/scientific definitions of BSE as notable enough...very notable. But know what? They go in the main BSE article since it'd be insane to do that. People who claim notability as a reason miss the fundamental point of an encyclopaedia and are not making an economic, practical piece to read. If I buy an encyclopaedia, I want something I can get information from as quickly as possible. The information I need. I don't care how it's laid out, I just need something I CAN USE. Wikipedia's about HOW EASY IT IS TO USE, not HOW NOTABLE INFORMATION IS. Notability does not make something read better, it just makes points stand out more when a half-witted reader can work that out themselves.
2) Albums with more changes made to them have been kept on a re-release. When Ozzy Osbourne re-released his solo albums in 2002, ACTUAL RE-RECORDING WAS MADE. The drum and bass tracks were re-recorded by his then-current solo band to avoid royalty fees to theoriginal performers. Actually changing the original tracks is vastly different from tacking on bonus tracks. But there isn't enough to write about to make even a half-hearted joke of an article like this one so it didn't get one. Just like this shouldn't. Infact, the BONUS TRACKS on this album are BONUS TRACKS. Even Jackson's website calls them that. A "totally new album" wouldn't only feature new bonus tracks...they'd be full fledged tracks. They're remixed anyway...Def Leppard did remixes for their re-releases and they didn't get an article. Why? Because Def Leppard fans aren't as obsessive or sucked in by corporate propeganda as the legions of thrall in Jackson's wake. GET A GRIP. Wikipedia's not about Michael Jackson, it's an encyclopaedia.
3) The RIAA regards the special edition of Jackson's "Dangerous" album as a new album. It's a digital remaster with a few new pics in the booklet which were mostly stills from production of his music videos or live shows. There's no way in hell that's gonna get a new article, and if the RIAA are correct it deserves one.
Seriously, it's not about "arguments for and against having a merge". There's no need to give reasons not to merge...there's no damn reasons to keep it seperate in the first place. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
welcome back elfoid . Realist2 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't be anyone else could it? (The Elfoid (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)) I think a merge could be useful between the two pages simply for comparison purposes. All the information would be readily accessible, and it wouldn't require readers to flip back and forth between pages. I think the merge should be done with much care and attention to detail because they are two different albums, but they are built upon each other. Both are great albums and deserve respectful pages. Either way the "Thriller" album is getting the attention is deserves. Alibento6 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I will construct a new sandbox, featuring updated versions of the content on Thriller/T25(The Elfoid (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

  • I personally still feel that they should be merged for the pure fact that they are not really two separate albums but essentially a special edition release much like the old special editions. While yes it contains new content - they are technically considered "remixes". Plenty of albums are re-released with remixes, and while I personally classify these more as covers then remixes it doesn't change the fact that it is still "Thriller" with some bonus content. Its comparable to a bare-bones DVD and a Collectors Edition DVD: they both feature the same movie, just with different bonus features. Even if its a "directors cut" it's still essentially the same film. At the same time, because this article has become so long it makes sense for it to stay separate as the entry for Thriller would end up being very long. It's also a tough call because Sony seems to be marketing this as a new album - despite the fact that it really is not. So, in the end I still think it should be merged on the pure basis that it is really just a new edition, but if it stayed separate I wouldn't really complain. :: ehmjay (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Not only are sony calling it a new album, they intent to promote it all throughout 2008 so the article could get even bigger. Also with the inclusion of the DVD it really doesnt resemble the original album. Some countries like france and poland are calling it a new album and have given it its own ertification. Different countries are reacting to it differently. Realist2 (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I still support a merge. This 25th anniversary edition of Thriller is no more of a "new album" than the 2001 remaster of Thriller. Just because it has had single releases and is charting, does not mean it should be regarded as a separate album from the original Thriller. If someone can name any other anniversary edition of an album that has its own article on Wikipedia then I will consider changing my vote. But for now, my vote remains to merge the articles. Street walker (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge vote update

Realist2's list is a bit outdated. I know a headcount's not all that's needed, but it's useful.

