Talk:Thirteen (Megadeth album)

Genre

Judging from what I have seen on other articles I feel that the genre as listed may cause an issue (persistent IP editors changing them back and forth). Therefore, I would like to address that matter first and foremost. I have listed heavy and thrash metal as a starting point for this album, as that is a logical starting point. Any other additions MUST include a source and/or discussion, and any genre removed w/o discussion will be considered as vandalism and reverted. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Title

It is called TH1RT3EN, not 13. It has been revealed on the official site, megadeth.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.197.75.152 (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Relax, it'll get moved. It was revealed yesterday as '13' on some of the metal news sites.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Title

Is there any reason why this page should not be moved to TH1RT3EN? It is the standard title per the WP:NC. —Kusma (t·c) 17:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There's another album by the title Th1rt3en, though only a redirect exists. I was actually about to further disambiguate this to 'TH1RT3EN (Megadeth album)', but I suppose that may not be entirely necessary. Currently, 'Th1rt3en' is a disambiguation page, and that could be easily confused with 'TH1RT3EN' which goes here.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

on a side note, I really wish you would have waited for my explanation here before simply undoing my G6 on 'TH1RT3EN (Megadeth album)'--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I just deleted and moved as you requested anyway. I think TH1RT3EN and Th1rt3en should either (a) redirect to the same page or (b) be the main article pages, with hatnotes for the other album, but since we don't have a page for the Robert Miles album yet, it doesn't ultimately matter much. —Kusma (t·c) 18:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article should be moved to Thirteen (Megadeth album). The use of numbers within the word thirteen is only for styling and decoration purposes, and not for correct pronunciation of the album title. According to MOS:TM: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words." Two of the examples given at MOS:TM include the movies Se7en and Alien³ which similarly use numbers as decoration. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Checked the policy link. I can't really argue against that (not to say I like it though) since its a pretty straight-forward explanation. Still, I'm hoping Dave Mustaine changes the album title to something more befitting of a heavy metal album.

If you want to move the album there, I will not support it but I will not oppose it either, so it's your call Fezmar.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done I believe this article should be consistent with the given guidelines. I have moved the article title, and replaced all occurrences of TH1RT3EN with Thirteen everywhere (in this article) except the lead and the titles of the references. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Fezmar, I noticed you changed the spelling all through the text of the article as well, but I did change one of them back for the sole purpose on noting the particular spelling that is being reported:

"It was clarified a day later on the band's website to be "Th1rt3en" rather than 13."

When I put that line in there originally, it was to denote the peculiar spelling, and I believe it should stay that way in that instance. Other than that, I didn't change any of the spelling back. I also re-did most, if not all, of the links in other articles to this page to reflect the spelling change, so its not going through who knows how many redirects.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Release date

This is the first time Metallica and Megadeth have new albums coming out on the same day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.234.71 (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What's your point? Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

what's yours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.234.71 (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't made one, I'm asking you why you brought it up. Why is it significant? Unless there's some reason to think that the same release date was intentional, I don't see that it matters (at least not as far as the page is concerned). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 20:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it was intentional but as there has clearly been a competition going on between the 2 bands (even though it seems that only Megadeth fans constantly compare them to Metallica and not the other way around), there are people (and obviously you are not one of them) that are curious to see how they chart comparitively. I think it might actually help Megadeth sales because people that are going to the store to buy the Metallica CD might wind up picking up both since they are there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.234.71 (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it still doesn't belong in the article. If after release some analyst or something comments on the dates having effected sales of either, then that might be noteworthy. If that wasn't your intention (to discuss putting it in the article) and you might want to read WP:NOTAFORUM. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 13:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

New Version of Sudden Death

Wasn't Sudden Death re-recorded for this album? Hailstorm273 (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the same guitar, vocal, bass and drum tracks were used, but Johnny K just re-mixed them for the album version--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you read Ellefson's commentary on the song here it appears as if it was re-recorded. RJD324 (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't say anything about re-recording. It appears as if he is talking about recording the track for Guitar Hero in 2010, as he did perform on the GH version of "Sudden Death" (if in fact they are different versions/recordings)--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded in a while. I started this subject before the album was released, but I have my copy of the album now. The version of Sudden Death on the album has quite a few differences than the version that was released as a single, especially the vocal tracks. There was a lyric change, and a few note changes. The guitar track had a new solo, just before "Stopping at nothing". I now think that this song was re-recorded, after listening to both versions. Hailstorm273 (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted unsourced assertion. Unless it is explicitly mentioned that the song was re-recorded, re-mixed, re-written, re-coagulated, re-assembled or whatever then it doesn't belong here. As I have stated, it is my personal belief that it was remixed, but I don't have the reliable sources to back it up, so I did not place my speculation into the article. Neither should you.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I know about WP:OR and I'm sorry I put it in. I still think the song was re-recorded, but I won't add it again. Hailstorm273 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for it being either re-recorded or remixed, then by all means please do feel free to put it here. Just make sure it is mentioned in a reliable source. Interviews with band members are always a good place to check, for example.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Location Recorded

My copy of the album's liner notes states that it was recorded at Mustaine Music Studios (another name for the Vic's Garage mentioned in the article, and in Endgame). What to do? Change the location recorded from Vic's Garage to Mustaine Music Studios, or leave it? EonMinator (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why can't it be both, i.e. Vic's Garage (credited as Mustaine Music Studios) or something to that effect. If both aren't used, then whatever the "proper" name is should be used (I don't know which that is). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thirteen (Megadeth album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 12:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead should not contain any references, except if a claim is nowhere cited.

   Fixed--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

   "Being interviewed in July 2010 about the success of Megadeth's previous release," - beginning with noun + ing is problematical. How about starting with something like "Megadeth drummer Shawn Drover revealed ..."

   "there were a "couple of ideas" that the band was starting to work on."

   "In a later interview regarding songs that the band was recordinged for its 13th studio effort"

   "Mustaine also said that the band had almost finished five songs,[17] but no other information was announced." - you can omit "that" "which" if the clause reads ok without them. There are two types of relative clauses; a defining and a non-defining. In defining relative clauses you don't have to put relative pronouns, eg "The book (which) we bought is very nice", because they show relevant details. In non-defining relative clauses you have to put relative pronouns, eg "The book which costs twenty dollars is very nice", because they don't show relevant details, but only additional information. There are many cases in this article.

   I actually started looking through the text and you are absolutely right. I used "that" way too much when I was writing the article, and in most cases it really doesn't need to be there. Working on clearing this up now.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   You need to proof the reliability for the following references:

   braveworld.com

   verified below--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

   heavyhell.com

   It turns out this one was redundant so I just removed it. The content it was supporting already had a cite from the original source(from which heavyhell got their story)--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

   sonicexcess.com

   Website for a heavy metal magazine. Cited for content from an interview with Dave Ellefson. i would prefer to keep this one, as there doesn't seem to be anything in particular about it that makes it unreliable (not a blog, and not self-published)--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

   away-team.com

   I checked this one out (I don't remember adding it (I think another editor might have and I formatted it maybe) But it was cited only because it is an interview with Broderick. That said, upon closer inspection it does look kind of blog-ish. I'll leave the decision to you as to whether it can stay or go. If it goes, I'll just remove the single sentence it supports, not really that big of a deal.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

   I think you can leave it. I just picked sites I thought they were unreliable. As it is a interview, there is no reason to remove it.

   rocklineradio.com

   verified below--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

   about.com

   removed--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

   dcjapan.co.jp

   removed--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Dabsolver check: ok
• Checklinks check: ok
• Fixed dashes
• On hold the prose is clumsy; apart the misuse of relative pronouns the prose is generally not marvellous. I give you 7 day until copyedited (try WP:GOCE/REQ) and references checked for reliability.