Update! Now 13 people strongly in favour of a merge, 9 in favour of seperation (though one is no longer as strongly opinionated as before and the other a distinctly rude person and offensive who I find hard to put much faith in).

like what has been echoed by many, i also support a merge. i mean, this album is just a rehash of the previous SE just with some new additions. with the huge contribution that Thriller has made for r'n'b, rap and hip hop, it really deserves an extended article. don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilnburn (talk • contribs) 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote now stands at 15 for, 9 against. Enough that we can do this, do we think? (The Elfoid (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

To summarise arguments at present:

  • Reasons to merge:
    • It's qualifying towards re-certification of the original album in many places including the USA (where the artist comes from, his main source of album sales, Thriller's main source of album sales and the world's largest record buying market)
    • The new songs are "bonus tracks", emphasis on "bonus"
    • The new songs are all remixes, bar a re-release of one on the Special Edition and an old song - none have been completely newly made
    • No reissues have ever been granted their own pages on Wikipedia; there are many that are more different from the originals to this but in ways less evident to a casual listener (e.g. Ozzy Osbourne's reissues re-recorded and replaced the bass/drum tracks on two albums to avoid paying royalties to the original musicians)
    • It's part of the Thriller phenomenon
    • Thriller Special Edition's stuff fitted nicely into the Thriller page
    • A lot of information could be slimmed down if merged - no need to tell readers Thriller 25 is a special edition of "Thriller, the best selling album ever" - just Thriller
    • With no music videos, and a promotional campaign focussing on the old songs not the new ones, it's not a "proper" Michael Jackson release
    • Remixes as bonus tracks on reissues is common; if the media storm Sony created hadn't existed, this would be no different. Sure there's MORE remixes than standard (usually 2-4), but it has been done many times before
    • Original audio remains unchanged
    • It's a major part of Thriller's history - it's arguable all the information on this page needs to be on that one
    • It's not a huge article - most of the information could fit on the other page comfortably
    • Thriller's in the process of being cleaned up big time right now. It's in the best state it's been in for a merge and continues to get better. It'll also get more attention and work done to it if the information is focussed
    • Most of the album is on Thriller
    • More people want a merge
    • One of the people who wants the articles separate said "keep the article seperate you cunts", in his only ever edit to Wikipedia. Validity of that guy's opinion is somewhat weak.
    • The main argument for a new article, about the "notability" of Thriller 25 is ignoring the fact Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and suggesting important things need their own pages. Some SENTENCES are important enough that this logic would give them their own page.
    • Some charts and certification groups count it as the same album including the biggest (RIAA)
    • Some of the main arguments for a seperate article was the likelihood of music videos and claims all the old songs were re-recorded. This has been proven false.
    • Some people who suggested keeping articles seperate said "wait until we can see what happens" and never updated their opinion (I have asked them to come back but was ignored). Generally the pro-merge votes have come in more recently, made by people with more information on what's happening.
  • Reasons to keep seperate:
    • Some countries view it as a seperate album for charting/certification
    • There have been singles released; not common for a reissue (though not unheard of)
    • It's special since it's the best selling album ever
    • It's notable enough to deserve it's own page
    • The Thriller article's pretty big, it can't take more information
    • It's got a new title "Thriller 25" - it's a new album
    • "If people want to find out about Thriller 25 they will either search Thriller 25 or Thriller re release over Thriller"
    • "Many people who already know Thriller inside out will want to be able to access comprehensive information about the new release"
    • A significant number of people do not want a merge
    • "It is an anniversary addition, and that is different to a special edition re-release."
    • It includes a DVD
    • Promotion will last throughout 2008 apparently; this could prompt sales to be dramatically higher than any other reissue ever (likely given current sales rates)

(The Elfoid (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

P.Y.T credits

the album has not been officially released. some ip address makes a claim that it will be a remix of the demo recording. until the album is officially out and we know what the song will be on the album it is best to ashume it will be a remix of the original song over some demo. Realist2 (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The track has been leaked and it is obvious that it is a remix of the original demo version. P.Y.T. 2008 has nothing to do with the 1982 album version.LiterallySimon (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Voice Over Length...

The album has been leaked via P2P -- and in this leaked version the voice over session is merely a "clip" and is merely 25 seconds long... and features price saying "This is vincent price - Michael Jackson Is the Thriller - *laughs*". While I'm not sure if this will be changed for the FINAL released version (I doubt it will because from what I can tell this leak is 100% legit). Just thought that it should be mentioned and possibly changed (though I'm sure people will want to wait until the official release date). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehmjay (talk • contribs) 23:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i dont like the idea of worrying about these sorts of things now when it will be released in just a week. We will knowfor sure soon enough. Realist2 (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

SONY PRESS RELEASE

I wanted to leave this here as it might contain info wee can come back to later. Its a new sony press release on Thriller 25. It might contain info some feel worth adding to the article. [[4]] --Realist2 (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Age 15 certification

Hey in the uk you must be 15 or older to buy the album because of the inclusion of the Thriller music video. Its got a certification on the front on the album cover but how can I source this? Also were there any age restrictions in other countries. Realist2 (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a photo of the thing and upload it. Simple!(The Elfoid (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

A blank charts table does not belong here until the album charts. No one knows or can verify when or where this album will chart, in any country. In fact, there is a very good chance that it will only appear on the Top Pop Catalog Albums in the U.S. - eo (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pepsi advert

When an artist lisences the use of a song for an advert, they get paid for it. Just like if a company owns the rights to the song. This is how lisencing works.

Now, Pepsi see Michael Jackson feaver at the biggest it's been since 2001 (arguably 1997, though it is far from as big now as it was then) and thinks "Everyone's into Jackson...lets use some of his music in our new advert!". So they do. How is that promotion for Thriller 25?

The advert does not mention Thriller 25. Anyone who hears the song and thinks "I wanna buy that!" will go out to a shop and buy Thriller Special Edition (which is still in print at time of writing as part of the Special Edition series). There is nothing in this advert to make someone who already owns Thriller (which a LOT of people do) buy Thriller 25, and nothing to inform anyone that Thriller 25 is out (you cannot sell a product people do not know exists).

When Argos started using "Whatever You Want" by Status Quo in their advertising, that wasn't promotion for Status Quo. Most people I talk to haven't got a clue who originally did that song. That single went out of print in the 1970s and the album's sales are pretty static. But they let Argos use the song anyway...because Argos paid them to do it.

Someone tell me why we have it down as a promotional piece? When I deleted it, Realist2 put it back up because of some press release from Sony which basically said "Everyone is Michael Jackson mad! We have loads of promotional stuff happening! The single is charting! Jackson's music got used in an advert!"...which doesn't change things either.

At best it can be argued the advert is marketting Jackson in general, and thus helping remind people he has Thriller 25 out. It's a tenuous link though, and the piece should be shortened accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Elfoid (talk • contribs) 12:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking it isn't even a Pepsi ad but an ad for a Sobe Beverage (which I assume is a Pepsi product...) - however I think the reason that this is being touted as a Thriller 25 advert was that it was mentioned by Michael Jackson news sites (and may have even had a press release from the Jackson camp, I'm not 100% sure). :: ehmjay (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

At the very least the media and sony are touting it as promotion for thriller 25, some ppl ashume that unless there is a huge thriller 25 sign plastering everything it cant be considered promotion. Additionally the heading for that section is no longer called "promotion" as elfoid recently changed it to "history". This has weakened his argument for removal significantly. Realist2 (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Realist2, your source on Sony "touting it as promotion" said, in brief: "Everyone is crazy about Michael Jackson! Loads of people are interested in what he's about to do! There's awesome promotion! He's involved in the Thrillicious advertising scheme!"....it never connects album promotion to Thrillicious. I think it's worth keeping some mention in, since it'll remind people of Jackson, I just think since it's not an advert for Thriller 25 we should shorten it a little. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

As it is only 2 lines long and thats with the inclusion that it aired at the grammys , you are grasping at hairs. Realist2 (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Writers of the remixes