• Sorry for not responding to this review. I think that this article is overall oddly formatted. While the section "Writing and recording" is ok, "Odd occurrences during recording", "Release and promotion" and "Songs" sections are too small. I am not sure if we even need the second, because it sounds like a superstition. Everyone knows the number 13th is not a lucky number, so what does it tell the reader? You can surely merge that somewhere, maybe to lead. The "songs" section is a little bit messy, as it contains sub-sections, which are very small, for every song. I don't think this is a great idea. I would merge every sub-section to one section. The same situation for "Release and promotion". It is simply too small to merit its own section. You can merge it with the "Songs" section, and then rename to "Release and promotion". If you compare this article with Endgame (Megadeth album) you will see many differences in layout. It is much more neat than this article.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I haven't been here in a while either - other stuff to worry about (and I think I really burned myself out from writing up this article, too). In any case, while I was writing, I tried to use the Endgame article as a pattern. But in the course of constructing the article, I did develop it a bit differently - most notably, the difference in format of the songs section (as you pointed out). And I would tend to agree - some of the smaller song parts could (should) be merged, although I think some of the ones with more content ("New World Order", "Millennium of the Blind", "Black Swan") should stay, but I can see your point so far as the subsection on "13" , "Deadly Nightshade" and "Neverdead" are concerned. How about just leaving 2 or 3 of the larger sections as separate and including the others in a couple of paragraphs in an "Other songs" section or something like that?

As for the "Reception" section, I thought that the "odd occurrences" part of it was distinct enough from the rest to merit a subsection. There are a couple paragraphs worth of content there now with a distinct.

I'm about as motivated as I'm gonna get right now, so I'll play around with cleaning up the "songs" section a bit.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I went through and tried to clean up the "Songs" section a bit, but I basically ended up doing as you suggested in removing all the sub-headings. I tried to condense some of the wording a bit, too (especially for "PE#1", "Sudden Death" and "NWO" since those all have their own pages - I tried to cut it down to the more basic stuff). I didn't touch the "Odd Occurrences" section though. I would like to further discuss that first.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Ok, I'll get on this over the next few days.

As for the reliable sources,

• Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles (bravewords.com) is a prominent Canadian hard rock/heavy metal news site
• Heavyhell.com I believe was cited only for an interview with Dave Mustaine or one of the other members
• Sonicexcess.com was cited for the same reason - interview with Mustaine or one of the other members
• Awayteam I guess was cited for an interview with Chris Broderick (I don't remember adding or even seeing that source though - I'll have to check it)
• Rocklineradio is the website of a prominent American hard rock radio show, Rockline, that does interviews with prominent rock/metal musicians. I think I cited it for an interview with Mustaine that they did
• heavymetal.about.com was only cited for a review - if you want, I'll just remove that one
• cd.co.jp - I actually thought I removed that one already. Gonna remove it now.

I'll try to work on the prose a bit too, but I'm a bit busy with non-wikipedia stuff right now. Thanks for pointing the stuff out.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I got some of the immediate things changed, but I'll be back to work on other issues. Wanted to at least get some things taken care of though.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Much better. I don't like this quote how it's standing as a mere sentence, without integrated anywhere: "They're looking at November 1st. I don't know if it's supposed to be the 1st or the 31st for the release date, cuz [sic] they're trying to get us to do a live performance some place, for this release."

I added a small intro to that sentence to lead into the quote. The quote still makes up most of the sentence though--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• The last two paragraphs in the first section, they are about the artwork, but the name of the section is "Writing and recording". So either split and create a new section, or rewrite the header into, eg "Writing, recording and artwork".

 Done thanks for pointing that out. Would have taken me a long while to catch that one--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Overall a good article ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Pass I think this article meets the Good Article criteria. The album was released in November 1, 2011, two months passed away. The article adequately informs the reader of anything important about this album. If there will be more information available, it can be added anytime. Good work! ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Th1rt3en

I'm not saying how it currently is is wrong, but Th1rt3en is the popular and intended spelling of the album, not Thirteen, and in a way, more accurate (i-Tunes and Amazon also have it spelled this way). Proposing a move.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 23:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: This has been discussed above, and the result was to move it from "Th1rt3en (album)" to "Thirteen (Megadeth album)" per some Manual of Style policy (MOS:TM) regarding the use of numbers as letters in titles. There are already various redirects from "Th1rt3en" and variants thereof anyway--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Track Listing

Overall, great article. One quick question, however, why is the track listing set up like it was released as a two disc vinyl LP? Specifically, there's Side One, Side Two, etc.,... The more common format is the CD, where all songs are simply listed sequentially with no "sides", similar to the External Link at Discogs. Please consider changing this. Thank you in advance. Cheers! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Agreed. It's now fixed. --Pajo Pajimir 12:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)