I don't think will.i.am and Kanye West should be credited as writers of Beat It 2008 and Billie Jean 2008, respectively as those songs do not contain new lyrics like the other ones. A remix doesn't make someone an original author. Also, in the Thriller 25 booklet one can see a "remix written by" credit e.g. for WBSS 2008, but not for Beat It and Billie Jean. So will.i.am and West are not officially writers, only "remixers"/"producers".LiterallySimon (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

we can only follow the booklet , like it or not it credits them , we are not here to give our opinionsd on the issue. Realist2 (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not credit them as writers. They are credited with TGIM, PYT and WBSS but not Beat It and Billie Jean!80.139.28.97 (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just double checked my booklet, and you are correct. They are not credited as writers (nor should they be). I will make the change right now. :: ehmjay (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sound Quality

Is it me or the new remix's track's quality is so low, becuse i downloaded it from iTunes and it was all sound the same, except for the 16th track "For All Time"

and by low quality i mean its like hearing it from an old record, did the lable companey or the writers and remixer's ment to do it like this, or iTunes needs a better quality, because frankly, my stereo keeps doing the scratch sound from every Billie Jean Beat like it was recorded from a tape (Silver mask cube (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

They sound fine to me -- mind you I own the actual CD. However in a case like this it could be a matter of opinion - or it could be the case that the remixers/producers did try to achieve that sound. :: ehmjay (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got the same problem with the sound quality, it sounds like 96kbps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reqluce (talk • contribs) 14:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

CORRECT German charts

@ Realist2:

Please stop adding the WRONG charts for Germany. What you are continously posting originates from an English speaking fan-forum which doesn't have a clue at all about the official German album charts.


What you're posting are the WOM (world of music) charts. This is a retailer with online-shop, comparable to Amazon or any department store chain.


BUT the official German Top 100 album charts are compiled by MEDIA CONTROL GERMANY instead!!!!!!!

and they are not announced yet!!!


they are compiled every Monday evening and posted officialy every Friday. but some people with connections and newspaper get some chart positions on Tuesday!


Thriller 25 is #2 on the Top 100 German album charts, that's 100% proven!


Here you can read the correct charts for all countries: (you're also posting the wrong Italian album charts, man!)


| JacksonVillage - internatioal chart report WITH SOURCES!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korgnex (talk • contribs) 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reliable source it is at number 2 as your jackson village site sources a uk blog. I think its best in this instance to leave it until friday when an official announcement is made. Realist2 (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sales

Perhaps to save confusion, on the sales table, current worldwide sales should be added. I don't know how many copies the album has sold, but it has to be at least 25,000 copies worldwide, given the information provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.33.144 (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes when more sales come in we will deal with that, its actually very hard to get hold of sales , i at least, have stuggled with this. Realist2 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

@ Realist2: Gold equals 75,000 sold albums in France! Certification thresholds were changed in July 2006. This is the fourth time you keep deleting correct information from this page. Please leave it.LiterallySimon (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you provide a source other an wikipedia sure i will. Realist2 (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Got the Hots

Shouldn't it be moved from the track listing up the the paragraph above, which lists the exclusive tracks on all the different editions? The tracklisting should only have songs that are on EVERY version of the album. Theswillman (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because it's standard practise in Japan to release a bonus track for all Japanese pressings of albums. Almost all albums made over there have a Japan only track. Don't ask me why...Thunder, Megadeth, Motley Crue, Ozzy Osbourne, Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson...everyone seems to do it frequently. The notes on different editions is more a promotional thing - stores pay for the rights to some kind of bonuses to encourage people to buy it in THEIR store. Why Japanese albums have a bonus track I don't know, but I know it's for another reason. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

I *believe* (may be wrong) that Japan normally offers bonus tracks because of the standard retail price of CDs in Japan - they are very expensive compared to other countries/markets. Therefore bonus tracks are tacked on to entice Japanese buyers to purchase. - eo (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Album Chart

Thriller 25 re-entered at #4 on the Canadian album chart (http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Charts/ALBUMS.html) This information should be added to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.211.61 (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure i will add it , cheers. Realist2 (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thrillert 25 has sold 381.000 copies in it's first week according to Global Album Chart

http://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-week09-2008.htm

Win. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanx it is already up on our the chart, but if you get any more info keep us posted. Realist2 (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"New Singles"

@ Realist2: Do not add singles that do not exist. There is no official statement about them, there is no download store that is offering them for sale, there is no physical release, there is no promotional CD, there is not even a cover! Do you have some prove for a single other than a chart number? LiterallySimon (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats not my concern , the issue was over your removal of the songs from the singles listing (Im not making a fuss about your alterations in the history section). If you remove them it makes it harder for people to access the pages. A better idea would have been to let the songs on the list , let people get to the page and tell people on that page that the song hasnt even been officially released yet its still charting. By removing from the listing it only limits peoples accessibility to the pages. Realist2 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As for a cover even for the official ones the picture is being removed. See the girl is mine talk page. --Realist2 (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to a single cover that does not exist - nowhere. I may have been imprecise on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiterallySimon (talk • contribs) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As you have made those alterations to the song pages there seems to be no problem linking people , it only improves accessibility. Realist2 (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Second photo, do we need it?

All it shows are the discs and the booklet. Neith of which are terribly useful or inspiring. No other albums have a pic like this, but I thought I'd put it here since I'm aware certain editors of this page get upset if I delete things without asking. (The Elfoid (talk) 09:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

First singles single "One More Chance" in 2003

Hey I think they inclusion of "these are Jackson's First singles single "One More Chance" in 2003" is important and dont see the fuss in it being removed.

  • Jackson is a superstar.
  • These are his first singles in half a decade.
  • This is the longest period in his entire career that a singles has not been released. Realist2 (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters; 5 years without a single is not a huge time span for a recording artist as established as he, on the edge of hitting 50. I've never seen any other article do that for an album, ever. And so what if he's a superstar? Black Sabbath just released their first single in 8 years and we didn't make a fuss - we just put "The Devil Cried was released as a single" on the album page.

It's not a huge deal, but it's a sentence that we don't need and adds barely anything. It just waters down the quality content on here.

And actually, singles were released in 2006 as the visionary re-releases. Though that's a minor point.

What's more important is the fact that barely anyone even noticed the release of "One More Chance" in the first place.

(The Elfoid (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Lol your the one that waters down / dilutes the content , dont take my favourite phrases lol. Realist2 (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Watering down is when less useful things "drown out" the useful content. I just streamline articles. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Hmm... I don't know how these would be his "first singles", maybe WBSS '08 could qualify as one, but other than that, most of the "new songs" on T25 are a bunch of old tracks remixed by will.i.am. But Michael is almost like a guest on Akon's track, lol. The "Visionary" singles don't necessarily count because they were all re-releases of MJ's hit singles that just re-charted because of the box set. Michael hasn't had a new single since 2003. But I still think calling the released singles "new MJ material" is an oxymoron. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's arguable Jackson didn't even create the remixes. Most remixes are credited to the remixer primarily. (The Elfoid (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Your pov assertions are what are driving this issue. Realist2 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether we include something or not is POV. You're saying it's noteworthy enough to be POV too, just look at the facts:

  • It charted badly
  • It had no music video
  • It was a bonus track on a compilation

The only reasons to consider mentioning it (I know it's a minor issue, but minor things matter to me) is that it was Jackson's last single. For which a name isn't needed - it's just Jackson's Last Single. (The Elfoid (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Thriller 25 sales will go straight to sales of original "Thriller"

I hope all those who are going around talking about Thriller 25 being a new album realized that once it's all said and done, the sales the album makes in the US and the world over won't be credited as initial sales. Instead it'll go straight to sales of Thriller. That means, if it moves 1 million units in the states or ships 1 million, Thriller can be certified 28X platinum by the end of this year. It could very well tie with the Eagles' set by next year and then top it within two years. Just in case, the Eagles don't make a "comeback" again, lol. Plus, Sony Records know they were "wrong" for touting it as a "new" album, it should be seen as "after 25 years, that album's still charting well" because it's just a classic album re-released with "remakes" of what's already been done plus some demo archives and "a rare new MJ vocal to an old song, lol. Don't forget the DVD!" LOL. That's why I feel Thriller 25 should be merged to Thriller so count me in as a merge voter who wants to put it with Thriller. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The RIAA specify a reissue containing over 75% of the original album qualifies as the same album, they're very particular about stating explicitly that this counts towards Thriller sales. (The Elfoid (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Merger

Yes we will merge soon we just need to sort out a few more issues and it can go ahead. Realist2 (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)